Califano v. Goldfarb, 75-699

• Citation: 51 L.Ed.2d 270,430 U.S. 199,97 S.Ct. 1021
• Decision Date: 02 March 1977
• Docket Number: No. 75-699,75-699
• Parties: Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appellant, v. Leon GOLDFARB
• Court: United States Supreme Court

430 U.S. 199

97 S.Ct. 1021

51 L.Ed.2d 270

Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appellant,

v Leon GOLDFARB.

No. 75-699.

Argued Oct. 5, 1976.

Decided March 2, 1977.

Syllabus

Under the Social Security Act survivors' benefits based on the earnings of a deceased husband covered by the Act are payable to his widow regardless of dependency, but under 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) such benefits on the basis of a deceased wife covered by the Act are payable to her widower only if he was receiving at least half of his support from her. In a suit challenging these provisions, a three-judge District Court held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by § 402(f)(1)(D) constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees. Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 204-217; 217-227.

D.C., 396 F.Supp. 308, affirmed.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, joined by Mr. Justice WHITE, Mr. Justice MARSHALL, and Mr. Justice POWELL, concluded that the gender-based distinction created by § 402(f)(1)(D) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 95 S.Ct. 1225, 43 L.Ed.2d 514; Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 36 L.Ed.2d 583. Pp. 204-217.

(a) Such distinction, which results in the efforts of female workers required to pay social security taxes producing less protection for their spouses than is produced by the efforts of male workers, is constitutionally forbidden at least when supported by no more substantial justification than 'archaic and overbroad' generalizations or 'old notions,' such as 'assumptions as to dependency,' that are more consistent with 'the role-typing society has long imposed' than with contemporary reality. Pp. 204-207.

(b) Equal protection analysis here cannot center solely on the distinction drawn between widowers and widows but must be focused as well on the gender-based discrimination against covered female wage earners. Pp. 207-209.

(c) The fact that a covered employee's interest in future social security benefits is 'noncontractual' does not preclude any claim of equal protection denial, but benefits 'directly related to years worked and amount earned by a covered employee, and not to the needs of the beneficiaries directly . . . must be distributed according to classifications which do not without sufficient justification differentiate among covered employees solely on the basis of sex,' Wiesenfeld, supra, 420 U.S. at 647, 95 S.Ct. at 1232. Pp. 210-212.

(d) It appears from § 402(f)(1)(D)'s phrasing and legislative history as well as from the general scheme of the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance benefits program, that the differential treatment of nondependent widows and widowers results, not from a deliberate congressional intention to remedy the arguably greater needs of the former, but rather from an intention to aid the dependent spouses of deceased wage earners, coupled with a presumption that wives are usually dependent. The only justification for a classification based on this latter presumption is the unverified assumption that it would save the Government time, money, and effort simply to pay benefits to all widows rather than to require proof of dependency of both sexes, and such an assumption does not suffice to justify a gender-based discrimination in the distribution of employment-related benefits. Pp. 212-217.

Mr. Justice STEVENS concluded that the relevant discrimination is against surviving male spouses, rather than against deceased female wage earners, that such discrimination is merely the accidental by-product of a traditional way of thinking about females, and that something more than accident is necessary to justify under the Fifth Amendment the disparate treatment of persons who have as strong a claim to equal treatment as do similarly situated surviving spouses. Pp. 217-224.

Keith A. Jones, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, New York City, for appellee.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Mr. Justice WHITE, Mr. Justice MARSHALL, and Mr. Justice POWELL joined.

Under the Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Benefits (OASDI) program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-431 (1970 ed. and Supp. V), survivors' benefits based on the earnings of a deceased husband covered by the Act are payable to his widow. Such benefits on the basis of the earnings of a deceased wife covered by the Act are payable to the widower, however, only if he 'was receiving at least one-half of his support' from his deceased wife.¹ The question in this case is whether this gender-based distinction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

A three-judge District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by § 402(f)(1)(D) constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees, D.C., 396 F.Supp. 308 (1975).² We noted probable jurisdiction. 424 U.S. 906, 96 S.Ct. 1099, 47 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976). We affirm.

