University of the Philippines College of Law

Constitutional Law | Atty. Charlemagne Yu

Case Digest
TOPIC: Fundamental Equality between men and women
DOCTRINE: Vanishing distinction between the sexes means that there is less
justification for special laws protecting women (In this case, a minimum wage law)
CASE Number: 261 U.S. 525
CASE Name: Adkins v Childrens Hospital
Sutherland, J.,

FACTS
The Act of September 19, 1918 provided for the fixing of minimum wages for
women and children in the District of Columbia. It created a board of three
persons tasked with determining minimum wages for women and children in
various fields.
First Case Appellee Childrens Hospital employed a large number of women
of age.
Second Case Appellee A female elevator operator who was let go by her
employer due to increase in labor costs via the labor wage.
Adkins was a member of the wage board created by the act.
Supreme Court of Columbia denied the petitioners by two appellees; Court of
Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the law, but subsequently reversed its
own decision
Petitioner: Power of the government to regulate in the interest of health and
safety
Respondent: Interference with the Fifth Amendment protected liberty of
contract.

ISSUES
1. Whether or not the act violated the freedom to contract
* Equality was not an issue in this case but the court had the following to say
about rights of women:
- Vanishing distinction between the sexes means that there is less justification
for special laws protecting women (In this case, a minimum wage law)
- The inequality of sexes is diminishing with great intensity
HELD
1. No
The liberty of the individual to do as he pleases, even in innocent
matters, is not absolute. It must frequently yield to the common good, and the

line beyond which the power of interference may not be pressed is neither
definite nor unalterable, but may be made to move, within limits not well
defined, with changing need and circumstance. However, an arbitrary
imposition on the liberty of the individual to do as he pleases, which is in the
case at hand, cannot stand against the constitutionally protected freedom to
contract.
To sustain the individual freedom of action contemplated by the
Constitution is not to strike down the common good, but to exalt it, for surely
the good of society as a whole cannot be better served than by the
preservation against arbitrary restraint of the liberties of its
constituent members.
Muller v Oregon & Bunting v Oregon (Cases wherein limitation on
freedom to contract were upheld) According to Sutherland, these cannot apply as
they prescribe number of working hours, and not the amount of compensation. The
doctrine in Lochner v New York protecting the freedom to contract is upheld
RULING:
Ruling of lower court is AFFIRMED
DISSENT:
Justice Taft (woo Taft): Muller v Oregon and Bunting v Oregon effectively makes the
Lochner decision obsolete as restrictions on the minimum wage and restrictions on
the maximum hours are both impositions on the freedom to contract