Opinion ID: 3173556
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Overview of the WEP and the GPO

Text: “The WEP was enacted in 1983 to eliminate the unintended benefits windfall that occurs when workers who split their career between covered employment (required to pay Social Security taxes) and non-covered employment (exempt from Social Security taxes).” Petersen v. Astrue, 633 F.3d 633, 634 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 415). “The reason behind the WEP was that an individual who had been employed as a [government] employee with pension benefits and also was entitled to Social Security retirement benefits would receive a windfall because he would be eligible for both Social Security and [government] pension payments.” Ward v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 211 F.3d 652, 655 (1st Cir. 2000). “An employment history of this nature gave the appearance of low lifetime earnings for the purposes of calculating social security benefits, thus resulting in a relatively high payment under the [agency’s] weighted formula that did not take into account the individual’s receipt of a [government] pension.” Rudykoff v. Apfel, 193 F.3d 579, 581 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam). Consequently, the WEP “provides that the primary insurance amount for [an individual who has worked for both covered and non-covered wages] be computed using a modified formula.” Stroup v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2003). The “substantial earnings exception,” however, provides that the WEP does not apply to an individual who has 30 years or more of covered 3 employment, as defined by statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(1)(C)(ii), (a)(7)(D); 20 C.F.R. § 404.213(e)(5).1 The GPO reduces the monthly spouse’s benefit to an individual who also receives a pension for non-covered work. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(k)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.408a(a), (d).