| Califano v. Webster | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided March 21, 1977 | |
| Full case name | Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Webster |
| Citations | 430 U.S. 313 ( more ) 97 S. Ct. 1192; 51 L. Ed. 2d 360 |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam | |
| Concurrence | Burger, joined by Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist |
Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313 (1977), was a case before the United States Supreme Court that was decided per curiam .
Under § 215 of the Social Security Act (42 USCS 415), old-age insurance benefits are computed on the basis of the wage earner's "average monthly wage" earned during his "benefit computation years," which are the "elapsed years" (reduced by five) during which his covered wages were highest.
Under the pre-1972 version, the computation for old age insurance benefits was such that a woman obtained larger benefits than a man of the same age having the same earnings record.
"Elapsed years" depended upon the wage earner's sex: § 215 (b)(3) prescribed that the number of "elapsed years" for a male wage earner would be three higher than for an otherwise similarly situated female wage earner; for a male, the number of "elapsed years" equaled the number of years that elapsed after 1950 and before the year in which he became 65, whereas for a female the number of "elapsed years" equaled the number of years that elapsed after 1950 and before the year in which she became 62. Accordingly, a female could exclude from the computation of her "average monthly wage" three more lower earning years than a similarly situated male could exclude, and this would result in a slightly higher "average monthly wage" and correspondingly higher monthly old-age benefits for the retired female wage earner.
The statutory scheme embodied in the former version of § 415 resulted in a higher "average monthly wage" and a correspondingly higher level of monthly old-age benefits for the retired female worker.
The 1972 amendment altered the formula for computing benefits so as to eliminate the previous distinction between men and women, but only as to men reaching the age of 62 in 1975 or later; it was not given retroactive application.
After he had pursued his administrative remedies, a man who had reached the age of 62 before 1975 (The 1972 amendment did not apply to him because he reached age 62 before its effective date), and who was dissatisfied with the amount of his benefits under 215 as amended, brought an action in district court to challenge the constitutionality of 215.
The retired worker requested that the more favorable, prior formula be used to compute his retirement benefits.
The single-judge District Court (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) held that the statutory scheme for determining old age benefits under 215 violated the equal protection component of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, on the grounds that
(413 F Supp 127)
Appellant, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, sought review of the District Court's order reversing an administrative decision against appellee retired worker.
On direct appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed. The per curiam opinion was joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Powell, and Stevens.
The Court determined that alterations to old-age benefit payments, as presented in the case, were not constitutionally protected. Congress had the authority to substitute one constitutional calculation method with another, and it was permissible for the new formula to only apply to future cases. The original version of the law being challenged directly aimed to compensate women for prior instances of economic discrimination and was intentionally enacted to address their specific economic disadvantages. The subsequent amendment to Section 415 did not imply that Congress acknowledged its previous policy as being unjustly discriminatory. The application of Section 415, with its prospective effect, did not infringe upon the Fifth Amendment rights of the retired male worker. The Constitution does not prohibit statutory changes from having a starting point, thus allowing for differentiation between the rights of earlier and later periods.
(1) the sex distinction of 215 permitting old age insurance benefits obtained by women reaching the age of 62 before 1975 to be greater than those obtained by men of the same age with the same earnings record did not violate Fifth Amendment equal protection, since the more favorable treatment of female wage earners was not the result of archaic and overbroad generalizations about women, or of the role-typing society had long imposed upon women, but rather served the permissible purpose of redressing society's longstanding disparate treatment of women, operating directly to compensate women for past economic discrimination, and (2) the age distinction of 215 whereby a man reaching the age of 62 in 1975 or later receives the same benefits as a similarly situated woman, while an older man continues to receive less benefits than a woman of the same age with the same earnings record, did not violate Fifth Amendment equal protection, since old age benefit payments were not constitutionally immunized against alterations such as that made by the 1972 amendment of 215, Congress had expressly reserved the right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the Social Security Act, and the Fifth Amendment did not forbid statutory changes to have a beginning and thus discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time.
1. "[Classifications] by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives," Craig v. Boren , 429 U.S. 190, 197.
2. The statutory scheme itself, and the legislative history of former § 215(b)(3), demonstrate that the statute was deliberately enacted to "[redress] our society's long-standing disparate treatment of women," Califano v. Goldfarb, ante, at 209 n. 8, and was not "the accidental by-product of a traditional way of thinking about females." Ante, at 223 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). The statute operated directly to compensate women for past economic discrimination by allowing them to eliminate additional low-earning years from the calculation of their retirement benefits, and in no way penalized women wage earners.
3. The failure to make the 1972 amendment retroactive does not constitute discrimination on the basis of date of birth. Old-age benefits are not constitutionally immunized against alterations of this kind, but Congress may replace one constitutional computation formula with another and make the new formula prospective only.
The Court reversed the order overturning the administrative decision that refused to use the calculations from a former version of the Social Security Act to compute the retired male worker's retirement benefits.
Burger, joined by Stewart, Blackmun, and Rehnquist, concurred in the judgment on the ground that the challenged classification was rationally justifiable on the basis of administrative convenience.
In the United States, Social Security is the commonly used term for the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and is administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). The original Social Security Act was enacted in 1935, and the current version of the Act, as amended, encompasses several social welfare and social insurance programs.
