Document: 64 L.Ed.2d 107 100 S.Ct. 1540 446 U.S. 142 Paul J. WENGLER, Appellant,v.DRUGGISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. No. 79-381. Argued Feb. 25, 1980. Decided April 22, Syllabus Held : The provision of the Missouri workers' compensation laws denying a widower benefits on his wife's work-related death unless he either is mentally or physically incapacitated proves dependence earnings, but granting widow without her having to prove husband's violates Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 147-152. (a) statute indisputably mandates gender-based discrimination and discriminates against both men women. It woman since, in case death, are payable spouse only if meets incapacity dependency tests, whereas automatically paid because husband conclusively presumed, female wage earner thus being provided with less protection for than deceased male earner. And man who survives dying accident receive he, contrast widow, must dependency. 147-149. (b) To be justified, discriminations serve important governmental objectives discriminatory means employed substantially related achievement those objectives. Here, claimed justification not treating women alike—that generally dependent earners that it more efficient presume engage case-by-case determination, individualized inquiries few cases which might prohibitively costly—is unsubstantiated cannot save question. 150-152. 583 S.W.2d 162, reversed remanded. John W. Reid, II, Fredericktown, Md., appellant. Ralph C. Kleinschmidt, St. Louis, Mo., appellees. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 This challenges under Amendment laws, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 287.240 (Supp.1979), involve an invalid discrimination. 2 * facts dispute. On February 11, 1977, Ruth Wengler, wife appellant died parking lot employer, appellee Dicus Prescription Drugs, Inc. Appellant filed claim (Supp.1979),1 entitled from earning actual earnings. In contrast, qualifies earnings.2 3 stipulated was neither nor argued that, owing its disparate treatment similarly situated widows widowers, violated United States Constitution. administratively denied, Circuit Court Madison County reversed, holding statutory restriction widower's recovery did also apply surviving wife. insurer, Druggists Mutual Insurance Co., were ordered pay appropriate amount. App. Juris. Statement A22-A25. 4 Supreme Court, distinguishing certain this Court's decision. equal challenge failed "the substantive difference economic standing working justifies advantage [§ 287.240] gives widow." 168 (1979). 5 Because decision arguably conflicted our precedents, we noted probable jurisdiction. 444 924, 261, 62 180 We now reverse.3 II 6 law Although view favored, rather disfavored, women, apparent covered by system some extent upon her. Under these Mrs. Wengler's no benefits. If Wengler had died, however, would have been presumed amount life until she remarried even though may fact Wengler. benefits, therefore, can expect 7 kind identified circumstances found unjustified. At issue Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 636, 95 1225, 43 514 (1975), Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 402(g), granted survivors' based earnings father Act couple's minor children care, mother widower. concluding component Fifth Amendment, "[o]bviously, notion likely primary supporters their spouses entirely empirical support." supra, at 645, S.Ct., 1231-1232, citing Kahn Shevin, 416 351, 354, n. 7, 94 1734, 1737 40 189 (1974).4 But such generalization could itself justify distinction 402(g) "clearly operate[d] . deprive families as result employment." U.S., 1232. offensive assumption "that vital support families, while do significantly contribute families' Id., 643, 1231 (footnote omitted). 8 Similarly, Califano Goldfarb, 430 199, 97 1021, 51 270 (1977), dealt providing regardless dependency, same receiving least half 402(f)(1)(D). BRENNAN's plurality pointed out challenged section, "female insureds received solely sex" disadvantaged compared family needs identical. 208, 1207. opinion, there, violative Amendment's guarantee. 9 Frontiero Richardson, 411 677, 93 1764, 36 (1973), involved similar There, serviceman regard whether him so obtain increased quarters allowances medical dental A servicewoman, other hand, purposes over one-half support. discrimination, devaluing service man, invalidated. 10 law, courts recognized, survive wives' accidents. earner, guaranteed weekly benefit remarriage. survivor STEVENS resulting denial protection.5 217-224, 1035 (opinion STEVENS, J.). III 11 However described case, precedents require Westcott, 443 76, 85, 99 2655, 2661, 61 382 (1979); Orr Orr, 440 268, 279, 1102, 1111, 59 306 Webster, 313, 316-317, 1192, 1194, 360 (1977); Craig Boren, 429 190, 197, 451, 456, 50 397 (1976). 12 Acknowledging here satisfy Boren standard, S.W.2d, 164-165, stated purpose [law] favor widows, disfavor them" when passed 1925 legislature doubt believed "a need prompt payment drawn-out proceedings determine widower." 168. Hence, conclusive presumption satisfied perceived had, common whose wives killed working." Ibid. survivor's "hardship seen legislatur[e] immediate pronounced men," [the law] 13 Providing needy surely objective, 280, 1112, effects goal paying all question remains employed—discrimination spouses—itself serves end. Surely widowers completely served members classes class demonstrate need. Why, then, employ requiring proof make required demonstration? offered state court appellees males females alike, viewed survivors earners, assertion most case-to-case postulated costly. 