Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Co.

payments it is hornbook law that employees therefrom to as valid Furthermore may for his own Agreement person “trust interests.”7 not create trust restraining provides 5.01 benefit and include a property that the title to all § Bogert G. rights of his creditors. G. fund is be to vested and remain Law of Handbook of the exclusively Bogert, and G. T. payment with the until trustees Trust, (5th 1973). Ed. Re 40 at 154-55 employees. § The trustees have com (Second) of Trusts plete § statement to power control the fund and have law in Missouri. long been the This make investments and the income from Valley Mississippi Trust Jamison such to investments are added the fund context, we (Mo.1918). In this S.W. 788 employee paid. from which benefits are person justification permitting no find authority trustees have the exclusive which we cannot do indirectly to do bring employers’ obliga suit to enforce the such as directly. spendthrift If clause tion to contribute to the fund and to distrib enforceable, who is this were to be held ute employees. The fact could not wages employees all say that corpus comprised that the trust is creditors the claims of sheltered from payments employers does not itself agreements. similar the Holiday contrary render Fund Trust state public policy. statute or The Trust is This is invalid. spendthrift valid. validity Trust not affect does itself, recognize we as which Agreement Conceding both the characterization of purpose. a valid having been created payments general wages Trust, validity remaining issue is Judgment affirmed. spendthrift contrary whether the clause is public policy. to statute or All concur.

Respondent contends that 525.- Supp., gar authorizes the wages earnings

nishment of and that a

spendthrift provision purports pre which garnishment

vent such is contrary to that thereby contrary public statute and is WENGLER, Respondent, J. Paul policy. agree. We Section 525.030 sets the judgment maximum amounts of a debtor’s wages garnished. Extending INSURANCE DRUGGISTS MUTUAL greater protection then that afforded COMPANY, Prescription and Dicus earners, the statute to some Inc., Appellants. Drugs, others, the intent of that violate 60442. No. garnishee statute. The cases cited Supreme Trust upholding spendthrift clauses in jurisdictions En Banc. persuasive. other are not Most pension of these plans, deal with and while June 1979. payments pension plan made under a are July Rehearing Denied specifically scope included within the recognize we that Missouri laws affecting payments rights creditors’ to such ERISA, (note preempted by supra). payments were sev- found that because

7. The New York Court identified subject they were not “trust interest” eral of Nassau and factors in Laborers Union Local Fund, garnishment defin- York statutes under New to ing Suffolk Counties Vacation provi- spendthrift attempted gar- limiting scope specifically which dealt with the fund in the instant we view the sions. While nishment of individual’s share in a vacation interest, a trust fund trust created as a result of a collective case as participants’ agreement creditors bargaining from the reach of fund between contractors representing general Missouri statutes. not warranted under union laborers. The Kleinschmidt, Ralph Langton, C. Gerre S. Dixon, Louis, appellants. for Evans & St. Reid, III, Schnapp, & John W. Graham Reid, Fredericktown, respondent. for BARDGETT, Judge. appeal issue is whether 287.240,

