|
''Goesaert v. Cleary'', 335 U.S. 464 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Michigan law which prohibited women from being licensed as a bartender in all cities having a population of 50,000 or more, unless their father or husband owned the establishment. Valentine Goesaert, the plaintiff in this case, challenged the law on the ground that it infringed on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter affirmed the judgment of the Detroit, Michigan district court and upheld the constitutionality of the state law. The state argued that since the profession of bartending could potentially lead to moral and social problems for women, it was within the state's power to bar them from working as bartenders. Only when the owner of the bar was a sufficiently close relative to the women bartender could it be guaranteed that such immorality would not be present. ''Craig v. Boren'', (429 U.S. 190 (1976) ) subsequently overruled ''Goesaert''. ==Background== As part of the Michigan system for controlling the sale of liquor, bartenders were required in all cities having a population of 50,000, or more, but no female may be so licensed unless she be 'the wife or daughter of the male owner' of a licensed liquor establishment. Section 19a of Act 133 of the Public Acts of Michigan 1945, Mich.Stat.Ann. 18,990(1). Valentine Goesaert was the owner of a bar in the city of Dearborn, Michigan. According to Michigan law, she was not allowed to be the owner of a bar since the population in Dearborn exceeded 50,000. On November 20, 1947 Valentine Goesaert and her daughter challenged the Michigan law at the district court of Detroit Michigan before Circuit Judge Simons and District Judges Levin and Picard. The women were represented by attorney Anne R. Davidow. They argued that the law denied them equal protection of the laws and deprived them of their property without due process of law. The main arguments brought forth by Goesaert were as follows: 1. It sets up an arbitrary standard of 50,000 as the population of any city to come under the act. 2. It discriminates against women owners of bars. 3. It discriminates against women bartenders. 4. It discriminates between daughters of male and female owners. 5. It discriminates between waitresses and female bartenders. Judges Levin and Simons ruled in favor of Cleary et al., denying all of the plaintiffs' claims saying that "the power of the Legislature to make special provisions for the protection of women is not denied". On the other hand, Picard dissented, siting two reasons for his disagreement. First, he thought that the law violated Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated between persons similarly situated, denied plaintiffs equal protection of the laws, and was"palpably arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and not based on facts that can reasonably be conceived." The second reason for dissenting was that the plaintiffs should be permitted to present evidence before the court act on the interlocutory injunction. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Goesaert v. Cleary」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|