About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

33 Calif. L. Rev. 388 (1945)
The Right to Equal Opportunity in Employment

handle is hein.journals/calr33 and id is 406 raw text is: The Right to Equal Opportunity in Employment Pauli Murray* I. JUDICIAL CONCEPTS OF THE RIGHT TO LABOR TrHE INTEREST in freedom from discrimination in employment is part of the broader interest in freely disposing of one's labor. The various state and federal courts have been profuse in their verbal homage to the idea that the right to work is an inalienable and natural right,' a logical extension of the right to life and pursuit of happi- ness,2 inherent in the guarantees of the Federal Constitution,8 and rooted in the common law. Numerous courts have characterized labor as the foundation of property, and thus a property right. Others have deemed it a personal liberty. In either sense it is within the protection of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.5 What these assertions have amounted to is simply that the right to seek a job and perform it if an employer is willing to hire the worker, and the right to pursue one's lawful calling, are rights which are constitutionally protected against interference by arbitrary gov- ernmental action. In other words, the individual's right to work is, in legal terms, merely a right to contract for the sale of his labor. *A.B. Hunter College, 1933; LL.B. Howard Law School, 1944; graduate student, School of Jurisprudence, University of California. 1 Mr. Justice Bradley concurring in Butchers' Union v. Crescent City Co. (1884) 111 U.S. 746, 762, 764. 21bid. Followed in Allgeyer v. La. (1897) 165 U.S. 568, 589-590. Justice Swayne dissenting in Slaughter-House cases, (1873) 83 U.S. 36, 127, expressed a similar view. 5Lochner v. New York (1905) 198 U.S. 45, 53, 56; Adair v. U.S. (1903) 208 U.S. 161, 173-5; Coppage v. Kansas (1915) 236 U.S. 1, 14; Ritchie v. People (1895) 115 I. 98, 40 N.E. 454; Bogni v. Perotti (1916) 224 Mass. 152, 112 N.E. 853. See Coffeyville Brick Co. v. Perry (1904) 69 Kan. 297, 76 Pac. 848. 4 See Cornellier v. Haverhill Shoe Mfgrs. Assoc, (1915) 221 Mass. 554, 109 N.E. 643, L.RA. 1916C 218. 5Supra note 3. Accord: Chenoweth v. State Bd. of Med. Exam. (1913) 58 Colo. 74, 141 Pac. 132; Gillespie v. People (1900) 188 Ill. 176, 58 N.E. 1007; Kingston Trap Co. v. Intl. Union (1941) 129 N.J. Eq. 570, 19 A. (2d) 661; State v. Gardner (1898) 58 Ohio St. 599, 51 N.E. 136; Jordan v. State (1907) 51 Tex. Crim. Rep. 531, 103 S.W. 633.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most