provision contained in section a conclusive Supp.1976, RSMo affords for dependency to a widow obtaining compensation benefits spouse requires for the death her re- prove dependency actual widower benefits, reciprocal ceive offends the Mo.Const., art. sec. and amendment U.S.Const. Wengler’s Paul J. Plaintiff-respondent while wife Ruth was killed in an accident Pre defendant-appellant for Dieus Inc., made scription Drugs, plaintiff claim for workmen’s death 287.240(2). stipu benefits under sec. actually de plaintiff was not lated pendent part, or in support, for in whole upon wages of his wife at the time mentally injury, physical nor was he or earning. ly impaired wage In order from ben periodic widower obtain for a 287.240(4) (4)(a) upon efits wife, the widower work-related death (1) mentally physically must either be (2) earning, or incapacitated support, prove must actual wages. wife’s part, in whole or in However, husband dies in a work-re if the accident, Mo.App. Grocery Wholesale surviving is con lated widow liberally is to be dependent 156 S.W.2d 747 clusively presumed totally to be public welfare. with a view to the construed wages support. her husband’s She Sec. does not need to actual 287.240{4) (4)(a).1 A child under Sec. legisla- first The act was age conclusively is presumed be Mo.1925, 375), (Laws p. and of ture totally dependent upon parent under his people the to a vote of upon being referred 287.240(4)(b). 1926 elec- the November approved it was 490). Mo.1927, (Laws p. tion of compensation The workmen’s referee de- dependen- plaintiff nied no benefits because for original provided the act Section of cy wages on his wife’s was shown. On employ- an upon death of compensation the review, the Relations Labor and Industrial in sec. “dependent” The definition of ee. Commission referee’s award the un- 21(d) continued to compensation. and denied The circuit The con- 287.240. changed and is now sec. reversed held that sec. 287.240 of “a dependency and because of presumption clusive for her legally affords a conclusive of total liable upon a wife husband act, upon original a widow her husband’s support” part was death, in a nondis- work-related a denial results constitutes actu- required to show equal protection being under art. sec. abled husband amendment, part, to re- Mo.Const., or in dependency, the fourteenth in whole and al work-related U.S.Const., upon the require compensation ceive a widower deny pre- of his wife. dependency and to that same death sumption a in a to husband whose wife dies not, in is compensation Workmen’s work-related accident. main, payment by taxes and the financed obliga- governmental is not a compensation employer appealed. This and insurer obligation of em- rather tion but jurisdiction. sec. Mo. court has Art. ployer. upholding the constitu- Const. Our decision

