*Traslated by google translate

*This is the same case that was made public as the "Lawsuit: Eliminate gender discrimination in workplace accident survivor pensions!"

　Introduction　

The plaintiff is a man who lost his working wife in a work-related accident. The plaintiff was 51 years old at the time of his wife's death.

The Workers' Accident Compensation Insurance Act (Workmen's Accident Compensation Insurance Act) is based on the premise that the man is the family's breadwinner, and is based on the idea that if the husband dies in a work-related accident, the wife's livelihood will be compensated.

That's why wives who lose their husbands are given more generous benefits than husbands who lose their wives.

If the wife is the surviving family member, she can receive a survivor's pension regardless of her age.
▲ If the husband is the surviving family member, he cannot receive survivor's pension unless he is 55 years of age or older at the time of his wife's death.

When the law was first enacted in 1965, it was based on the premise that the man would be the main breadwinner, providing for the wife and children. However, nearly 60 years have passed since then, and even now, when dual-income households have become the norm, this has not changed.

In dual-income households or households with a stay-at-home husband, even if the husband loses his wife, survivor's pensions are only paid in limited circumstances.

The plaintiff was denied a survivor's pension because he was under 55 when his wife died, and both his spouses worked. He is seeking an equal workers' compensation system for dual-income households, appropriate to the modern era in which dual-income households have become the norm.

　Non-payment of survivor's pension to the husband, Plaintiff I　

The plaintiff, Mr. I (pseudonym), has been raising three children together with his wife, both of whom work.

Mr. I's wife worked as a corporate employee and earned a higher income than Mr. I. She was transferred to a busy department, which led to increased overtime work, and she died of a subarachnoid hemorrhage in June 2019. On March 1, 2023, his wife's death was recognized as an industrial accident.

However, since Mr. I was the husband and was 51 years old at the time of his wife's death, he was not able to receive survivor's pension.

If the law were equal for spouses and there was no age requirement of 55, Mr. I would have been able to receive survivor's pension.

▲Notice of non-payment of survivor's compensation pension received by Mr. I

At the time Mr. I's wife passed away, his eldest son and daughter were attending a private university, and his second son was in his third year of junior high school.

In order to make up for the financial burden his wife had been providing, Mr. I went through difficult times, including changing jobs, but he managed to support his family.

"It is wrong for the government to change the content of benefits depending on whether the husband dies or the wife dies."

"Women want to go out and work, but with outdated laws, their children will not be able to pursue their dreams."

Mr. I decided to file a lawsuit in court, hoping that survivor pensions would be paid equally to widowed husbands. He believed that the provisions of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act violated the Constitution, which stipulates equality between men and women, and he wanted society to know about this issue.

▲Asahi Shimbun morning edition, November 7, 2023

　Social significance　

In 2011, the suicide of a female junior high school teacher while on the job was recognized as a work-related accident, and her husband filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law that did not provide survivor pensions, as in this case.

The Osaka District Court, at first instance, found the law unconstitutional and invalid as it violated Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, but the Osaka High Court, at second instance, found it constitutional, stating that the wife "generally has difficulty maintaining her livelihood independently." The Supreme Court also upheld the Osaka High Court's decision in 2017.

However, this ruling is so clearly discriminatory based solely on gender and has no social validity whatsoever, and we simply cannot allow it to continue as it is.

Issues at issue　

The issue in this case was a workplace accident.

 If the "husband" dies → The wife can receive a survivor's pension if she is in a "living-maintenance relationship" ▲ If the "wife" dies → The husband cannot receive a survivor's pension unless he meets the "age requirement" or "certain disability requirement" in addition to being in a "living-maintenance relationship"

The question is whether Article 16-2 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act violates Article 14-1 of the Constitution, which stipulates equality under the law, and Article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. We believe that this law violates the Constitution and treaties and is invalid for the following four reasons.

① Large economic disparities in survivor compensation

The amount of survivor's pension received by a woman (wife) whose husband has died is about five times that of a man (husband) whose wife has died. Although husbands and wives are supposed to be equal, creating such a huge disparity in survivor's compensation is a heavy burden on the husbands and children who lose working women.

*The legal team calculated the lump sum that a husband would receive if his wife died, and the amount of survivor's pension that a wife would receive if her husband died, assuming that she survives to the average life expectancy of a woman, age 87.

② Changes that surviving spouses face after the death of a disaster victim

Surviving spouses face significant changes in both finances and household responsibilities after the death of their partner, and the burden is felt equally by men and women.

3) Dual-income households have become the typical family model

2010: Dual-income households: 10.12 million households, Full-time housewife households: 7.97 million households↓
In 2022, there were 11.91 million dual-income households and 4.3 million full-time housewife households.

④Progress in legal reform for marital equality

In 2010, the law was amended to allow child-rearing allowances, which had previously only been paid to single-mother households, to be paid to single-father households as well. At the time, the government stated that "support for low-income single-parent families is necessary regardless of whether the parent is male or female."

In addition, as of 2024, a review of the Employees' Pension Insurance Category 3 insured person, who is based on the assumption that one spouse is working, is underway.

　Use of funds　

1. Costs for writing opinions by researchers and experts <br>An expert opinion is essential to winning a ruling that the law is unconstitutional. We ask experts such as international law scholars, constitutional law scholars, and social security law scholars to write opinions.
2. Stamp fees (fees paid to the court), copying fees, communication fees, and travel expenses for the legal team
3. Costs for raising awareness of this lawsuit in society <br>Behind this lawsuit are dual-income households from all over the country. We would like to work with various organizations to spread information about the trial.
4. attorney's fee

Plaintiff’s thoughts

In my home, both my husband and I work, and we share the housework equally and raise our children equally. In a dual-income household, whether the husband is absent or the wife is absent, the impact on the surviving spouse and family is the same.

In today's world, where men and women are equally involved and gender equality is being touted, the number of dual-income households and stay-at-home husbands is increasing, and the number of families in which income, housework, and child-rearing responsibilities are shared is on the rise.

Given the current situation, I believe it is wrong that the benefits provided by the government are different when a husband dies and when a wife dies, and so I filed this lawsuit.

I would be very grateful for your approval and support.

　Message from the lawyer in charge　

Our legal team wants to contribute to a society in which women's work and men's work are valued equally and dual-income households are equally protected.

We would be grateful for your support.

▲From the left, Attorney Kawato, Attorney Onoyama, Attorney Nakanishi, Attorney Kanie

Introduction of the lawyer in charge

Hiroshi Kawato Tokyo Bar Association Kitaro Kanie Second Tokyo Bar Association Shizuka Onoyama Tokyo Bar Association Shotaro Nakanishi Tokyo Bar Association Tadashi Matsumaru Osaka Bar Association Akiko Narimi Miyazaki Bar Association

We belong to the National Liaison Conference of Lawyers for Death from Overwork, and are working on the issue of death from overwork, including certifying death or suicide from overwork as an industrial accident, providing relief to surviving families through lawsuits, and issuing opinions on the legal system, etc.