I

Mrs. Hannah Goldfarb worked as a secretary in the New York City public school system for almost 25 years until her death in 1968. During that entire time she paid in full all social security taxes required by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 3101-3126. She was survived by her husband, Leon Goldfarb, now aged 72, a retired federal employee. Leon duly applied for widower's benefits. The application was denied with the explanation that

'You do not qualify for a widower's benefit because you do not meet one of the requirements for such entitlement. This requirement is that you must have been receiving at least one-half support from your wife when she died.'³

The District Court declared § 402(f)(1)(D) unconstitutional primarily on the authority of Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 95 S.Ct. 1225, 43 L.Ed.2d 514 (1975), stating:

'(Section 402(f)(1)(D)) and its application to this plaintiff, 'deprive women of protection for their families which men receive as a result of their employment.' Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 645, 95 S.Ct. 1225, 43 L.Ed.2d 514 (1975). See also Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 36 L.Ed.2d 583 (1973).

'Whatever may have been the ratio of contribution to family expenses of the Goldfarbs while they both worked, Mrs. Goldfarb was entitled to the dignity of knowing that her social security tax would contribute to their joint welfare when the couple or one of them retired and to her husband's welfare should she predecease him. She paid taxes at the same rate as men and there is not the slightest scintilla of support for the proposition that working women are less concerned about their spouses' welfare in old age than are men.' 396 F.Supp., at 308-309.

II

The gender-based distinction drawn by § 402(f)(1)(D) burdening a widower but not a widow with the task of proving dependency upon the deceased spouse presents an equal protection question indistinguishable from that decided in Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, supra. That decision and the decision in Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 36 L.Ed.2d 583 (1973), plainly require affirmance of the judgment of the District Court.⁴

The statutes held unconstitutional in Frontiero provided increased quarters allowance and medical and dental benefits to a married male member of the uniformed Armed Services whether or not his wife in fact depended on him, while a married female service member could only receive the increased benefits if she in fact provided over one-half of her husband's support. To justify the classification, the Secretary of Defense argued: '(A)s an empirical matter, wives in our society frequently are dependent upon their husbands, while husbands rarely are dependent upon their wives. Thus, . . . Congress might reasonably have concluded that it would be both cheaper and easier simply conclusively to presume that wives of male members are financially dependent upon their husbands, while burdening female members with the task of establishing dependency in fact.' 411 U.S. at 688-689, 93 S.Ct. at 1771. But Frontiero concluded that, by according such differential treatment to male and female members of the uniformed services for the sole purpose of achieving administrative convenience, the challenged statute violated the Fifth Amendment. See Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 76, 92 S.Ct. 251, 254, 30 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 656-657, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1215, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); cf. Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498, 506-507, 95 S.Ct. 572, 576, 577, 42 L.Ed.2d 610 (1975).

Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, like the instant case, presented the question in the context of the OASDI program. There the Court held unconstitutional a provision that denied father's insurance benefits to surviving widowers with children in their care, while authorizing similar mother's benefits to similarly situated widows. Paula Wiesenfeld, the principal source of her family's support, and covered by the Act, died in childbirth, survived by the baby and her husband Stephen. Stephen applied for survivors' benefits for himself and his infant son. Benefits were allowed the baby under 42 U.S.C. § 402(d) (1970 ed., Supp. III), but denied the father on the ground that 'mother's benefits' under § 402(g) were available only to women. The Court reversed, holding that the gender-based distinction made by § 402(g) was 'indistinguishable from that invalidated in Frontiero,' 420 U.S., at 642, 95 S.Ct., at 1230, and therefore:

'(While) the notion that men are more likely than women to be the primary supporters of their spouses and children is not entirely without empirical support, . . . such a gender-based generalization...