tionality 287.240(4) (4)(a) of sec. and renders that because plaintiff contends cross-appeal moot. other issues on the husbands and differential in treatment gender sec. 287.240 wives in claims under act based, equal it violates is considered substitutional for common-law 2, Mo.Const., and the four- sec. art. Sheets v. Hill Bros. Distrib tort remedies. amendment, U.S.Const. teenth utors, Inc., (Mo.1964). 379 S.W.2d 514 Its ameliorate, scrutiny under in the primary purpose is to To withstand clause, people public classification working equal protection interest of and the governmental welfare, important gender accidental in must serve losses sustained from substantially related person objectives must be juries in the received objectives. Califa City of those to achievement employment, course of Reed Kansas dependents total “(4) ‘dependent’ there be other cease unless as used this The word chapter. any chapter under this death benefit to mean a relative entitled shall construed lump remarriage, pay- employee, marriage sum a a or deceased In the event of blood actually dependent support, benefits due for for in whole who in amount ment period part, wages paid upon years at the time to the widow or in injury. shall be of two following persons periodic Thereupon shall be conclu death or widower. totally dependent sively presumed for to be other total unless there are shall cease any employee support upon any a deceased dependents benefit entitled payable to them the periodic death benefit shall chapter bene- event in which dependents; exclusion of other total or widower to which said widow fits legally or (a) not died he or she A wife liable entitled had husband have been mentally physi- remarried, among support, other divided her cally incapacitated and a husband shall be during wage earning paid dependents to them total period wife; remarriage provided, chapter;”. death or of entitlement under this widower, shall the death benefit a widow or Webster, 313, 316-317, Likewise, Webster, no v. in Califano v. L.Ed.2d difference upheld Shevin, In Kahn v. requiring women fewer which benefited up- the court qualify cer- elapsed years to number of held the constitutionality aof Florida stat- for women old-age tain insurance benefits ute which, since granted all widows This, held, was a the court for men. an annual tax exemption against $500 an justifiable long histo- to correct difference equal protection brought attack by a wid- ry women discrimination ower. The court said there could “be no inhospitable culture male-dominated dispute that the financial difficulties con- job market. fronting the lone woman in Florida or in Goldfarb, However, in Califano v. any other facing exceed State those 199, 1021, U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 270 97 51 man. Whether from overt discrimination (1977), dis gender-based the court held a or from the process socialization of a male- of the social provision tinction created culture, job dominated market is inhos- process clause security act violated the due pitable seeking to the woman any but the provision in Fifth Amendment. The paid lowest jobs.” statistics, Earning cited question allowed a widow receive bene Kahn, in of men compared with women fits based her de from 1955 to 1972 showed 1972 in that a showing ceased husband without actual de working woman full time had median required pendency, but a widower income which was 57.9% of the median he receiving was at least one-half for points men —six than lower in 1955. support qualify from his deceased wife to 354, court 1737, observed at 94 S.Ct. at for his wife’s death. “While the widower usually can continue in court, following Weinberger v. Wiesen the occupation which preceded spouse’s feld, 636, 1225, 43 L.Ed.2d 420 95 S.Ct. U.S. death, many cases the widow will find 206-207, (1975), 514 430 97 said at S.Ct. U.S. suddenly herself job forced into market at 1027: with unfamiliar, which, which she is and in “. inescapably . Wiesenfeld thus because of her dependen- former economic compels by the the conclusion reached cy, she will have fewer skills to offer.” dif- District Court that was 355, 7, at noted footnote 94 S.Ct. at 402(f)(1)(D)— created ferentiation 1737: “It is majori- still the case that results the efforts of female ty of families spouses where both security required pay workers social present, the woman employed. is not A. producing protection taxes less for their Ferriss, Indicators of in the Trends Status spouses produced efforts of than (1971).” American Women 95 Constitution, at men —is forbidden Shevin, Kahn supra, v. distinguished supported by least when no more sub- Richardson, 677, Frontiero v. 93 ‘archaic justification stantial 1764, (1973), 36 L.Ed.2d 583 generalizations, Schlesinger v. overbroad’ basis that the denial to service women of Ballard, 498, 508, at 95 supra, 419 U.S. procedural granted and substantive benefits 577, 610, 572, 42 or ‘old at L.Ed.2d ” service “solely men was for administrative notions,’ Stanton, 7, 421 v. U.S. Stanton important convenience and gov- served no L.Ed.2d 688 95 S.Ct. 43 objective; whereas, Kahn, ernmental (1975), depend- as to ‘assumptions such as widows were found to an be at economic Wiesenfeld, ency,’ Weinberger supra, v. disadvantage widowers. 95 that are U.S. at S.Ct. at thereupon held the Florida statute rested role-typing more soci- consistent with ‘the upon ground of difference that had a fair v. ety long imposed,’ Stan- Stanton object ton, substantial relation at to be 95 S.Ct. U.S. at legislation. reality.” contemporary than with where the also found the Other cases United Su equal protection violation of essentially invalidated statutes of preme Court has reason, saying the same U.S. states on “invidious discrimination” various S.Ct. at 1027: Boren, Craig grounds are: inception, “Prom its security the social 50 L.Ed.2d system has a program been of social in- buy females to beer Oklahoma law allowed employees surance. Covered their age 18-20 the same denied males employers pay taxes into a fund adminis- Reed, right; Reed tered general distinct from the federal (1971); Idaho statute purchase protection against revenues to as adminis gave preference males age, consequences economic of old estates; of decedents’ Stanton trators disability death. But Stanton, 402(f)(1)(D) female insureds received age Utah law that made protection spouses less solely their males. majority 18 but 21 for for females because of sex. Mrs. Goldfarb Richardson, supra, a fed- paid worked and social taxes for a serviceman to statute which allowed eral years at the same rate as her male housing dependent obtain an allowance for colleagues, 402(f)(1)(D) but because of § married, allow servicewom- but did not insurance received allowance for obtain males was broader than hers.” dependent housing unless her husband Salfi, But in Weinberger v. than one-half upon her for more 95 S.Ct. It support, was held unconstitutional. upheld security the denial of social struck down that under the statute noted benefits to a applying woman for mother foreclosed the servicewoman daughter on the of a benefits basis though obtaining any even from benefits provision defining in the act “widow” and 49%; may supported the husband she have step- “child” surviving excluded wives and whereas, compensa- under the respective children who had their relation- case, a husband the instant ship tion wage with the deceased earner for less Quot- with the prior in accordance nine months his death. will receive benefits ing Dandridge ease of the earlier him degree support actual afforded Williams, working spouse. said 422 U.S. recently applied have Three state courts 95 S.Ct. at 2468-2469: proof-of-de- to invalidate principles these “‘In the area of economics and social widow- imposed on pendency requirements welfare, a not State does violate their workmen’s ers Equal merely Protection because Clause Comp. Appeals Arp v. Workers’ statutes. the classifications made its laws are Bd., Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d imperfect. has some If classification v. Walden (Bank 1977); Passante P.2d 849 basis,” it offend the “reasonable does not Co., 8, 385 N.Y.S.2d Printing A.D.2d simply Constitution the classifi- because Township of Green- Tomarchio cation “is with not made mathematical (1977). In wich, N.J. 379 A.2d nicety practice it results in or because in Court Supreme Arp, supra, the California Lindsley inequality.” some v. Natural of de- presumption found the conclusive Gas Carbonic equal be violative of widows to pendency problems 55 L.Ed. 369. “The the statute court held protection. The government practical ones and the fe- over male earner favors the justify, they require, rough do not ac- disparity wage-earner because male be, illogical, may it commodations — respective accorded Metropolis Theatre Co. unscientific.” court noted 69-70, spouses. In Passante City Chicago, ” employ- derived from death benefits are 57 L.Ed. 730 .. .’ itself, relationship

