Review the Case of Goesaert v. Cleary 335 U.S. 464 (1948)
The case of Goesaert v. Cleary (1948) raises specific and important constitutional issue. In this case the U.S. Supreme Court has to decide whether the provisions of section 19a of Act 133 of the Public Acts of Michigan (1945), which in effect prohibit any female to act as a bartender unless she is the daughter or wife of the male owner of a licensed liquor establishment, violates the Fourteenth Amendment and particularly the Equal Protection Clause. The claim is that Michigan legislators cannot prohibit females generally to be bartenders and at the same time make an exception for the daughters and wives of the liquor establishments’ male owners.
The Court states that women have achieved the rights and freedoms that males have long claimed to be their prerogatives. However, according to the Court’s ruling, the States are not precluded from drawing a line between the sexes, particularly in such fields as the liquor traffic’s regulation (Goesaert v. Cleary, 1948). The Court states that the State may deny the opportunity to act as a bartender to all women. However, the decision outlines that the State need not to prohibit the certain practices at the full level, if they believe that there are other factors which reduce or eliminate the social and moral problems, as to a certain group of women.
The further decisions by the courts show that if this case been heard today the outcome would likely be different and the Court would likely confirm the appeal. In the case of Eduardo Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., et al. (2004), the Court holds that the employer violated the right for equal treatment by maintaining hiring and recruiting practice that limited women and minorities. The Court states that all workers, and particular women, who applied to work at Abercrombie should have been treated equally on their qualifications, and not their gender or race (Eduardo Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., et al., 2004). Although both cases raise the issue of gender equality and discrimination, there are some significant differences. In Goesaert v. Cleary (1948) assessed the legislative power of the State in terms of the Equal Protection Clause, while in Eduardo Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., et al. (2004) the Court examined the employment practice of the company. Thus, the court should apply similar principles of equality in both case, but the State legislatures have a power to limit some constitutional rights, while the employers do not.
Goesaert v. Cleary (1948) 335 U.S. 464.
Eduardo Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., et al. (2004) N.D. Calif. …