In the 1968 case of Mengelkoch et al. v. Industrial Welfare Commission et al., the plaintiffs, a group of women employed in California's retail industry, challenged an order by the state's Industrial Welfare Commission that set minimum wages for women and minors but not for men. The plaintiffs argued that this was discriminatory and violated their right to equal protection under law as guaranteed by both federal and state constitutions. However, the Supreme Court upheld the commission’s order stating it fell within its authority to protect health and welfare of those employees who historically were subject to substandard working conditions or pay due to unequal bargaining power - namely women and minors. The court ruled that such wage orders did not violate constitutional rights because they were based on reasonable classifications aimed at remedying historical disadvantages faced by certain groups in labor market.

In the dissenting opinion for Mengelkoch et al. v. Industrial Welfare Commission et al., Justice Burke argued that the majority's decision to uphold a minimum wage order specifically targeting women and minors was discriminatory and unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that there was no rational basis for this gender-based classification, as it assumed without evidence that all women were economically disadvantaged or incapable of bargaining effectively for wages compared to men. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how this rule applied only to certain industries while excluding others with similar conditions, suggesting arbitrary enforcement rather than genuine concern for welfare protection. Therefore, he believed such an order should be invalidated unless it could be justified by compelling state interest and narrowly tailored means.