Adams v. Tanner

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants = Adams v. Tanner
ArgueDate = May 7
ArgueYear = 1917
DecideDate = June 11
DecideYear = 1917
FullName = Joe Adams, et al., Appts.,
v.
W. V. Tanner, Attorney General of the State of Washington, and George H. Crandall, Prosecuting Attorney of Spokane County, State of Washington.
USVol = 244
USPage = 590
Citation =
Prior =
Subsequent =
Holding = The Washington state law that prohibited employment agencies was unconstitutional, because a ban would breach the principle of due process of law in the deprivation of liberty and property.
SCOTUS = 1916-1921
Majority = McReynolds
JoinMajority = White, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney
Dissent = Brandeis
JoinDissent = McKenna, Holmes, Clarke
LawsApplied =

"Adams v. Tanner", 244 U.S. 590 (1917), is a US Supreme Court case, which held that a Washington state law that prohibited employment agencies was unconstitutional.

Judgment

Chief Justice White, Justices Day, Van Devanter, Pitney and McReynold held that a ban would breach the principle of due process of law in the deprivation of liberty and property. The ban was arbitrary and oppressive. Mr Justice Reynold said,

"there is nothing inherently immoral or dangerous to public welfare in acting as paid representative of another to find a position in which he can earn an honest living. On the contrary, such service is useful, commendable, and in great demand." (at 593)

Dissent

Justice Brandeis (with whom Justice Holmes, Clarke and McKenna dissented) laid out in his dissenting judgment why employment agency activities were a legitimate concern. He highlighted sources from US Labor Department giving examples of abuse, attempts in over thirty states to regulate and have free public agencies compete. He stated how all methods short of abolition had ultimately failed (601-9).

In this period the practice of charging destitute workers up front fees for finding work was widespread. People might give up their last pennies for the chance of work. Sometimes agencies made no effort to place the worker. Sometimes the work would last a few days, and the employer would split the next fee with the agent to bring in fresh replacements. Justice Brandeis cited from a report to a 1912 Congress Committee.

cquote|"18. …instead of relieving unemployment and reducing irregularity, these employment agencies actually serve to congest the labor market and to increase idleness and irregularity of employment. They are interested primarily in the fees they can earn, and if they can earn more by bringing workers to an already overcrowded city, they do so. Again, it is an almost universal custom among private employment agents to fill vacancies by putting in them people who are working at other places. In this way, new vacancies are created, and more fees can be earned.

19. They also fail to meet the problem because they are so numerous and are necessarily competitive. With few exceptions, there is no cooperation among them. This difficulty is further emphasized by the necessity of paying the registration fees required by many agencies; obviously the laborer cannot apply to very many if he has to pay a dollar at each one.

20. The fees which private employment offices must charge are barriers which prevent the proper flow of labor into the channels where it is needed, and are a direct influence in keeping men idle. In the summer, when employment is plentiful, the fees are as low as 25 cents, and men are even referred to work free of charge. But this must necessarily be made up in the winter, when work is scarce. At such times, when men need work most badly, the private employment offices put up their fees and keep the unemployed from going to work until they can pay even and more for their jobs. This necessity of paying for the privilege of going to work, and paying more the more urgently the job is needed, not only keeps people unnecessarily unemployed, but seems foreign to the spirit of American freedom and opportunity."

Importance

International Labour Organization policy

Probably inspired by the dissenting judgments in this case, the International Labour Organization's first ever Recommendation took on the views of Justice Brandeis. The Unemployment Recommendation, 1919 (No.1), Art. 1 called for each member to,

"take measures to prohibit the establishment of employment agencies which charge fees or which carry on their business for profit. Where such agencies already exist, it is further recommended that they be permitted to operate only under government licenses, and that all practicable measures be taken to abolish such agencies as soon as possible."

The Unemployment Convention, 1919, Art. 2 instead required the alternative of,

"a system of free public employment agencies under the control of a central authority. Committees, which shall include representatives of employers and workers, shall be appointed to advise on matters concerning the carrying on of these agencies."

In 1933 the Fee-Charging Employment Agencies Convention (No.34) formally called for abolition. The exception was if the agencies were licensed and a fee scale was agreed in advance. In 1949 a new revised Convention (No.96) was produced. This kept the same scheme, but secured an ‘opt out’ (Art.2) for members that did not wish to sign up. Agencies were an increasingly entrenched part of the labor market. The United States did not sign up to the Conventions. The latest Convention, the Private Employment Agencies Convention, 1997 takes a much softer stance and calls merely for regulation.

upreme Court policy

In "Ribnik v. McBride", 277 U.S. 350 (1928), the Court struck down a similar New Jersey law attempting to regulate agencies, Justices Stone, Brandeis and Holmes dissenting. This is probably no longer good law.

Doubt was placed on the leading dicta of "Adams v. Tanner" in "Olsen v. State of Nebraska", 313 U.S. 236 (1941), and "Lincoln Union v. Northwestern Co.", 335 U.S. 525 (1949) 535. In the latter, Mr Justice Black, said that "Adams v. Tanner" was part of the "constitutional philosophy" which struck down minimum wages and maximum working hours.

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 244
*United Kingdom agency worker law
*Temporary work

External links

* [http://supreme.justia.com/us/244/590/case.html Full text of the judgment] from Justia.com