LEGAL ANALYSIS 61 



In Goessaert v. Cleary,^^ Michigan, by statute, had prevented 

 women from acting as bartenders, but then excepted those who 

 were the wives or daughters of a male owner. As against objection 

 based on equal protection, the court upheld the statute, reasoning 

 that the state "evidently beheves that the oversight assured through 

 ownership of a bar by a barmaid's husband or father minimizes 

 hazards that may confront a barmaid without such protecting over- 

 sight. This court is certainly not in a position to gainsay such bcHef 

 by the Michigan legislature."^^ 



Two recent cases will round out the picture: 



In Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.^^ decided in 

 1955, the court held valid an Oklahoma statute regulating the pre- 

 scription of glasses, the preparation of lenses, the fitting to the person, 

 and the advertising incident to these activities. The act specifically 

 excluded, however, the "sale of ready-to-wear glasses equipped with 

 convex-spherical lenses," certain sunglasses, and industrial glasses and 

 goggles. The court held that such an exception did not constitute 

 a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, saying: 



"The prohibition of the Equal Protection Clause goes no further than 

 the invidious discrimination . . . For all this record shows, the ready-to- 

 wear branch of this business may not loom large in Oklahoma or may 

 present problems of regulation distinct from the other branch."^ ^ 



In Morey v. Doud,^"^ decided in 1957, the court, by a 6-3 vote, 

 held that an Illinois statute regulating "community currency ex- 

 changes" violated the Equal Protection Clause because it specifically 

 excepted the American Express Company. (The statute also excepted 

 Postal Telegraph Co.. Western Union Telegraph Co.. state and 

 national banks, and the United States Post Office: but no point of 

 these additional exceptions was made in the opinion, noting only 

 that other considerations would apply to them.) The state sought to 

 explain the exemption of the American Express Co. on the grounds 

 of its world-wide operations, unquestioned solvency, and high finan- 

 cial standing, pointing out that the evil to be cured arose from the 

 inadequate financing and lack of responsibility of small operators 

 in the field who had sprung up during and after the depression 

 primarily to cash checks and to write money orders. The court. 



10. 335U. S. 464 (1948). 



11. Id. at 466. 



12. 348 U. S.483 (1955). 



13. Id. at 489. 



14. 354 U.S. 457 (1957). 