ment employer (Mo.App.1973). but a married S.W.2d 411 security fund, woman has less than a opposed married sole contributor man because of the presumption conclusive mandatory to the social scheme of accorded widow but (taxes) based on employee contributions Tomarehio, not widower. Similarly, in income scale. See sec. Jersey the New Supreme Court invalidated Therefore, Supreme the United States dependency requirement of widowers as Wiesenfeid, Weinberger v. Court cases of the court held the conclusive Goldfarb, supra, are supra, and Califano accorded to widows denied women controlling not case at bar. protection. differing results interest is the Of some summary, jurisdictions In several have Jersey vis-a- in New and New reached York statutory found schemes similar to ours un- vis New Jer- California. In New York and constitutional as perpetuating an outmoded sey pre- applied the court “conclusive standard its nature discriminates sumption” to widowers and thus extended against those (women) whom purports legislation. provided for in the protect. to extend California the court refused Court, New York Supreme Appellate the “conclu- using benefits to widowers Division, Supreme Passante and the presumption” but denied that sive rather Court of Arp California in “strict widows, withholding presumption to thus scrutiny” standard gender- of review for legislation from widows the benefits of the statutory based schemes. As noted requiring both widows and widowers in Frontiero the Supreme United States proportion prov- recover benefits Court held a “dependency” provision inval- en id; however, only justices adopted four appears opinions from the of the Unit- scrutiny” “strict Subsequent standard. Supreme ed the state Court and cases of the United States dealing courts the same in cases with concept reinforces the that the “strict scru- matters, similar the courts have invalidated tiny” standard is inappropriate in these or accusing Congress legis- statutes state Craig Boren, cases. See supra. We de- of latures of “invidious discrimination” or cline to approach follow the utilized New enacting upon statutes based “archaic and California, York and believing the “substan- generalizations” “lit- overbroad which have relationship” tial test appropriate. is more of relationship reality” tle or to The security social cases of Califano v. light casting earners in a female Goldfarb, supra, and Weinberger v. Wiesen denigrates which their economic contribu- feld, supra, are distinguishable. Al support. tions to their families’ In most though the issues dealt with dependency rely upon evi- opinions instances the do not benefits, security the social gen scheme is empirical data at these dence or to arrive erally upon based mandatory contributions self-serving conclusions. past wage employee. of the hand, opinions On the other the legislative history social which, face, uphold on their evi- statutes act makes it clear survivorship that benefits dence “discrimina- different treatment and are form “social We insurance”. inberger tion” in favor of women utilize statistical Wiesenfeid, serving speak legislation data as of the dis- correcting past abusive purpose purpose of the com criminatory women. attitudes toward pensation provide act was not to blanket face, 287.240(4)(a) appears to “social insurance”. On It is its sec. substitutional dis- creating (widow) the common than rights law favor a woman rather and reme her, dies in it injured favor of the in that affords employee or criminate dependents for accidents in on her husband’s com- the course of widow death benefits employment. Goostree, pensable proof See Todd death without further deprived of is not The widower

