IRAC on this case.?

Goesaert v. Cleary

United States Supreme Court

335 U.S. 464 (1948)

Rule of Law

A state may constitutionally prohibit a woman from working as a bartender if she is not married to the bar's male owner.

Facts

Bar owner Valentine Goesaert and her daughter (plaintiffs) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of a Michigan law that forbade women from bartending in any city with over 50,000 residents. The only exception was for wives or daughters of men who owned bars. Otherwise, women could work as waitresses in bars, but not bartenders. The trial court upheld the law, and Goesaert appealed.

Issue

May a state constitutionally prohibit a woman from working as a bartender if she is not married to the bar's male owner?

Holding and Reasoning (Frankfurter, J.)

Yes. A state may constitutionally prohibit a woman from working as a bartender if she is not married to the bar's male owner. Since the Middle Ages, women poured alcohol as alewives in England. But, historically, legislatures have always held broad discretion over regulating liquor sales. Equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and ending prohibition under the Twenty First Amendment did not change that exclusive authority. Clearly, Michigan could have prohibited all women from bartending if it chose. The only question is whether Michigan may discriminate between women who are wives or daughters of bar owners and those who are not. Equal protection prohibits irrational discrimination between persons or groups of persons. The state may still discriminate if reasonably based on protecting a legitimate government interest. Courts evaluate equal-protection claims on a case-by-case basis under the particular circumstances of each case. As long as the challenged law has a rational basis, whether it achieves that goal or could have been more narrowly tailored is irrelevant. Here, Michigan obviously believes that women tending bar poses dangers that men tending bar does not, unless a man owns the bar and his wife or daughter bartends. It makes sense that a male owner on the premises will protect his wife or daughter from those dangers. Therefore, Michigan has shown a reasonable basis for the law sufficient to survive an equal-protection challenge. Whether the real purpose was to ensure that only men tend bar and women wait tables does not mean the law lacks a rational basis. The Court accordingly upholds the law as constitutional.

Dissent (Rutledge, J.)

The Michigan law arbitrarily discriminates against female bar owners. A male bar owner who is never physically present at the bar may have his daughter tend bar. A female bar owner may not, even if she employs a man who is always present to ensure order. That result proves that the legislation serves to discriminate against women who own bars, not protect female bartenders' safety. Therefore, the statute violates equal protection and should be struck down.