| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld
''Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld'', , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which unanimously held that the gender-based distinction under 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.
== Background ==
Stephen Wiesenfeld and Paula Polatschek were married in 1970. Stephen ran a minicomputer consulting business and had an irregular income. Paula taught mathematics at Edison High School and earned significantly more than her husband. When Paula died in childbirth from an amniotic embolism, Stephen became the sole provider for their newborn son, Jason. To take care of his son, Stephen cut his work hours and sought child care. Wiesenfeld contested his ineligibility for Social Security survivors' benefits that were made available to widows, but not to widowers.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, along with Melvin Wulf, took on ''Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld'' after several unfavorable Supreme Court decisions on gender discrimination cases. In 1974, ''Kahn v. Shevin'' had upheld differences in property tax exemption between widows and widowers, and the Supreme Court ruled in ''Geduldig v. Aiello'' that denying compensation from work loss due to pregnancy did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Ginsburg looked to ''Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld'' to promote the idea of "the care of two loving parents, rather than just one."
Ginsburg made the argument that Section 402(g) of the Social Security Act discriminated against Stephen Wiesenfeld by not providing him with the same survivors' benefits as it would to a widow. Further, Ginsburg argued that Paula's contributions to Social Security were not treated on an equal basis to salaried men, so she was also being discriminated against. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. agreed by differentiating the social security matter from the decision in ''Kahn v. Shevin''. The court decided that Section 402(g) "linked as it is directly to responsibility for minor children, was intended to permit women to elect not to work and to devote themselves to the care of children. Since this purpose in no way is premised upon any special disadvantages of women, it cannot serve to justify a gender-based distinction which diminishes the protection afforded to women who do work."
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|