The Supreme recognizes a contribution for each unemployed child to women who request the subsidy for those over 55 years of age

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling in which it opens the door for women over 55 years of age to have right to subsidy if, although they have not contributed enough, they are mothers and were not working at the time of the birth of their children. The social room applies, among other things, the gender perspective and establishes that, in these specific circumstances, each child must assume a contribution of 112 days if he did not work or contribute at the time of his birth.

When is the unemployment subsidy collected in June 2022?

Know more

The Supreme Court's social chamber has studied the appeal of a woman from Jaén who applied for the subsidy for workers over 55 years of age when she was 62 years of age. The Public Employment Service denied her that aid on the understanding that she had not contributed even six years "to a scheme that protects the contingency of unemployment." A social court agreed with her after an appeal, but the High Court of Andalusia returned the case to the starting box, rejecting the woman's requests.

This help is provided for over 52 years from 2019. The judges understand that the Social Security Law only applies these "fictitious contributions" to retirement or permanent disability pensions, but not to unemployment such as the one requested by this woman. In addition, it is also necessary to have contributed for at least six years for unemployment.

But they explain that this subsidy is close to a pension due to the age of the applicants, its purpose is to also link with retirement and that it affects, mainly, women who did not have access to the labor market. He explains then that for the purposes of this specific subsidy, the 112 days that are calculated for the birth of each child must count to access this public aid.

Regarding the application of the gender perspective to this case, the Supreme Court is clear: “There is no doubt about the obligation of judges and courts to incorporate the gender perspective in what constitutes their performance as a State Power, that is, in the interpretation and application of the rules.

The judges of the fourth chamber of the Supreme Court are also very clear in explaining that this ruling has no consequences for other types of public aid. "We are not advocating the extension of the benefit to other Social Security benefits, not even to other assumptions of unemployment protection," they specify.

Source link