## Facts

- Ralph Stroup worked as a police officer for the Kokomo, Indiana Police Department, a noncovered employer whose employees did not pay Social Security taxes and instead accrued benefits under a separate pension plan.
- Under the pension plan and state law, Stroup satisfied the 20-year service requirement for retirement benefits upon completing his shift ending on December 31, 1985.
- Stroup continued working for the department until March 1988 and later worked in other employment.
- The Social Security Administration found Stroup disabled and entitled to Social Security disability benefits beginning January 1, 1996.
- The agency reduced Stroup’s disability benefits under the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7), based on its determination that he first became eligible for his noncovered pension on January 1, 1986.
- An ALJ upheld the reduction, reasoning Stroup could not be pension-eligible until after he finished working on December 31, 1985; the district court affirmed.

## Issues

1. For WEP purposes, when does a worker “first become[] eligible after 1985 for a monthly periodic payment” based on noncovered employment: when the worker meets the service requirement (December 31, 1985) or when eligibility for monthly payments is treated as beginning after that date (January 1, 1986)?
2. If the statutory trigger is ambiguous, whether the Commissioner’s interpretation is reasonable and therefore entitled to deference.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding the Commissioner’s benefit calculation.
- The court held the WEP trigger phrase is ambiguous as applied to the timing dispute presented.
- Applying Chevron deference, the court accepted as reasonable the Commissioner’s interpretation treating Stroup as first eligible for a monthly periodic payment on January 1, 1986.
- Because Stroup was deemed first eligible after 1985, WEP applied and the reduced disability benefit calculation remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation questions are reviewed de novo, but an agency’s reasonable construction of an ambiguous statute it administers is entitled to deference.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7), WEP reduces the primary insurance amount for individuals who first become eligible after 1985 for a monthly periodic payment based on noncovered employment.
- When the statute does not clearly specify whether “eligibility” attaches upon meeting service requirements or upon an effective date for monthly payments, the agency may adopt a reasonable administrable interpretation consistent with the statute’s anti-windfall purpose.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the SSA’s application of WEP, concluding that the statute’s eligibility trigger is ambiguous and that the Commissioner reasonably treated Stroup as first eligible for a monthly periodic pension payment after 1985, warranting deference and sustaining the reduced disability benefits.


Stroup v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2003)