Babcock v. Kijakazi
| Decision Date | 13 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-480 |
| Parties | DAVID BRYON BABCOCK, PETITIONER v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This case concerns retirement benefits due under the Social Security Act for a retired "military technician (dual status)," 10 U.S.C. §10216, a civilian position formerly held by David Babcock. Like all dual-status technicians, Babcock was required to maintain membership in the National Guard. For his full-time job as a technician which included work as a test pilot and pilot instructor Babcock received civil-service pay and Civil Service Retirement System pension payments from the Office of Personnel Management. For his separate National Guard service, which included part-time drills, training exercises and one active-duty deployment, Babcock received military pay and military pension payments from a different arm of the Federal Government, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Upon retirement, Babcock applied to the Social Security Administration for benefits. The agency granted Babcock benefits but applied a statutory "windfall elimination provision" and reduced the amount of benefits to reflect Babcock's receipt of civil-service pension payments for his work as a technician. Babcock sought reconsideration, arguing that the reduction should not apply because the pension payments at issue fell within a statutory exception for payments "based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service." The agency denied reconsideration, and Babcock exhausted available avenues of agency review before filing suit in federal court. The District Court upheld the agency's decision, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Held: Civil-service pension payments based on employment as a dual-status military technician are not payments based on "service as a member of a uniformed service" under 42 U.S.C. §415(a)(7)(A)(III).
Retirees receive Social Security benefits based on a progressive formula that awards a percentage of average past earnings. §415(a)(1)(A). The formula originally did not account for earnings from jobs exempt from Social Security taxes many of which provide separate pensions. In response to this potential windfall, Congress modified the formula to reduce benefits when a retiree receives such a separate pension payment. But Congress left benefits unchanged if the pension payment was "based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service." §415(a)(7)(A)(III). The National Guard of the United States is defined as a uniformed service, §410(m), so whether the uniformed-services exception applies depends on whether Babcock's technician work was service "as" a member of the National Guard.
It was not. In context, "as" is most naturally read to mean "[i]n the role, capacity, or function of." American Heritage Dictionary 106. And the statute defines the role, capacity, or function in which a technician serves as that of a civilian: "For purposes of this section and any other provision of law," a technician "is" a "civilian employee," "assigned to a civilian position" and "authorized and accounted for as" a "civilian." 10 U.S.C. §§10216(a)(1), (a)(1)(C), (a)(2). Technicians hired before 1984 like Babcock are members of the "civil service" entitled to pensions under Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which governs the pay and benefits of civil servants. See 5 U.S.C. §2101. Looking to the broader statutory context, technicians possess characteristically civilian rights to seek redress for employment discrimination and to receive workers' compensation, disability benefits, and compensatory time off for overtime work. These provisions demonstrate that Congress consistently distinguished technician employment from National Guard service.
That distinction holds true even though Babcock also served at other times in a different capacity as a member of the National Guard. His civil-service pension payments are not based on that service, for which he received separate military pension payments that do not trigger the windfall elimination provision. And a condition of employment, such as the requirement that a technician maintain Guard membership, is not the same as the capacity in which one serves. Babcock contends that the technician job's qualifications, duties, and dress code render it functionally indistinguishable from National Guard service, and that the Court should interpret "as" more loosely to capture payments for "service [in the likeness of or the same as] a member of a uniformed service." But the Court finds no reason to adopt a meaning of "as" other than the most natural one, particularly when Babcock's functional test is inconsistent with the statutory scheme. Determining whether Babcock's employment was service "as" a member of the National Guard does not turn on factors like whether he wore his uniform to work but rather on how Congress classified the position. Congress' civilian classification of dual-status technicians for "bookkeeping" purposes controls when it conies to pay and benefits. Pp. 4-7.
959 F.3d 210, affirmed.
OPINION
The Social Security Act generally reduces the benefits of retirees who receive payments from separate pensions based on employment not subject to Social Security taxes. The reduction is not triggered, though, by payments "based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service." We must decide whether this exception applies to civil-service pension payments based on employment as a "dual-status military technician"-a federal civilian employee who provides technical or administrative assistance to the National Guard. We hold that it does not.
Retirees receive Social Security benefits according to a statutory formula based on average past earnings. 42 U.S.C §415(a)(1)(A). The formula is progressive in that it awards lower earners a higher percentage of their earnings. (Think of it like an income tax that lets you keep more of your 1st dollar earned than your 10, 000th.) But the formula originally did not count earnings from jobs exempt from Social Security taxes, so it calculated artificially low earnings for retirees who spent part of their careers in those jobs. As a result, those retirees received an artificially high percentage of their calculated earnings in Social Security benefits-plus, in many cases, payments from separate pensions to boot.
Congress responded to this "windfall" by modifying the formula to reduce benefits when a retiree receives such a separate pension payment. Social Security Amendments of 1983, § 113(a), 97 Stat. 76-78, 42 U.S.C. §§415(a)(7)(A)-(B). But it exempted several categories of pension payments, including "a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service." Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994, §308(b), 108 Stat. 1522-1523, 42 U.S.C. §415(a)(7)(A)(III). The upshot is that pensions based on uniformed service do not trigger a reduction in Social Security benefits.
This case concerns the application of the windfall elimination provision to a unique position in federal employment: the "military technician (dual status)." 10 U.S.C. §10216. As its name suggests, this rare bird has characteristics of two different statuses. On one hand, the dual-status technician is a "civilian employee" engaged in "organizing, administering, instructing," "training," or "maintenance and repair of supplies" to assist the National Guard. §10216(a)(1)(C); 32 U.S.C. §§709(a)(1)-(2). On the other, the technician "is required as a condition of that employment to maintain membership in the [National Guard]" and must wear a uniform while working. 10 U.S.C. §10216(a)(1)(B); 32 U.S.C. §§709(b)(2)-(4).
This dual role means that technicians perform work in two separate capacities that yield different forms of compensation. First, they work full time as technicians in a civilian capacity. For this work, they receive civil-service pay and, if hired before 1984, Civil Service Retirement System pension payments from the Office of Personnel Management. See 5 U.S.C. §§2101, 8332(b)(6); 42 U.S.C. §410(a)(6)(A) (1970 ed.); 26 U.S.C. §3121(b)(6)(A) (1970 ed.).[1] Second, they participate as National Guard members in part-time drills, training, and (sometimes) active-duty deployment. See 32 U.S.C. §§502(a), 709(g)(2). For this work, they receive military pay and pension payments from a different arm of the Federal Government, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. See 37 U.S.C. §§204, 206; 10 U.S.C. §113.
David Babcock worked as a dual-status technician from 1975 to 2009. In his technician capacity, he worked full time as a test pilot and pilot instructor supporting the Michigan Army National Guard. Like all dual-status technicians, Babcock also served in the National Guard himself. In that capacity he participated in part-time training and weekend drills, and he deployed to Iraq on active duty for about a year. From 2009 to 2014, he worked for a private employer flying helicopters.
After retiring, Babcock applied to the Social Security Administration for benefits. The agency granted his application but determined that his civil-service pension payments, which he received for his work as a civilian technician, triggered the windfall elimination provision. So the agency applied the modified formula to reduce his Social Security benefits by about $100 per month. Babcock sought reconsideration, arguing that his pension payments fell within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial