Radice v. People of New York
Headline: Court upheld a New York law banning women from working late-night restaurant shifts in certain cities, allowing states to restrict women’s night work and affecting employers and female workers in those areas.
Holding:
- States can restrict women’s night restaurant work in certain cities.
- Employers in affected cities may not hire women for late-night restaurant shifts.
- Affirms legislative power to limit hours for women citing health and safety.
Summary
Background
A restaurant employer in Buffalo was convicted for violating a 1917 New York law that barred women from working in restaurants in first- and second-class cities between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The employer appealed through the state courts, and after the conviction was affirmed the case reached this Court. The law also set weekly and daily hour limits and carved out specific exceptions for performers, cloakroom attendants, hotel dining rooms, and employer-run lunch rooms.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the law unlawfully took away the right of adults to make work contracts or unfairly singled out women in violation of equal protection. The Court accepted the legislature’s finding that night work harms women’s health and exposes them to special dangers in large cities, and said judges should not overturn a legislative factual determination when it is fairly debatable. Citing earlier decisions about women’s physical differences and permissible protective labor rules, the Court rejected the employer’s arguments and found the classification and exceptions were not arbitrary.
Real world impact
The ruling upholds the conviction and confirms that a State may limit women’s night restaurant work in certain cities for health and safety reasons. Practically, the law prevents women over sixteen from working more than six days or fifty-four hours weekly, more than nine hours daily, or before 6:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. in covered restaurants, while leaving specified categories of workers and employer-run dining rooms exempt. The decision shows courts will defer to legislatures on similar protective labor regulations when factual harms are reasonably established.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?