983 F.3d 643
3rd Cir.2020Background
- Newton worked as a National Guard dual‑status technician (civilian technician position requiring concurrent National Guard membership) from 1980 to 2013 and separately served in the New Jersey Army National Guard; he received separate pay and now separate pensions for each role.
- Upon applying for Social Security retirement benefits, SSA reduced Newton’s benefits under the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) because he received an OPM annuity for his dual‑status civilian work (earnings not covered by Social Security).
- Newton sought reconsideration, arguing his OPM annuity fell within the WEP’s uniformed services exception for payments “based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service.”
- The ALJ, SSA Appeals Council, and the District Court upheld SSA’s determination that the OPM annuity is not "based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service."
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that a dual‑status technician’s civil‑service annuity is not a payment based on service “as a member of a uniformed service,” so the WEP reduction applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dual‑status technician’s OPM annuity is a payment “based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” under 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7)(A) | Newton: dual status duties require Guard membership, rank, uniform and military duties, so the annuity is effectively based on uniformed service | SSA/Comm’r: the OPM annuity is a civil‑service pension tied to civilian employment, not to service "as a member" of the uniformed service | Held: No — the OPM annuity is not payment based on service "as a member," so WEP applies. |
| Meaning of “wholly” in the exception phrase | Newton (and Eighth Circuit precedent): the statutory text can be read to treat dual‑status service as within the exception | SSA/Comm’r: the phrase must be read with “as a member” limiting coverage to payments for work performed in the capacity of a uniformed‑service member | Held: Court rejects relying on a narrow parsing of “wholly”; instead reads the phrase with “as a member” to require appointment/enlistment status for the covered service, excluding dual‑status civilian appointments. |
| Whether Chevron deference controls | Newton: urge interpretation favoring inclusion (pointing to some precedents) | SSA: agency interpretation not entitled to deference if statute is clear | Held: Court applied ordinary textual analysis first; statute’s plain meaning resolves the case, so deference was unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Petersen v. Astrue, 633 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2011) (held a dual‑status technician’s OPM pension qualified for the uniformed‑service exception)
- Martin v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 903 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2018) (held dual‑status technician pensions are not covered by the uniformed‑service exception; emphasized the limiting effect of “as a member”)
- Babcock v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 959 F.3d 210 (6th Cir. 2020) (rejected uniformed‑service exception for dual‑status technicians)
- Kientz v. Comm’r, SSA, 954 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2020) (concluded dual‑status technician annuities are not payments based on service as a uniformed‑service member)
- Steele v. Blackman, 236 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 2001) (principles on interpreting modifiers in statutory text)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference framework cited in determining when to defer to SSA interpretation)