About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

14 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 335 (1992)
In Pursuit of Equality: One Woman's Work to Change the Law

handle is hein.journals/worts14 and id is 345 raw text is: In Pursuit of Equality: One Woman's
Work to Change the Law
DEBORAH L. MARKOWITZ*

I. INTRODUCTION
Litigating for social change is a difficult and
complex task. The pursuit of women's rights
through litigation became an, important strategy
of the women's movement in the late 1960's. One
litigator was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.' Largely as a
result of herefforts the Supreme Court reconsid-
ered its previous treatment of sex discrimination
as constitutionally acceptable, and adopted an in-
termediate level of scrutiny for constitutional
challenges to sex discrimination under the equal
protection clause. However, because one person
cannot possibly control the litigation of a particu-
lar issue over a period of time, the road to consti-
tutional protection of women's equality was
fraught with many difficulties, frustrations and
disappointments.

A. BACKGROUND
Ruth Ginsburg, and the other women and
men who fought for women's rights before the
Supreme Court, came of age at a time when fed-
eral and state laws reflected and reinforced the
traditional sex roles2 Protective labor legislation
limited the hours women could work,3 prohibited
night work, and excluded women from certain oc-
cupations.4 Women were exempted from jury
service5 and were often blocked from keeping
their birth surnames after marriage.6 Women
could be fired once they became pregnant; ex-
tended unpaid maternity leaves were commonly
required.7 Women could legally be excluded
from educational institutions; men-only clubs,
and restaurants were commonplace.'
Courts sanctioned unequal treatment, often
expressing paternalistic concern for the ladies

*Associate with the Vermont law firm Langrock Sperry
Parker & Wool; J.D., Georgetown University Law Center; B.A.
University of Vermont. The author wishes to express
appreciation to the Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who took time
from her busy schedule to provide the oral history which is the
basis of this article and who very generously provided, the
author with access to her personal files.
1. Many women pursued sex equality in all three forums:
the streets, the legislature, and the courts. O'Connor & Epstein,
Beyond Legislative Lobbying: Women's Rights Groups and the
Supreme Court, 67 JUDICATURE 134, 135 (1983) [hereinafter
O'Connor &    Epstein]; Ginsburg, Sex Equality and the
Constitution: The State of the Art, 4 WOMEN'S RTs. L. REP.
143 (1978) [hereinafter Sex Equality and the Constitution]. For
a history of the women's liberation movement see, 0. Freeman,
THE POLITICS OF WOMEN'S LIBERATION (1975).
2. Ginsburg, From No Rights, to Half Rights, To Confusing
Rights, 7 HUM. RTS. 12, 13 (1978) [hereinafter Ginsburg, From
No Rights]; Ginsburg, Sex, Equality and the Constitution, supra
note 1, at 143; See. generally Ginsburg, Sex and Unequal
Protection: Men and Women as Victims, 11 J. FAM. LAW 347
(1971) [hereinatter Ginsburg, Unequal Protection].

3. Muller v.. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908) (Court upheld
protective labor legislation limiting women to 10 hours a day,
citing need to protect women and physical differences between
men and women).
4. Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948) (state may bar
woman, unrelated to the male tavern owner, from the
occupation of bartender, in order to protect her from social
harms).
5. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961) (Court upheld statute
providing volunteers-only jury service for women based on their
roles of housewife and mother).
6. Whitlow v. Hodges 539 F.2d 582 (6th Cir.), cert. denied,
429 U.S. 1029 (1976) (women have no constitutional rights to
retain their original surname).
7. See Gedulig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484 (1974).
8. Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130 (1873) (Court
upheld denial of women's admission to the state bar. Justice
Bradley's concurring opinion cited the peculiar characteristics,
destiny and mission of woman to be wife and mother);
Minor v. Happersett, 38 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1874) (privileges
and immunities clause does not include the right of women to
vote).

[Women's Rights Law Reporter, Volume 14, Numbers 2&3, Spring/Fall'1992]
© 1992 by Women's Rights, Law Reporter, Rutgers-The State University
0085-8269/80/0908

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.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most