West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish

The Story:

In 1936, a chambermaid named Elsie Parrish was paid less than the minimum wage while she was working for the West Coast Hotel Company. When the hotel refused to pay minimum wage multiple times, Parrish and her husband sued the hotel for damages. The law that protected Parrish was the Minimum Wages for Women Act, which established the minimum wage at $14.50 per week for both women and minors. West Coast Hotel Company would assert that the minimum wage law was unconstitutional. What began as a dispute over unpaid wages ended with the Supreme Court dismantling a 30 year constitutional precedent set by Lochner v. New York. In a previous post, I examined how Lochner v. New York established constitutional protection for freedom of contract. West Coast Hotel is where this protection ended. 

The Breakdown: 

Parrish’s attorney argued that the Washington’s legislature had a compelling state interest in protecting women’s health and safety, especially because women were more likely to have “scant wages (that) may leave them inadequately supported (which in turn could) undermine their health.” They also argued that the law also protected women’s safety because women were more likely to be exploited by their employers than men. Thus, the minimum wage law was a justifiable use of state police power. 

West Coast Hotel’s attorney argued that under the 14th amendment, the freedom for employers and employees to negotiate a contract without government interference had been an established constitutional liberty under the Due Process Clause. Once again, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The liberty to contract had been firmly established as a liberty under Lockner. Finally, West Coast Hotel’s attorney also relied on legal precedent from Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923), where the Supreme Court had struck down a similar minimum wage law. 

The Majority Opinion: 

Chief Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the Court, where he found Washington’s minimum wage law to be constitutional. In terms of the Adkins precedent, he explained that the decision was narrow and also that the economic conditions from the Great Depression have made it more justifiable for state protection for women and children. In terms of the idea that the Due Process Clause gives the unenumerated right to freedom of contract, Hughes writes, “The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract. It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law… Liberty under the Constitution is thus necessarily subject to the restraints of due process, and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process.” Thus, both Lochner and Adkins were effectively overruled. Further, he explains that when a state’s citizens suffer, the state as a whole suffers. Because of this, he concludes, “What can be closer to the public interest than the health of women and their protection from unscrupulous and overreaching employers?” 

The Dissent: 

Justice Sutherland wrote the dissenting opinion, and advocate for judicial independence. Rather than give the state the benefit of the doubt, he explains that the justices themselves need to be personally convinced of whether a law is constitutional or not, and must not be swayed by the group. He emphasizes that a justice takes an individual oath to serve the U.S. Constitution, not a group oath. This was a way to scold Justice Roberts, who switched sides after blocking economic legislation for years. By outlining these principles, Sutherland also stood defiantly against Roosevelt's threat to pack the Court, which will be covered in the aftermath portion below. Sutherland then moved on to critique the Court’s rejection of precedent, explaining that, “It is urged that the question involved should now receive fresh consideration, among other reasons, because of “the economic conditions which have supervened”; but the meaning of the Constitution does not change with the ebb and flow of economic events.” He also points to how the court is uprooting established precedent by explaining that the Adkins case illustrated that the freedom of contract was“the general rule, and restraint (of freedom of contract was) the exception…” He even goes so far as to call the restraint of freedom of contract in this case as arbitrary. Finally, he argues that the sex-specific minimum wage laws were a form of unequal treatment. By singling out women for special protection, the legislature was implying that women were incapable of negotiating their own contracts. Sutherland found this to be an inconsistency with the broader strides women were taking toward legal equality between the sexes. 

The Aftermath: 

With West Coast Hotel Co v. Parrish, the Court signaled the end of the Lochner era. Within months, the court upheld federal economic legislation like the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act. Rational basis review was the standard the Supreme Court used for further analyzing economic cases, which changed the constitutional landscape drastically. The Court shifted from scrutinizing economic legislation to using a standard that allowed the most deference to state and federal policies. The timing of the decision also influenced court observers, who worried that the Court had been influenced by President Roosevelt. Roosevelt had threatened to pack the court with six more justices to allow for more New Deal legislation. Justice Owen Roberts, switching to the majority in West Coast Hotel, has been debated by historians as to whether or not that action was done to prevent Roosevelt’s court packing. Some refer to Robert’s move as the “switch in time that saved nine.” The sudden shift was used to defuse Roosevelt’s urgency to change the court’s structure. This case impacts today because every minimum wage debate, wage ordinance, and state labor regulation exists under the constitutional permission West Coast Hotel granted. Without this decision, many modern economic regulations would face serious constitutional questions. 

Bibliography:

Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923).

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).

Ballotpedia. "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish."

Constitution Annotated, Congressional Research Service. "Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: Substantive Due Process."

Constitution Center. "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish." Supreme Court Case Library.

Constitution Center. "How FDR Lost His Brief War on the Supreme Court."

EBSCO Research Starters. "West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish."

National Labor Relations Board. "National Labor Relations Act." Key Reference Materials.

Social Security Administration. "The History of the Court Packing Plan."

Full text links:

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/261/525/

Ballotpedia: https://ballotpedia.org/West_Coast_Hotel_Co._v._Parrish

Constitution Annotated, 14th Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-3/ALDE_00013743/

Constitution Center, Case Library: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/west-coast-hotel-co-v-parrish

Constitution Center, FDR Court Packing: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-war-on-the-supreme-court-2

EBSCO Research Starters: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/west-coast-hotel-co-v-parrish

National Labor Relations Act, NLRB: https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/300/379/

SSA Court Packing History: https://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html