dependency. At the time the law was first compensable death reasonably upon we can be certain upon proof preva- the same were as wife but is entitled to contentions not opinion, the substan- today, yet apparent lent In our it seems standing of purpose presumption of the was to fa- in the economic tive difference the ad- widows, justifies data vor not to them. The women working disfavor men and 287.240(4)(a) administra- general assembly available to the sec. vantage that concept time that a supported tively gives no doubt to a widow. pay- prompt

widow was more in need of is re- of the circuit judgment ment of her husband’s death benefits is remanded and the cause versed proceedings death without de- drawn-out judg- enter directions circuit court with dependency termine the amount Industri- affirming the decision ment reasonably was a widower. It seems cer- al Commission. during tain that the 1920’sand 1930’s was more difficult than now for a woman J., RENDLEN, J., MORGAN, C. pay employment obtain with substantial HOUSER, Judges, con- Senior FINCH and when, very difficult for her her cur. death, suddenly husband’s she was thrust sep- J., DONNELLY, in result concurs job obvi- into the It seems rather market. opinion. arate purpose of con- ous therefore that was to clusive J., dissent- SEILER, separate dissents generally widows satisfy perceived need ing opinion. had, common to men which need was not JJ., WELLIVER, par- not SIMEONE working. while might whose wives be killed members ticipating because parties None of cited the cases submitted. when cause was briefs, holds opinion, the court concurring in result. DONNELLY, Judge, important governmental that there was no objective by the conclusive to fol to be served bound Judges of state courts (Art. presumption provisions they were en- when the Land” “supreme Law of low the objective States). governmental VI, acted. The United Constitution require employers economic what alleviate the of the Land” “supreme Law hardship resulting spouse’s from a of the United Supreme Court Aaron, hardship legis- was seen death. This Cooper is. says it pronounced Oregon v. immediate and latures more 3 L.Ed.2d on men. The statistics cit- Hass, on women than Butler, v. States (1975); ed the United North Carolina L.Ed.2d 570 Shevin, 1755, U.S.-, to bear this L.Ed.2d appear Kahn v. 60 99 S.Ct. - today, the claimant here has out even and (1979). 286 presented any any evidence or not shown is, part, appeal on this The issue empirical contrary. data to the of- 287.240, Supp.1976, RSMo whether § of the Equal Protection Clause Arp, of fends the cases We do not believe the Constitution Tomarehio, Fourteenth Amendment supra, articulate a and Passante prob- essential The United States. declaring in this of the the statute sound basis for “su- lem, it, identifiable I is that no see protection of case violates the by exists the Land” preme Law of consti United either Missouri or gen- alleged adjudicate claim of may a we to follow we decline tutions and therefore v. Or- Muller Cf. legisla discrimination. recognize the der-based doing, we them. In so 324, L.Ed. 412, 52 28 S.Ct. egon, 208 U.S. balance economic ture must strike delicate Parrish, Co. v. Hotel (1908); West Coast 551 amounts of deciding 578, 703 379, L.Ed. 81 57 S.Ct. injury to 300 U.S. employers pay upon require will Cleary, v. 335 U.S. (1937); Goesaert employees. or death of 169 198, (1948); organized S.Ct. 93 163 entitlement of society” L.Ed. v. and the Reed Reed, 71, 251, 404 92 “equal rights opportunity U.S. S.Ct. and 30 L.Ed.2d individuals (1971); Richardson, terms, 225 it is simplistic Frontiero v. 411 under law.” In 677, 1764, legislative U.S. 93 de- primary S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d 583 function of the (1973); Shevin, 351, Kahn v. demands of or- partment 416 94 to address “the U.S. 1734, (1974); primary S.Ct. 40 L.Ed.2d 189 function ganized society,” and the Schlesin Ballard, ger 498, 572, department 419 U.S. to assure individ- judicial of the S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (1975); opportunity under Weinberger rights v. Wiesen uals and “equal * * feld, 636, 1225, Mr. Justice Harlan’s 43 L.Ed.2d law (1975); Stanton, “particularly Stanton involve careful 421 U.S. view would 95 S.Ct. (1975); Craig justi- scrutiny L.Ed.2d 688 of the state asserted to needs Boren, fy” “equal opportuni- rights denial * * Goldfarb, (1976); L.Ed.2d 397 ty Califano v. Mr. Justice law. 430 U.S. approach permissible 51 L.Ed.2d 270 in Mis- Harlan’s is not Webster, Califano v. judicial department may The souri. any power belonging properly exercise (Mo.Const. legislative department. Art. circumstance, In this I would turn II, 1).§ issue whether Supp.1976, I, offends Art. question 2 of the Missouri whether Constitu- determination tion. society,” “the as re- organized demands of statute, particular are suffi- flected Ullman, In Poe justify abridgment right of a cient to an Mr. appropriate to the people reserved Harlan, dissent, Justice speaking of the governmental of a function exercise Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth legislative department is entitled to Amendment to the Constitution considerable deference. States, expressed United the view “it represented has the balance which our Na- extent to which determination of the tion, upon postulates built of respect right people for the reserved to the individual, liberty of statute, all, abridged by struck between is an exer- if liberty function, judicial and the demands organized cise of the and should be society.” He then declared that liber- question “the conclusive on the the constitu- guaranteed ty judicial the Due Process Clause de- tionality that statute. ** * which, is a partment protector rational continuum is the ultimate broadly speaking, includes a from rights freedom of individuals. all arbitrary impositions substantial problem determining the extent * *

