Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
31 L. Ed. 2d 768, 406 U.S. 164, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 65 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statutory scheme that denies dependent unacknowledged illegitimate children the right to recover workers' compensation benefits for the death of their parent on an equal footing with dependent legitimate children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Henry Clyde Stokes lived with Willie Mae Weber, to whom he was not married.
- Stokes and Weber had one child together, and a second was born after his death.
- Stokes also had four legitimate children from his marriage to Adlay Jones Stokes, who was committed to a mental hospital.
- Stokes could not legally acknowledge his children with Weber because he was still married to Adlay Jones Stokes.
- All six children lived in the same household with Stokes and were financially dependent on him for support.
- On June 22, 1967, Stokes died from injuries he sustained during the course of his employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Stokes's four legitimate children filed a claim for workmen's compensation benefits in a Louisiana trial court.
- The defendant employer and its insurer impleaded Willie Mae Weber, who claimed benefits for the two illegitimate children.
- The legitimate children also brought a separate third-party tort suit which was settled for an amount exceeding the maximum workmen's compensation benefits.
- The trial court awarded maximum benefits to the legitimate children, deeming them satisfied by the tort settlement, and thus awarded nothing to the two illegitimate children.
- The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana, in a divided opinion, affirmed the lower courts' decisions, upholding the statute's constitutionality.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state workmen's compensation statute that denies dependent unacknowledged illegitimate children the same recovery rights as dependent legitimate children violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, a state workmen's compensation statute that denies dependent unacknowledged illegitimate children the same recovery rights as dependent legitimate children violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Court reasoned that the statutory distinction is impermissible discrimination. Both the legitimate and illegitimate children were dependent on the deceased and suffered the same loss, making their unequal treatment irrational. The Court distinguished this case from inheritance laws (Labine v. Vincent), where the state has a stronger interest in the orderly disposition of property. Here, the state's purported interest in protecting the family unit is not served by punishing children for their birth status, which is a matter beyond their control and for which they bear no responsibility.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No, a state workmen's compensation statute that denies dependent unacknowledged illegitimate children the same recovery rights as dependent legitimate children does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The dissent argued that the law should be judged under the rational basis test, as it is a form of economic and social legislation. Louisiana's distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children is rational because the state may presume a decedent would prefer benefits to go to legitimate children, and the distinction serves the state's interest in promoting legally recognized family relationships. The Court's creation of a hybrid standard of review based on 'fundamental personal rights' is an inappropriate judicial intrusion into the legislative sphere.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the statute as applied in this case violates the Equal Protection Clause, but for a narrower reason. The critical issue is that Louisiana law made it legally impossible for Stokes to acknowledge his illegitimate children, because he was still married to another woman. This absolute legal bar to acknowledgment is what renders the statute unconstitutional in this instance. The concurrence would not go as far as the majority to strike down the statutory scheme in cases where a father has the ability to acknowledge his children but chooses not to.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the constitutional protection for illegitimate children under the Equal Protection Clause, extending the principles of Levy v. Louisiana to workmen's compensation benefits. The case establishes that classifications based on illegitimacy are constitutionally suspect, especially when they penalize children for circumstances beyond their control in the context of state-created benefit schemes. The ruling signals that courts will apply a heightened level of scrutiny to such laws, requiring more than a mere rational basis for the state's classification, thereby impacting future cases involving discrimination based on birth status.
