Facts
- Paula Polatschek Wiesenfeld was the principal wage earner in her family and paid Social Security taxes through payroll deductions.
- She died in childbirth in 1972, leaving her husband, Stephen Wiesenfeld, as the sole caregiver for their newborn son, Jason.
- Jason received a child’s survivor benefit under the Social Security Act.
- Stephen applied for a survivor caregiver benefit under 42 U.S.C. § 402(g) but was denied solely because the statute provided that benefit to widows, not widowers, caring for minor children.
- Stephen sued on behalf of himself and similarly situated widowers, alleging unconstitutional sex discrimination.
- A three-judge federal district court granted summary judgment to Stephen and enjoined enforcement of § 402(g) insofar as it denied benefits to eligible widowers; the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether 42 U.S.C. § 402(g), which awarded caregiver survivors’ benefits to widows but not to widowers caring for minor children, violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
- Whether the government could justify the sex-based classification on the grounds of Social Security’s “noncontractual” character or asserted legislative purposes.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgment invalidating the widow-only caregiver benefit.
- The Court held that § 402(g)’s gender-based distinction violated equal protection as applied through the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
- The Court reasoned that the scheme discriminated against female wage earners by providing less survivor protection for their families than for families of similarly situated male wage earners.
- The Court rejected reliance on traditional assumptions that men are breadwinners and women are dependents or caregivers as an adequate justification for differential treatment.
- The Court concluded that Social Security’s “noncontractual” nature did not permit distributing benefits using classifications that differentiate among covered workers solely on the basis of sex.
Legal Principles
- The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains an equal protection component that bars unjustified sex-based classifications in federal benefit programs.
- Sex-based classifications resting on outdated generalizations about the roles of men and women are constitutionally suspect and require genuine, non-stereotypical justification.
- In programs financed through mandatory worker contributions, Congress may not provide differential family protection to covered workers based solely on the worker’s sex.
- A stated governmental purpose must fit the provision’s actual function; an asserted remedial rationale cannot justify a rule that reduces protection for women who work and contribute to the system.
- When a benefit is designed to enable the surviving parent to remain at home to care for children, excluding similarly situated widowers defeats that objective and unlawfully discriminates.
Conclusion
The Court held that limiting caregiver survivors’ benefits to widows denied equal protection by providing female wage earners and their families less Social Security protection than male wage earners, and by withholding support from widowers who served the same caregiving role the statute sought to facilitate.