Michener v. Kijakazi, No. 20-16834 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the SSA in a putative class action alleging that reducing the Social Security benefits of class members based on the receipt of a foreign social security pension violated the Windfall Elimination Program (WEP), its implementing regulation, and the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada with Respect to Social Security.
The panel concluded that the WEP applies to a Social Security beneficiary who receives benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore, the SSA and the district court properly interpreted the WEP and the U.S.-Canada Agreement. In this case, Plaintiff Rosell's Canadian pension was based at least in part on his earnings for noncovered service, and thus the agency correctly reduced the couple's Social Security benefits.
Court Description: Social Security. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Social Security Administration in a putative class action alleging that reducing the Social Security benefits of class members based on the receipt of a foreign social security pension violated the Windfall Elimination Program, its implementing regulation, and the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada with Respect to Social Security. Plaintiff Frances Michener is a citizen of both the United States and Canada, as was her late husband, Dr. Steven Rosell. From 1976 to 1990, they lived in Canada where Rosell worked and participated in the Canada Pension Plan. During that period, Rosell did not contribute to the Social Security system. In 1990, Rosell and Michener moved to the United States where Rosell paid Social Security taxes on his earnings until becoming disabled in 2012. Rosell then began receiving Social Security disability benefits, in addition to benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, and Michener later began receiving Social Security spousal benefits. In June 2015, the Social Security Administration notified Rosell and Michener that their benefits would be reduced under the Windfall Elimination Program (“WEP’) because Rosell “received a pension based on work not covered by MICHENER V. KIJAKAZI 3 Social Security taxes,” and sought the return of $7,194.00 for past overpayment of benefits. After seeking reconsideration and review by an administrative law judge, plaintiffs filed this putative action in federal court. WEP reduces the Social Security benefits of individuals who receive a pension for work not covered by the Social Security system. 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7). Under the WEP implementing regulation, noncovered employment includes “employment outside the United States which is not covered under the United States Social Security system.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.213(a)(3). The statute allows service in other countries, which ordinarily would not be covered by the Social Security system, to be designated as “employment”— and thereby excluded from the WEP—pursuant to a ”totalization arrangement” agreement entered into under 42 U.S.C. § 433 between the Social Security system and the corresponding system of a foreign country. Under a section 433 agreement, employment or service may result in a “period of coverage” under either the Social Security system or the foreign country’s system, “but not under both.” Id. § 433(c)(1)(B)(i). The United States and Canada have a section 433 agreement. The panel determined that nothing in the U.S.-Canada Agreement designated Rosell’s Canadian service as employment for purposes of the Social Security Act or recognized it as the equivalent of U.S. employment. The panel noted that plaintiffs’ reading of the Agreement would entitle a recipient to receive credit for service under both the U.S. and the Canadian social security systems for the same period of service, which is expressly prohibited under the Social Security Act. Likewise, if any service considered “employment” in Canada was also “employment” for purposes of U.S. Social Security, that service would be 4 MICHENER V. KIJAKAZI subject to Social Security taxes. See 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b). Rosell’s service was not. The panel concluded that the WEP applies to a Social Security beneficiary who receives benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. Because Rosell’s Canadian pension was based at least in part on his earnings for noncovered service, the agency correctly reduced the couple’s Social Security benefits.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.