*Traslated by google translate

[The target amount was increased on July 1, 2025]

Since the case page was published in April 2024, we have received many donations and have reached our initial goal of 1 million yen. Thanks to your donations, we have been able to carry out comprehensive evidence-based activities through multiple expert opinions. We would like to express our sincere gratitude.

Our next goal is to raise another 1 million yen. We will use the money to cover the costs of our legal team activities. We appreciate your continued support.

*This is the same case that was made public as "Abolish gender discrimination in work-related accident survivor pensions! Lawsuit."

*This case was originally published as a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff I in the Tokyo District Court on April 9, 2024 (Tokyo Case). Plaintiff K subsequently filed a second lawsuit in the Sendai District Court on July 29, 2025 (Sendai Case), and the case page was updated on October 14, 2025. Donations received will be used for legal activities for both Plaintiff I's case and Plaintiff K's case.

　Introduction　

Both plaintiffs I and K are men who lost their working wives in work-related accidents. At the time of their deaths, plaintiff I was 49 years old and plaintiff K was 54 years old.

In this case, if they were "widowed wives," they could receive survivor's pensions.

However, because they were "widowed husbands (men)," they were subject to the requirement of being "55 years of age or older" to be eligible for survivor's pensions, and so neither Plaintiff I nor Plaintiff K was able to receive survivor's pensions.

　Gender-discriminatory survivor pension system　

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

For this reason, more generous benefits are provided to widowed wives than to widowed husbands.

If the wife is the surviving family member, she can receive survivor's pension regardless of her age.

▶ If the husband is the surviving family member, he must be 55 years of age or older at the time of his wife's death in order to receive survivor's pension.

▲For Plaintiff I, the legal team calculated the lump sum that the husband would receive if his wife died, and the amount of survivor's pension that the wife would receive if her husband died, assuming that she survives to the average life expectancy of a woman, 87 years old.

When the law was first enacted in 1965, it was based on the premise of a "male breadwinner model" in which the man would provide for a full-time wife and children. However, nearly 60 years have passed since then, and the era in which only the man earned money is over, with dual-income households becoming the majority. Despite this, the law remains unchanged.

In dual-income households or households with a stay-at-home husband, if a husband loses his working wife, the financial impact on the surviving family is likely to be great. Despite this, the "husband who lost his wife" is only eligible for survivor's pension in limited cases, such as when he is "55 years of age or older."

We are calling for an equal workers' compensation system for dual-income households, appropriate for today's world where dual-income households have become the norm.

　Tokyo Incident - The Case of Plaintiff I　

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

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

However, since Mr. I was the husband and was 49 years old at the time of his wife's death, he did not meet the requirement of being 55 years old or older and was therefore unable to receive survivor's pension.

▲Mr. I received a notice of non-payment of survivor's compensation pension

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 many hardships, including changing jobs, but he managed to support his family.

"It is wrong for the government to provide different benefits depending on whether the husband dies or the wife dies."

"Women want to go out into the world and work, but with outdated laws, the children they leave behind will not be able to pursue their dreams."

Mr. I decided to file a lawsuit in court, hoping that survivor's pensions would be paid equally to widowed husbands. He believed that the provisions of the Workers' Accident Compensation Insurance Act violated the Constitution, which stipulates equality between men and women, and he wanted to make this known to society at large.

▲The Asahi Shimbun morning edition, November 7, 2023

　Sendai Case - The Case of Plaintiff K　

Plaintiff K also worked with his wife and raised three children.

Mr. K's wife worked as a caregiver and contributed her income to the household. She experienced interpersonal problems at her new workplace, which led to her suicide in September 2020. On April 2, 2024, her death was recognized as an industrial accident.

However, because Mr. K was the husband and 54 years old at the time of his wife's death, he did not meet the requirement of being "55 years old or older" by just one year, and was therefore unable to receive survivor's pension.

At the time Mr. K's wife passed away, his eldest son was a university student, his second son was a high school student, and his eldest daughter was a junior high school student.

Mr. K was now doing all the housework and child-rearing alone, which he had previously shared equally with his wife. As a result, he had to quit his side job, which he had been doing in the evenings and late at night, and as a result, the household income fell by more than 70% from before his wife's death.

"My wife worked hard and supported me and my family, so it's strange that I don't get a survivor's pension if my wife dies."

"The lack of survivor pensions has caused surviving children to face many hardships, but if the current law remains in place, they will continue to face financial hardship in the future."

Mr. K had doubts about the survivor's pension system and was doing some research when he came across the CALL4 website and learned about Mr. I, who was in a similar situation to himself and had filed a lawsuit in Tokyo. Unable to sit still, Mr. K hopped on the Shinkansen from Iwate to Tokyo to watch Mr. I's trial and decided to file a lawsuit himself in court.