14 burden, defending justification, burden carried simply noting thought help today advantage" [given] widows. there proposition principal families. 1231, bare argument falls far short justifying grounds administrative convenience. Yet below essay any persuasive demonstration what consequences State beneficiaries if, one way another, survivors, treated equally eliminating double-edged Part opinion. 15 think, convenience fails, just has prior cases. 689-690, 1771-1772, Government matter, frequently husbands rarely cheaper male. insufficient Reed Reed, 404 71, 92 251, 254, 30 225 (1971), said "[t]o give mandatory preference sex other, merely accomplish elimination hearings merits, very arbitrary legislative choice forbidden ." See 219-220, 1033 levels will subject heightened scrutiny Clause, requisite showing made mere inconvenient individualize determinations about well widowers. IV 16 Thus conclude erred upholding constitutional validity 287.240. left defect should cured extending legislation issue, remedial outcome consonant legislature's overall preferable, believe judges better positioned choose method remedying violation. Accordingly, reverse remand further inconsistent opinion.6 17 So ordered. 18 REHNQUIST, continuing wrongly decided, issues readily reexamined doctrine stare decisis issues, dissents affirm judgment Missouri. 19 concurring judgment. 20 Nothing happened since 270, persuade me classification simultaneously class. 21 illustrate my difficulty analysis three relevant kinds marriages: (1) wife; (2) husband; (3) other. 22 statute, first two situations, survives, female; conversely, paid. situations male, unlike female, undergo inconvenience proving That females. 23 third situation, dies, view, blatant males. While remain alive, prospect potential demise reduces insurance life, increases life. again places disadvantage.* 24 No matter how viewed, I therefore join do, agree persons strong spouses, see 223, (STEVENS, J., judgment), For reason concur Rev.Stat. (Supp.1979) provides entirety (emphasis added): "If injury causes disability, therefor shall section: "(1) employer direct furnishing reasonable expense burial employee exceeding thousand dollars. person expenses furnished authority widower, nearest relative county personal representative, right order named. All fees charges section fair reasonable, regulation division commission limited like standard living. jurisdiction hear disputes charges. leaves dependents subdivision limit liability chapter account except herein 287.140; provided, admits does deny expense, within thirty days after written notice, rendered, employer. notice sent registered mail, return receipt requested, delivery; "(2) total basis sixty-six two-thirds percent employee's average during year immediately preceding 287.250. Compensation installments manner chapter, rate sixteen dollars per week hundred twenty 287.160. dependent, partial (1); "(3) dependents, part determined proportion contributions time injury, each proportionately; "(4) word 'dependent' used construed mean blood marriage employee, actually support, whole part, wages injury. following totally them exclusion "(a) legally liable remarriage cease chapter. event remarriage, lump sum due period years Thereupon periodic remarried, divided among entitlement chapter; "(b) natural, posthumous, adopted child children, legitimate illegitimate, age eighteen years, earning, parent whom living parent. wife, considering ages bearing questions accordance wholly them. paragraph attains becomes capable age, twenty-two attendance full-time student accredited educational institution, member armed forces active duty; four fully institution commence twenty-three cessation duty forces, "(5) may, discretion, award share parent, grandparent, adult next kin legal guardian latter's maintenance education, parties modified discretion respect remaining unpaid modification; "(6) payments discharge obligations compensation; "(7) disability "(8) Every keep record correct names addresses employees, arising course employment possible furnish addresses." $69 week. Had prevailed attempt full $46 A23; 287.240(2) (Supp.1979). These continued appellant's 287.240(4)(a). Recent decisions held unconstitutional statutes presumptions identical case. Arp Workers' Appeals Board, Cal.3d 395, 563 P.2d 849, 138 Cal.Rptr. 293 Passante Walden Printing 53 A.D.2d 8, 385 N.Y.S.2d 178 (1976); Tomarchio Township Greenwich, 75 N.J. 62, 379 A.2d 848 (1977). vast majority between eligibility upheld Florida annual $500 real estate tax exemption face challenge. statistics established lower median income men, discrepancy justified reasonably designed policy cushioning financial impact spousal loss imposes disproportionately heavy burden." 355, 1737. As accept importance helping infra, 151, 1546, text "reasonably designed" achieve goal. dispositive bar. previously, 3, recently characterized statute's husbands. Cal.3d, 406, P.2d, 855, Cal.Rptr., 299 ("[I]t noteworthy well"); A.D.2d, 12, N.Y.S.2d, 181 (the "compels dissimilar wives, respectively, vis-a-vis males"); N.J., 75, A.2d, 854 (statute unconstitutionally husbands). Appellees draw Goldfarb Wiesenfeld arose context program. First, they argue, here, social blanket survivorship seeks compensate specific worker loss. Relatedly, suffers corresponding level 287.240, provision, show death. arguments rely suffering provable ignore effect men. argue program, past employee. late deprived portion fund benefit. before rejected Constitution indifferent conditions availability noncontributory welfare gender," (1979), refuse ways earlier applying different review funded contributions. There earner's take-home affected statute. Whether single married, and, independent, same.

Category: 1