purposeless *, restraints and which right people may which a reserved to the recognizes, what a sen- reasonable and statute, all, by a is a difficult abridged must, judgment sitive that certain interests organized society” one. The “demands of require particularly scrutiny careful judicial probably not relevant justify abridg- state needs asserted to rights individual inquiry. The * * ment. abridgments by does not lend statute political power easily applica- “all vested itself the construction in and (Mo.Const. derived the people” Hopefully, a formula. the Bench tion of I, 1), Art. power granted by and the problem. § the and Bar will address the Histori- promote Constitution “is intended to the discrimina- cally, in general people” (Mo.Const. legislative welfare the are held to be matters for tions * * * I, 2); persons Art. but “all § are determination that cannot considered Brawner, to equal rights opportunity entitled un- 327 the courts. Brawner v. I, 808, (Mo.Const. 2). (Mo. 1959). der the law” my Art. These 815 S.W.2d banc view, that, provisions represent changed a balance which Mis- the law should be so as minimum, statute, purports souri has struck between “the demands 170

satisfy death; widow, the organized society, demands of his and therefore in most invidiously discriminates between male and suffer the loss of family, cases his will not persons, per- female those income, demands and woman is his entire ceived yield needs should and the statute guarantee given no such . should King be declared unconstitutional. disadvantage “. . is most Swenson, (Mo. 423 S.W.2d 705 banc case, where Mr. apparent 1968); Co., Optical Cf. Williamson v. Lee approxi- and Mrs. Passante each earned 483, 489, L.Ed. 563 Mr. Passante mately per week. Had $200 circumstance, compensable died in It is noting appel- worth that “exclusive widow, have family, through his jurisdiction late involving in all cases received, payable in addition to benefits * * * validity of a statute or provision children, at least $156 on behalf of minor Constitution of this State” is because Mrs. per month . . . But (Mo.Const. V, 3). Art. Until victim, the Passante the unfortunate was evolves, formula people of Missouri less family’s resources will be right expect have a judges amount, simply because aforementioned this Court merely would not “draw on our the hus- arbitrarily classifies statute personal and private disregard notions consequently band as breadwinner and judicial the limits judges that bind in their unimpor- categorizes work as the wife’s California, function.” Rochin v. 342 U.S. tant.” 205, 208-209, 96 L.Ed. 183 v. Workers’ point Arp is made in (1952); Benjamin Cardozo, see N. The Na- Board, 19 Cal.3d Compensation Appeals (New ture of the Judicial Process Haven: (1977) P.2d Cal.Rptr., Press, 1921). Yale University balance, the these words: “. .On In final analysis, new claim to “[e]ach short-changed. While employed is woman Constitutional must be con- in the colleagues are assured- that her male against background sidered of Constitu- their accident event of a fatal industrial purposes, tional they have been rational- fully self-supporting widows—even wid- ly perceived historically developed.” cushion, the ows—will receive a financial Ullman, Poe v. her employed provide can husband woman J., (Harlan, dissenting). S.Ct. at 1777 security. no He will receive ben- with only I concur in the result. prove he efits the extent can [to] employed dependency, and if he is himself SEILER, Judge, dissenting. supplemental eligible for no he I respectfully hold dissent. I would benefit whatever.” statute unconstitutional violative of the majority distinguishes equal protection clause of both the Missouri Richardson, require and federal constitutions and would Com Arp Workers’ surviving death benefits be awarded hus- Board, 19 Appeals Cal.3d pensation they pres- bands on the same basis as Cal.Rptr. P.2d and Passante ently I think the matter awarded widows. Co., 8, 385 N.Y. Printing 53 A.D.2d Walden put Printing well v. Walden Passante they adopt on the basis that 178, S.2d 8, 11-12, A.D.2d N.Y.S.2d Instead, ma scrutiny strict standard. 180-81 as follows: relationship” jority a “substantial applies is clear that before us statute “[I]t since goes then to hold that test. discriminates the married woman dependent on more women than men are employment whose to the eco- contributes legislature spouses support, well-being family; nomic her whereas justified widowers of requiring working man, employ- aas benefit of ment, support, knowing working women given widows of men. the event of his work-related There are argument. majority several flaws in states at the conclusion of First, while in four members opinion: its

