West Coast Hotel Co. V. Parrish

Present day labor laws protect employees from employer abuse, including hazardous working conditions and unreasonably low wages; but, this was not always true. In the early 20th century, commonly referred to as the “Lochner Era”, the Supreme Court of the United States protected businesses by rejecting State-regulated economic regulations (Choudhry 2004, 6). This precedent was revisited in the 1937 landmark Supreme Court Case, West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, which involved, Elsie Parrish, a chambermaid at the West Coast Hotel, who sued the Cascadian Hotel (owned by the West Coast Hotel Company,) for not having been paid the legal minimum wage (West's Encyclopedia of American Law). In 1932, a law had passed in Washington State, known as “Minimum
Subsequently, Parrish claimed that she was owed the difference of what she had been paid and the instituted minimum wage. Parrish lost in state court, after the hotel company argued that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional because they violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Parrish responded by filing an appeal with the Washington Supreme Court, which reversed the state court’s ruling and demanded damages be paid to Parrish. In 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court, in response to the West Coast Hotel Co.’s appeal, affirmed the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling, that damages be paid to Parrish, with a vote of 5-4 (West's Encyclopedia of American Law). This Supreme Court Case examined the constitutional validity of minimum wage laws in Washington State (Goldman 2012, 12). This case established that minimum wage laws are constitutional, and paved the way for stricter regulations on wages and working
v Parrish was the answer to the question “Does the Due Process Clause of the fifth amendment protect ‘liberty of contract’? It was ruled that it was constitutional for Washington state to have minimum wage laws and that these laws did not violate the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Therefore, Supreme Court overturned the 1923 decision in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law). The Supreme Court declared that although the constitution does protect liberty of contract, it is not an absolute right. Chief Justice Hughes denied that freedom of contract was protected in the Constitution stating that, "It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law. But the liberty safeguarded requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people (White 2012, 81)." The creation of contracts are protected from arbitrary restraints, but they are subject to reasonable regulations and prohibitions that are in the best interest of the community. In the case of Parrish, the interest of the courts was to protect women against employment contracts which allowed for poor working conditions, long hours, and unreasonably low wages, which would make impossible for them to support themselves and threaten their health. It was argued that the strength of the human race depended on the health of women, who were especially vulnerable to being taken advantage of