Legal Document

430 U.S. 313 97 Supreme Court Reporter 1192 51 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 360 Joseph Atlantic CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfarev.Will WEBSTER. Number 76-457. March 21, 1977. PER CURIAM. 1 Under § 215 the Social Security Act, as added, 64 Statutes-at-Large 506, amended, 42 Code KF62 415 (1970 ed. Supp. V), old-age insurance benefits are computed on basis wage earner's 'average monthly wage' earned during his 'benefit computation years' which 'elapsed (reduced by five) covered wages were highest. Until a 1972 amendment, depended upon sex earner. Section 215(b)(3) prescribed that number for male earner would be three higher than an otherwise similarly situated female earner; male, equaled years elapsed after 1950 before year in he attained age 65; she 62.1 Thus, born 1900 have 14 retirement at 65 but same only 11.2 Accordingly, could exclude from her more lower earning exclude. This result slightly correspondingly level retired earner.3 A single-judge District Eastern New York, review under 205(g) 405(g), denial, hearing, appellee's request favorable formula used to compute benefits, held that, two grounds, statutory scheme violated equal protection component Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment: (1) give women who reached 62 1975 greater men earnings record was irrational,4 (2) any event amendment construed apply retroactively, because construing reach or later benefit amendments deny older render irrational, therefore unconstitutional. 413 F.Supp. 127 (1976). We reverse. 2 To withstand scrutiny Amendment's Clause, 'classifications gender must serve important governmental objectives substantially related achievement those objectives.' Craig versus Boren, 429 190, 197, 451, 457, 50 397 Reduction disparity economic condition between caused long history discrimination against has been recognized such objective. Schlesinger Ballard, 419 498, 95 572, 610 (1975); Kahn Shevin, 416 351, 94 1734, 40 189 (1974). But 'the mere recitation benign, compensatory purpose is not automatic shield protects inquiry into actual purposes underlying scheme.' Weinberger Wiesenfeld, 420 636, 648, 1225, 1233, 43 514 (1975). we rejected attempts justify classifications compensation past when fact penalized earners, Califano Goldfarb, 199, 209 n. 8, 1021, 1028, 270 (1977): supra, 645, S.Ct., 1231, structure its legislative revealed classification enacted discrimination. 212-216, 1029-1032 (plurality opinion), U.S., 221-222, 1034-1035 (Stevens, J., concurring judgment); 1233. 3 The involved here analogous upheld Ballard struck down Wiesenfeld Goldfarb. treatment 'archaic overbroad generalizations' about women, 508, 577, role-typing society imposed' Stanton Stanton, 421 7, 15, 1373, 1378, 688 (1975), casual assumptions weaker sex' likely child-rearers dependents. Cf. supra; supra. Rather, discernible (§ 215's is) permissible one redressing our society's longstanding disparate women.' 1028. 4 challenged statute operated directly compensate Retirement Act based earnings. recognized: 'Whether over socialization process male-dominated culture, job market inhospitable woman seeking lowest paid jobs.' 353, 1736. See generally id., 353-354, nn. 4-6, 1736-1737. allowing unfairly hindered much men, eliminate additional low-earning calculation their works remedy some part effect discrimination.5 577. 5 also reveals Congress addressed justification differing former version section purposely earners employment women. Before 1956, sexes treated equally 215(b)(3); it required turned attainment 'retirement age,' then defined 416(a) (1952 ed.) both sexes.6 In however, redefined Amendments 102(a), 70 809, thereby changing 215(b)(3). House Report emphasizes this reduction made market: 6 'Your committee believes eligibility should reduced workers. . recent study Employment Service Department Labor showed limits applied frequently openings lower.' H.R.Rep. 1189, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1955).7 change discussed connection with 1961.8 1961, 102(d)(2), 75 135. During hearings Representative Watts asked why draw man. After noted did law had existed since Boggs confirmed difference inadvertent: 8 'If & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions may interrupt, think went great length ago adopted 62-year provision theory less apt opportunities man despite statistics live longer other commanding, so there distinction Executive Hearings Committee Ways Means, 87th 146-147 (1961). 9 clear accidental byproduct traditional way thinking females,' 223, 1035 judgment), rather deliberately particular disabilities suffered 10 That changed mind equalized does not, concluded, constitute admission previous policy invidiously discriminatory. F.Supp., 129. legislated subject unequal market.9 well decided '(t)hese congressional reforms lessened 215(b) (3).' Kohr Weinberger, 378 1299, 1305 (ED Pa. 1974), vacated 422 1050, 2671, 45 704 Moreover, elimination even remedial context, wholly consistent reforms, whichrequire preference attitudes 'romantic paternalism' contributed 'long unfortunate discrimination.' Frontiero Richardson, 411 677, 684, 93 1764, 1769, 36 583 (1973). 11 Finally, no merit argument failure make retroactive constitutes date birth. Oldage payments constitutionally immunized alterations kind. Flemming Nestor, 363 603, 80 1367, 1435 (1960). expressly reserved '(t)he right alter, amend, repeal provision' 1304, Amendment 'does forbid changes beginning thus discriminate rights earlier time.' Sperry Hutchinson company Rhodes, 220 502, 505, 31 490, 491, 55 L.Ed. 561 (1911). It follows replace constitutional another new prospective only. 12 Reversed. 13 Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, whom STEWART, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST join, judgment. While am happy concur Court's judgment, find somewhat difficult distinguish recently (1977). Although drawn case Goldfarb totally lacking substance, questionwhether certainty promoted hinging validity schemes whether five Justices view them akin 'offensive' provisions (1973), like 'benign' judgment reasons stated Rehnquist dissenting opinion Stewart, Blackmun, joined. 202(a) 402(a) fully insured individual entitled application 'primary amount.' 215(a) 415(a) sets out table determining primary amount. amount individual's 415(b) V). amended 1972, 415(b), provided part: '(1) (A)n shall quotient obtained dividing '(A) total self-employment income credited (determined paragraph (2)), '(B) months years. '(2)(A) (3) subsection), five; except two. An base years, determined subparagraph (A), largest. '(C) For (B), 'computation include calendar period prior following '(i) occurred first month '(ii) succeeding died. '(3) (2), '(a) woman, died or, if 1960, 62. died, occurring 1960 (or attain) 65.' eliminated 1972. As 104(b), 86 1340, 415(b)(3) ed., now provides: '(T)he 62.' effective continues govern determination claims earners. example, case, found appellee awarded $185.70, $204 per month. 127, 128. Four federal courts contrary conclusion. Gruenwald Gardner, 390 Federal Reporter, 2nd 591 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom, Cohen, 393 982, 89 456, 21 445 (1968); 1299 Pa.1974, Polelle HEW, 386 443 (ND Ill.1974); McEvoy Commerce Clearing Unempl.Ins.Rep. $17,414 (SD Fla., Aug. 28, 1973). Even advantage 215(b)(3), average received men. 'As December males $179.60 females, $140.50.' 444 (emphasis omitted). At time, different set 1, until 303(a), 74 960. role similar old scheme, differences methods notwithstanding urged reducing S.Rep. 2133, 14-15 (1956), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News Page 3877. extension 62, definition repealed, ages written explicitly time. §§ 102(c)(1), 134, time took form retain 1-2, See, e. g., Equal Pay 1963, 29 206(d); Civil Rights 1964, 703(a), 2000e-2(a).

Classification Label: 1