Sanders v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Com'n
| Decision Date | 05 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-CC-01313-SCT,93-CC-01313-SCT |
| Citation | 662 So.2d 635 |
| Parties | Robert SANDERS v. MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Robert Sanders, Jackson, pro se.
Jan D. Garrick, Jackson, for appellee.
Before HAWKINS, C.J., and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr. and SMITH, JJ.
This appeal comes to us from an order of the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Judge William F. Coleman, presiding, affirming the decision of the Board of Review of the Mississippi Employment Security Commission, denying Robert Sanders unemployment benefits for any week claimed after January 2, 1993, because he was paid Social Security benefits which exceeded his weekly unemployment benefit amount. Feeling aggrieved by the decision, Sanders appeals to this Court, raising the following issues:
I. WHETHER BEING ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY BARS AN INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
II. WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SANDERS WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
Finding that unemployment compensation benefits should be offset by the amount of Social Security received when the base-period employer has contributed to the system and that Sanders' Social Security benefits did so exceed his unemployment benefits, we affirm.
In 1991, Robert Sanders ("Sanders") established eligibility for Social Security old-age benefits in the amount of $740.00 per month and began receiving benefits at that time. In October of 1991 Sanders secured employment with North Star Television in Jackson, Mississippi. He remained employed with North Star until his discharge on October 9, 1992. Sanders then filed a claim for unemployment benefits effective October 11, 1992. Sanders was denied benefits pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-513(A)(6) because his Social Security benefits exceeded his unemployment compensation benefits.
Sanders appealed the decision of the Mississippi Employment Security Commission ("Commission") to the Commission's Board of Review ("Board"). The Board found that Sanders was paid the $740.00 per month in Social Security benefits during the period he was claiming unemployment benefits in October, November, and December of 1992. However, the Social Security Administration later determined that Sanders' earnings during 1992 made him ineligible for those benefits which had been paid to him in 1992 and such payments were established as an overpayment [a]lthough claimant (Sanders) was paid Social Security benefits during the period for which he was claiming unemployment benefits in 1992, it was determined by the Social Security administration the claimant was not eligible for such social security payment in 1992 and the payments made to him has [sic] been established as an overpayment. For the purposes of the claimant's eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits, it must be held that claimant was not eligible for social security retirement benefits in 1992 and was not paid social security benefits within the meaning of the Law. The claimant would, therefore, be eligible for unemployment compensation for the weeks for which claims were properly made in 1992.
by the Social Security office. Because of his unemployment and subsequent reduction in expected income in 1993, the Social Security Administration determined that Sanders was again eligible for benefits beginning in January of 1993. In a letter to Sanders, the Social Security office stated that if the overpayment of $8545.00 was not repaid within 30 days Sanders' benefits for which he was again eligible would be withheld beginning in May 1993 until May 1994, as reimbursement for the 1992 overpayment of benefits. Because of the Social Security Administration's action the Board modified the Commission's decision finding that
The claimant is eligible for social security retirement benefits in 1993 and is being constructively paid such benefits although the claimant may not actually be receiving payments of social security benefits. Such benefits are being applied to the overpayments of benefits paid to him in 1992. He would not be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits from which he has claimed benefits in 1993 because the social security retirement benefits which are being constructively paid to him during such period exceed his weekly benefit amount of $165.00.
Sanders appealed the Board's decision to the Circuit Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County. The Circuit Court affirmed the Board's decision in an order dated October 23, 1993, stating:
the Court having read the record in detail, including briefs of parties, having heard oral argument, and being fully advised, is of the opinion that claimant is ineligible for unemployment benefits for any week after January 2, 1993, because he was paid Social Security which exceeded his weekly unemployment benefit amount.
Once again Sanders appealed, this time to this Court.
