PENSION

Babcock v. Kijakazi

Issues

Under the Social Security Act’s Windfall Elimination Provision, does the uniform-services exemption apply to Civil Service Retirement System payments derived from service as a dual-status technician?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the uniformed services exemption under the Social Security Act applies to the Civil Service Retirement System pensions of dual-status technicians. Petitioner David Babcock argues that the entirety of his service as a dual-status technician was as a uniformed member of the National Guard and he thus should entirely fall under the exemption. The Social Security Administration, under Acting Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi, argues that the portion of Babcock’s service as a dual-status technician that was compensated by the Civil Service Retirement System pension was performed in his capacity as a civilian employee and therefore it should not fall under the exemption. The outcome of this case will impact the benefits available to dual-status technicians and clarify the distinction between dual-status technicians and other military personnel.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a civil service pension received for federal civilian employment as a “militarytechnician (dual status)” is “a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” for the purposes of the Social Security Act’s windfall elimination provision.

From 1975 to 2014, Petitioner David Babcock (“Babcock”) was employed as a National Guard dual-status technician. Babcock v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. at 1–2. A dual-status technician, under 10 U.S.C. § 10216(a)(1) and 32 U.S.C.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Jed Stiglitz for his guidance and insights

into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund

Issues

Does 29 U.S.C. § 1391 require actuaries of multiemployer pension plans to calculate a withdrawing employer’s liability based on actuarial assumptions made before the last day of the year? 

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider the deadline by which 29 U.S.C. § 1391 requires multiemployer pension plans to calculate the liability an employer would have should they choose to withdraw from that plan. The Employers argue that the plain text of § 1391 supports a bright-line rule that requires multiemployer pension plan actuaries to calculate the unfunded vested benefits, or the plan’s underfunding, as of the end of the year prior to the year a given employer withdraws from the plan. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund argue that because § 1391 is silent on the date as of which actuarial assumptions must be calculated, unlike other statutes addressing similar subject matters, that silence is controlling. The Employers further argue that Congress intended the statute to provide employers information about their potential withdrawal liability, which limits the information actuaries can use in determining this liability. The Trustees counter that Congress did not intend for employers to have advanced notice of the assumptions an actuary will use to calculate withdrawal liability, nor is it practical to do so. This case will directly impact how employers make business decisions related to multiemployer pension plans. Additionally, this case raises fairness concerns related to who will bear the risks when employers withdraw from multiemployer pension plans.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether 29 U.S.C. § 1391’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information available as of, the end of the year.

Four employers, M & K Employee Solutions, LLC, Ohio Magnetics, Inc., Phillips Liquidating Trust, and Toyota Logistics Services, Inc. (collectively “the Employers”), withdrew from the IAM National Pension Fund at different times in 2018. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund v. M & K Employee Solutions, LLC (D.C.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to PENSION