　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, in its first instance, ruled that the law was unconstitutional and invalid as it violated Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, but the Osaka High Court, in its second instance, ruled that the law was constitutional, stating that it is "generally difficult for a wife to maintain her livelihood independently." The Supreme Court also upheld the Osaka High Court's decision in 2017.

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

Issues in the trial　

The issue in this lawsuit was a work-related accident.

▶︎ If the husband dies → The wife can receive survivor's pension. ▶︎ If the wife dies → The husband cannot receive survivor's pension unless he is 55 years old or meets certain disability requirements.

The question is whether Article 16-2 of the Workers' Accident Compensation Insurance Act violates Article 14, Paragraph 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 therefore invalid for the following four reasons.

① Huge 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 large disparity in survivor's compensation is a heavy burden on the husbands and children who lose working women.

② Changes faced by surviving spouses after the death of a disaster victim

After the death of a spouse, surviving family members face significant changes in both their finances and their household responsibilities. In other words, not only do they lose their spouse's income, but they also have to take on all household responsibilities, such as housework and child-rearing, which increases the likelihood that their own income will decrease. The magnitude of this burden is the same for men and women.

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

2010: Dual-income households: 10.12 million, Full-time housewife households: 7.97 million↓

In 2024, there were 12.22 million dual-income households and 3.98 million households with a stay-at-home wife.

* Households consisting of a male employee and his unemployed wife [Source] 2011 Gender Equality White Paper / 2025 Gender Equality White Paper

4) Progress in legal reform for marital equality

In 2010, a legal amendment was made to extend child support allowances, which had previously only been provided to single-mother households, to single-father households as well. At the time, the government stated that "support for low-income single-parent households is necessary regardless of whether the parent is male or female."

In addition, in June 2025, the provision for the Employees' Pension Insurance, which imposed an age requirement only on payments to the surviving husband, similar to the workers' compensation insurance in this case, was amended to abolish it.

Furthermore, in July 2025, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's "Study Group on the Future of the Workers' Accident Compensation Insurance System," which had been running for some time, reported that "it is difficult to find a reasonable reason for setting different payment requirements for husbands and wives, and it is appropriate to eliminate them."

There is growing momentum to revise the survivors' pension law because it is clear that this provision is unreasonable.

　Use of funds　

1. Costs for writing opinions from researchers and experts <br>Expert opinions are essential to winning a ruling that a law is unconstitutional. We ask experts such as international law scholars, constitutional law scholars, and social security law scholars to write opinions. We have already asked several 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 public awareness of this lawsuit <br>Behind this lawsuit are dual-income households from all over the country. We would like to work with various organizations to disseminate information about the trial.
4. attorney fees

Plaintiff's thoughts

Plaintiff I

In my family, both my husband and I work, and we share the housework and child-rearing equally. In a dual-income household, whether the husband or the wife is gone, the surviving spouse and family suffer the same blow.

In today's society where men and women participate equally and gender equality are being touted, the number of dual-income households and stay-at-home husbands is increasing, and the number of families where income, housework, and child-rearing responsibilities are shared is also increasing.

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 support and encouragement.

Plaintiff K

Despite the fact that there are an increasing number of households, like ours, where both spouses work and share housework and child-rearing equally, it is wrong that there is an inequality in government benefits when the husband dies and when the wife dies, and I believe that the system should be changed.

I have been closely watching the progress of discussions held by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's "Study Group on the Future of the Workers' Accident Compensation Insurance System," including participating in the discussions on-site in Tokyo, and have hoped for legal reform that will provide relief to the families of those who have lost their wives to work-related accidents and are still suffering today.

I would be extremely grateful if you could support me in this endeavor, for the sake of my wife's honor, the future of our children, and all the families who have lost their wives in work-related accidents.

　Message from the lawyer in charge　

Our legal team hopes 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 left: Attorney Kawato, Attorney Onoyama, Attorney Nakanishi, Attorney Kanie

Introduction of the lawyer in charge

Hiroshi Kawahito, Tokyo Bar Association
Kitaro Kanie, Second Tokyo Bar Association
Shizu Onoyama, Tokyo Bar Association
Shotaro Nakanishi, Tokyo Bar Association
Mari Matsui, Tokyo Bar Association
Tadashi Matsumaru, Osaka Bar Association
Akiko Narimi, Miyazaki Bar Association

We are a member of the National Liaison Conference of Lawyers for Death from Overwork, and are working on the issue of death from overwork, including recognizing death and suicide from overwork as industrial accidents, providing relief to surviving families through lawsuits, and issuing opinions on the legal system.