In this issue Sanders argues that the lower court erred in holding the receipt of Social Security benefits in excess of unemployment benefits for which he would otherwise be eligible disqualified him from receiving such unemployment benefits. Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-513A(6) states in pertinent part:
An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: for any week with respect to which he is receiving or has received remuneration in the form of payments under any governmental or private retirement or pension plan, system or policy which a base-period employer is maintaining or contributing to or has contributed to on behalf of the individual; provided, that if the amount payable with respect to any week is less than the benefits which would otherwise be due under Section 71-5-501, he shall be entitled to receive for such week, if otherwise eligible, benefits reduced by the amount of such remuneration.
Sanders maintains that Social Security is a form of contributory social insurance and not a "retirement or pension" as contemplated under Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-513A(6). The Commission on the other hand argues that Social Security benefits are covered under the statute and points to the holdings in a number of other jurisdictions that unemployment benefits are to be offset by Social Security benefits.
The Federal Unemployment Tax Act ("FUTA"), codified as part of the Internal Revenue Code at 26 U.S.C.A. § 3301, et seq. imposes an excise tax on employers, but allows a credit of up to 90% against the tax in the amount of the employer's contributions to the state unemployment compensation fund if that State's unemployment compensation laws are certified by the Secretary of Labor. 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 3301-3302. FUTA provides that the Secretary of Labor shall approve any State law which he finds is in compliance with the standards of § 3304. The provision at issue here reads:
§ 3304(a)(15) the amount of compensation payable to an individual for any week which begins after March 31, 1980, and which begins in a period with respect to which such individual is receiving a governmental or other pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or any other similar periodic payment which is based on the previous work of such individual shall be reduced (but not below zero) by an amount equal to the amount of such pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or other payment, which is reasonably attributable to such week except that--
(A) the requirements of this paragraph shall apply to any pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or other similar periodic payment only if--
(i) such pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or similar payment is under a plan maintained (or contributed to) by a base period employer or chargeable employer (as determined under applicable law), and
(ii) in the case of such a payment not made under the Social Security Act or the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (), services performed for such employer by the individual after the beginning of the base period (or remuneration for such services) affect eligibility for, or increase the amount of, such pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or similar payment, and
(B) the State law may provide for limitations on the amount of any such a reduction to take into account contributions made by the individual for the pension, retirement or retired pay, annuity, or other similar periodic payment....
The overwhelming majority of jurisdictions which have addressed the issue of whether 26 U.S.C.A. § 3304(a)(15)(A)(i) requires that unemployment compensation benefits be offset by the amount of Social Security benefits received by the unemployed worker have held that unemployment compensation benefits must be offset by the amount of Social Security benefits received where the base period employer contributed to the Social Security system. See Cabaniss v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 589 So.2d 440 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 3rd Dist.1991); Edwards v. Valdez, 789 F.2d 1477 (10th Cir.1986); Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority v. Barnholdt, 179 Ga.App. 312, 346 S.E.2d 105 (1986); Peare v. McFarland, 778 F.2d 354 (7th Cir.1985); Eskra v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 92 Pa.Commw. 437, 499 A.2d 722 (1985); Bowman v. Stumbo, 735 F.2d 192 (6th Cir.1984); Rivera v. Becerra, 714 F.2d 887 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1099, 104 S.Ct. 1591, 80 L.Ed.2d 124 (1984); Lowicki v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, 460 A.2d 535 (Del.1983); In re Olson, 319 N.W.2d 147 (N.D.1982); Hampton v. Daniels, 2 Ark.App. 83, 616 S.W.2d 757 (1981); Matter of Liss, 80 A.D.2d 716, 437 N.Y.S.2d 731 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.1981).
Illinois and New Mexico are in the clear minority in their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Virginia Employment Com'n v. Nunery
...Security benefits received where the base period employer contributed to the Social Security system.Sanders v. Mississippi Employment Security Commission, 662 So.2d 635, 638 (Miss.1995) (citing Cabaniss v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 589 So.2d 440 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991); Edward......
-
Lindwall v. Department of Employment, A07-1719 (Minn. App. 9/9/2008)
...a money payment during these months, there can be no doubt that he received a constructive payment. See Sanders v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 662 So.2d 635, 640 (Miss. 1995) (holding as to same argument that even though the applicant "did not actually receive Social Security benefits [du......