Linda Larson v. Andrew Saul
967 F.3d 914
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Kenneth Larson was a dual-status military technician in the Montana Air National Guard from the early 1970s until retirement in 2004; dual-status technicians are federal civilian employees required to maintain National Guard membership.
- Upon retirement Larson received (1) a CSRS civil-service pension based on his technician (noncovered) employment, (2) military retirement pay, and (3) Social Security retirement benefits.
- SSA reduced Larson’s Social Security benefits under the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) because his CSRS pension was based on noncovered civilian employment.
- Larson argued the WEP reduction was barred by the uniformed-services exception for any payment "based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service," because technician employment requires Guard membership.
- Administrative remedies: SSA denied reconsideration; an ALJ and the Appeals Council declined relief; the District of Montana affirmed SSA.
- Ninth Circuit: the court found the statutory phrase ambiguous but held SSA's contrary interpretation reasonable and persuasive under Skidmore, and therefore affirmed application of the WEP to Larson’s CSRS payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Larson) | Defendant's Argument (SSA/Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSRS pension payments to a dual-status technician qualify as a "payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service" and thus are exempt from the WEP | Larson: Technician duties are performed as a member of a uniformed service (Guard membership is required), so CSRS payments are based wholly on uniformed-service membership and are exempt | SSA: The exception applies only to payments based on military service performed in a military capacity; hybrid civilian-military technician pensions are civilian noncovered pay and not exempt | Court: Statute ambiguous; SSA’s interpretation is a permissible reading and, though not Chevron-level, is persuasive under Skidmore; WEP applies to Larson’s CSRS pension |
Key Cases Cited
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (persuasive-weight deference for agency interpretations lacking force of law)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for deference when agency regulations carry force of law)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (distinguishing Chevron and Skidmore deference factors)
- Petersen v. Astrue, 633 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2011) (held dual-status technician pensions exempt from WEP)
- Martin v. Social Security Admin. Comm’r, 903 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2018) (adopted SSA view that technician CSRS pensions are not exempt)
- Babcock v. Soc. Sec. Comm’r, 959 F.3d 210 (6th Cir. 2020) (agreed with SSA that exception does not cover dual-status technicians)
- Kientz v. Comm’r, SSA, 954 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2020) (reached same outcome as 6th Circuit)
- Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576 (2000) (agency manuals and policy statements do not carry the force of law)
- City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (recognizing agency expertise in administering complex statutory schemes)