of the court suspect concurred that sex is a therefore that “It seems rather obvious classification, four other members of the presump- purpose of the conclusive court concluded that the discrimination satisfy per- tion of was to presented in that case pass could not even a had, generally widows ceived need Frontiero, more lax standard. 411 U.S. at whose need was not common to men 691-92, Thus, 93 S.Ct. 1764. in Frontiero working. while might wives be killed eight members of the court concluded that statutory scheme was in violation of the equal protection clause because of the dis- deprived “The widower is not of death crimination permitted. women it compensable death of description As the of Frontiero contained in his wife but is entitled to the same the majority opinion clear, makes the dis- proof dependency. opinion, In our crimination in that case and this substantive difference in the economic remarkably There, here, one are similar. jus- standing working men and women the wife was entitled to benefits automati- advantage tifies sec. 287.- cally while the husband would be entitled 240(4)(a) administratively gives to a wid- only upon proof added). (emphasis ow.” Weinberger Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. quoted portions Weinberger make (1975) 43 L.Ed.2d 514 Supreme rejected clear that Court has Goldfarb, Califano v. just reasoning as that advanced are distin- majority support of the result reached. guished on the they basis that dealt with Regardless ap whether the standard to be social act and thus with a form plied scrutiny is one of strict or substantial However, social insurance. in Weinber- relationship, administrative convenience ger the court stated: and overbroad characterizations of the male gender-based “The distinction made primary as the serve to breadwinner cannot 402(g) is indistinguishable from that justify counterbalance or “a invalidated in Frontiero v. Richardson . . distinction which diminishes the Ballard, . Schiesinger v. who work.” Wein afforded to women do berger at 95 S.Ct. at 1233. explained: ‘In . Frontiero the

challenged based on sex [classification] premised generaliza on overbroad

[was]

tions that could not be tolerated under

the Constitution . . . . as [T]he

sumption . . was that female

spouses of servicemen normally

dependent upon husbands, CIRCUIT, while TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL spouses male Movant, COMMITTEE, servicewomen would not.’ BAR Id., at virtually S.Ct. at 577. A identical ‘archaic generali and overbroad’ FAHEY, Respondent. Brian J. zation, id., at at ‘not No. 61410. tolerated under the Constitu tion’ underlies the distinction drawn 402(g), namely, that male workers’ en banc. earnings support are vital to the of their 29, 1979. June families, while the of female wage earners do not significantly contrib

ute to support.” their families’ 642-43, 1230-1231.

Case Details

Case Name: Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Insurance Co.

Court Name: Supreme Court of Missouri

Date Published: Jun 27, 1979

Citation: 583 S.W.2d 162

Docket Number: 60442

Court Abbreviation: Mo.