{"id":483,"date":"2011-08-11T15:55:23","date_gmt":"2011-08-11T19:55:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=483"},"modified":"2011-08-11T18:18:19","modified_gmt":"2011-08-11T22:18:19","slug":"west-coast-hotel-co-v-parrish","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/west-coast-hotel-co-v-parrish\/","title":{"rendered":"West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)"},"content":{"rendered":"
Case Name: <\/strong>West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish<\/div>\n
Citation:<\/strong> 300 U.S. 379 (1937)<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Issue:\u00a0<\/strong>Whether the Washington minimum wage law violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:\u00a0<\/strong>Minimum wage law created by the state of Washington. Elsie Parrish was a chambermaid and sued to recover the difference between her wages and the state minimum wage ($14.50 per week of 48 hours). The hotel alleged that the minimum wage regulation is a deprivation of freedom of contract.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Holding:\u00a0<\/strong>The minimum wage law was upheld and found to be within the state’s legislative power.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Reasoning:\u00a0<\/strong>The Court believed that this subject should receive “fresh consideration” from previous decisions. The Constitution does not speak of “freedom of contract” but it does speak of “liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law.”<\/div>\n
The state is able to protect the public interest and “what can be closer to the public interest than the health of women and their protection from unscrupulous and overreaching employers?” The requirement of a minimum wage is an admissible means to the end of protecting women. The Court also discussed the “evils” of current employment conditions of women in sweatshops and how they have unequal bargaining power so freedom of contract is really a misnomer.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Another policy reason: The exploitation of workers also casts a direct burden upon the community for their support. Taxpayers are called to pay additional wages to the workers in order for them to meet the bare cost of living. Shouldn’t the manufacturer pay for these costs directly because they are receiving the benefit of selling goods in the marketplace?<\/div>\n
The Court overruled\u00a0Adkins<\/em>\u00a0stating that it “was a departure from the true application of the principles governing the regulation by the state of the relation of employer and employed.”<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case Name: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish Citation: 300 U.S. 379 (1937)   Issue:\u00a0Whether the Washington minimum wage law violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.   Facts:\u00a0Minimum wage law created by the state of Washington. Elsie Parrish was a chambermaid and sued to recover the difference between her wages and the … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[105,12],"tags":[128,40,126,129],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"\nWest Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Case brief for West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). Issue: Whether the Washington minimum wage law violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/west-coast-hotel-co-v-parrish\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Case brief for West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). Issue: Whether the Washington minimum wage law violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/west-coast-hotel-co-v-parrish\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-11T19:55:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2011-08-11T22:18:19+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/west-coast-hotel-co-v-parrish\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/west-coast-hotel-co-v-parrish\/\",\"name\":\"West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-11T19:55:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-08-11T22:18:19+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"Case brief for West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937). Issue: Whether the Washington minimum wage law violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/west-coast-hotel-co-v-parrish\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/483"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=483"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/483\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":487,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/483\/revisions\/487"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}