Kientz v. Commissioner, SSA
954 F.3d 1277
| 10th Cir. | 2020Background
- Kientz was a dual status technician (1978–2007) for the Kansas Army National Guard: a statutory hybrid role that is a federal civilian appointment but requires Guard membership and some military duties.
- He received separate compensation streams: (1) covered National Guard wages (Social Security taxed) and a DoD military pension; and (2) noncovered civil-service wages as a dual status technician and a Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) pension.
- The SSA applied the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) to reduce Kientz’s Social Security benefits on the ground that his CSRS pension was a noncovered pension that triggered WEP.
- Kientz argued his CSRS pension was “based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” and thus exempt from WEP under 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7)(A)(ii).
- The district court upheld the SSA; the Tenth Circuit reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and concluded the statutory text controls.
- The court held the CSRS pension for Kientz’s dual status technician work is not “based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service,” so WEP applies; the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a civil-service pension derived from dual status technician employment is “based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” for the WEP uniformed-services exception | Kientz: dual status role is irreducibly military; pension therefore is based wholly on Guard service and is exempt from WEP | SSA: dual status pay is civil-service (noncovered) employment; pension is not based wholly on military service and thus triggers WEP | The pension is not based wholly on military service; WEP applies and SSA's reduction is upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Petersen v. Astrue, 633 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2011) (held a dual-status technician’s pension qualified for the uniformed-services exception)
- Martin v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 903 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2018) (held a dual-status technician’s pension did not qualify for the uniformed-services exception)
- Wedelstedt v. Wiley, 477 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for statutory interpretation on appeal)
- Perpich v. Dep’t of Def., 496 U.S. 334 (1990) (describes distinct roles of National Guard members and the idea of multiple ‘‘hats’’ worn at different times)
- United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (1989) (statutory grammar guides interpretation)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for agency deference)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (agency interpretations receive respect according to persuasiveness)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (clarified limits of Chevron and scope of Skidmore deference)