Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Bunting v. Oregon

Supreme Court of the United States · 1917 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFourteenth Amendmentdue processpolice powerhealth regulationmaximum hoursovertime payclassification

Facts

Oregon law declared that the State had an interest in the physical well-being of its citizens and prohibited employment in any mill, factory, or manufacturing establishment for more than ten hours in one day, except in specified situations; it also allowed up to three hours of overtime if paid at one and one-half times the regular wage. Bunting was charged with employing Hammersly in a flour mill for thirteen hours in one day when none of the statutory exceptions applied and without paying the prescribed overtime rate. He demurred, arguing that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Oregon Constitution. He was convicted, fined $50, and the conviction was affirmed by the state supreme court.

Issue

Whether Oregon's statute limiting employment in mills, factories, and manufacturing establishments to ten hours per day, while permitting limited overtime at time-and-a-half, violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it was really an unconstitutional wage law rather than a valid health regulation under the state's police power. Also, whether the statute's application to those industries denied equal operation by singling them out for the regulation.

Rule

A state may, under its police power, enact maximum-hours legislation for specified industries as a health regulation consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. A statute does not become an unconstitutional wage law merely because it permits limited overtime subject to premium pay, and its constitutional validity is not defeated because the regulation is tentative, incomplete, or less rigid than it might be, so long as it remains within an admitted sphere of governmental power and rests on a reasonable basis for classification.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nevada enacts a statute declaring that the physical well-being of workers is harmed by excessive daily labor in foundries, machine shops, and food-processing plants. The law sets a 10-hour daily limit, but permits up to 2 extra hours if the employer pays 1.5 times the regular rate; Carson Forge Works in Reno challenges the law after requiring Elena Ruiz to work 12 hours in a day.

If Carson Forge Works argues that the statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment because the overtime premium proves the law is really fixing wages rather than hours, what is the strongest response?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a state may enact maximum-hours legislation for specified industries as a health regulation, and a limited overtime premium does not by itself transform the statute into an unconstitutional wage law. The majority treated the premium as permissive only in the sense that a penalty is permissive and as a device to deter or accommodate limited overtime while preserving the 10-hour norm.