A salary is a form of periodic payment from an employer to an employee, which may be specified in an employment contract. It is contrasted with piece wages, where each job, hour or other unit is paid separately, rather than on a periodic basis. From the point of view of running a business, salary can also be viewed as the cost of acquiring and retaining human resources for running operations, and is then termed personnel expense or salary expense. In accounting, salaries are recorded in payroll accounts.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex. It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program. In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:
Equal pay for equal work is the concept of labour rights that individuals in the same workplace be given equal pay. It is most commonly used in the context of sexual discrimination, in relation to the gender pay gap. Equal pay relates to the full range of payments and benefits, including basic pay, non-salary payments, bonuses and allowances. Some countries have moved faster than others in addressing equal pay.
Employment discrimination is a form of illegal discrimination in the workplace based on legally protected characteristics. In the U.S., federal anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination by employers against employees based on age, race, gender, sex, religion, national origin, and physical or mental disability. State and local laws often protect additional characteristics such as marital status, veteran status and caregiver/familial status. Earnings differentials or occupational differentiation—where differences in pay come from differences in qualifications or responsibilities—should not be confused with employment discrimination. Discrimination can be intended and involve disparate treatment of a group or be unintended, yet create disparate impact for a group.
The gender pay gap in the United States is a measure between the earnings of male and females in the workforce. When calculating the pay gap, non-adjusted versus adjusted pay gap is utilized. The adjusted pay gap takes into consideration the differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience, whereas the non-adjusted pay gap is the overall difference of gross hourly earnings of males and females in the United States. The non-adjusted average female annual salary is around 80% of the average male salary, compared to 95% for the adjusted average salary.
The Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) is used in the United States' Social Security system to calculate the Primary Insurance Amount which decides the value of benefits paid under Title II of the Social Security Act under the 1978 New Start Method. Specifically, Average Indexed Monthly Earnings is an average of monthly income received by a beneficiary during their work life, adjusted for inflation.
The Labor Code of the Philippines is the legal code governing employment practices and labor relations in the Philippines. It was enacted on Labor day, May 1, 1974 by Late President of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos in the exercise of his then extant legislative powers.
Retirement Insurance Benefits or old-age insurance benefits are a form of social insurance payments made by the U.S. Social Security Administration paid based upon the attainment of old age. Benefit payments are made on the 3rd of the month, or the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Wednesday of the month, based upon the date of birth and entitlement to other benefits.
The Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) is a component of Social Security provision in the United States. Eligibility for receiving Social Security benefits, for all persons born after 1929, requires accumulating a minimum of 40 Social Security credits. Typically this is accomplished by earning income from work on which Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax is assessed, up to a maximum taxable earnings threshold. For the purposes of the United States Social Security Administration, PIA is used as the beginning point in calculating the annuity payment of benefits that is provided to an eligible recipient each month during retirement until the recipient's death. Generally, the more a person pays in FICA taxes during their life, the higher their PIA will be. However, specific rules in its computation may deviate from this general rule.
Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which unanimously held that the gender-based distinction under 42 U.S.C. § 402(g) of the Social Security Act of 1935—which permitted widows but not widowers to collect special benefits while caring for minor children—violated the right to equal protection secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 29 U.S.C. § 203 (FLSA) is a United States labor law that creates the right to a minimum wage, and "time-and-a-half" overtime pay when people work over forty hours a week. It also prohibits employment of minors in "oppressive child labor". It applies to employees engaged in interstate commerce or employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, unless the employer can claim an exemption from coverage. The Act was enacted by the 75th Congress and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1938.
The Women's Equity Action League, or WEAL, was a United States women's rights organization founded in 1968 with the purpose of addressing discrimination against women in employment and education opportunities. Made up of conservative women, they used the court system to facilitate enforcing existing legislation. They are most known for filing cases against higher education institutions across the United States to address discriminatory hiring and promotion practices. They also successfully litigated over help-wanted advertisements being sex-segregated, extending military spousal benefits to husbands of female service personnel, and over the extent to which the Department of Defense could involve itself in the lives of military spouses.
Gender pay gap in Australia looks at the persistence of a gender pay gap in Australia. In Australia, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was introduced in 1969. Anti-discrimination on the basis of sex was legislated in 1984.
A limited form of the Social Security program began as a measure to implement "social insurance" during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50 percent.
Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a Massachusetts law setting a mandatory retirement age of 50 for police officers was Constitutionally permissible.
County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981), is a United States labor law case concerning discrimination and the lower standards of protection for gender pay because of the Bennett Amendment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §703(h).
The gender pay gap or gender wage gap is the average difference between the remuneration for men and women who are working. Women are generally found to be paid less than men. In the United States, for example, the average annual salary of a woman is 83% that of a man. However, this figure changes when controlled for confounding factors such as differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education, job experience, and level of danger at work, which has adjusted figures in the United States from 95% to 99%. At the global level, the World Health Organization has estimated women healthcare workers earn 28% less on average than men; after adjusting for occupation and hours worked, the gap is changed to 11%.
Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 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, and therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case was brought by a widower who was denied survivor benefits on the grounds that he had not been receiving at least one-half support from his wife when she died. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the court, ruling unconstitutional the provision of the Social Security Act which set forth a gender-based distinction between widows and widowers, whereby Social Security Act survivors benefits were payable to a widower only if he was receiving at least half of his support from his late wife, while such benefits based on the earnings of a deceased husband were payable to his widow regardless of dependency. The Court found that this distinction deprived female wage earners of the same protection that a similarly situated male worker would have received, violating due process and equal protection.