Court Opinion

ID: 9411790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 21:00:55.117565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:13.258265
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2169      Doc: 17         Filed: 07/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2169

        ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR.,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,

                            Respondent.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Railroad Retirement Board. (21-AP-0013)

        Submitted: July 18, 2023                                          Decided: July 26, 2023

        Before KING, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se. Eunice Chung Kirk, UNITED STATES
        RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD, Chicago, Illinois, for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2169       Doc: 17          Filed: 07/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., seeks review of the Railroad Retirement Board’s (“RRB”)

        decision affirming the hearings officer’s determination that Hairston does not have the

        service credits required for eligibility for an annuity. Hairston argues that the 2001

        amendments to the Railroad Retirement Act (“RRA”), 45 U.S.C. § 231a, lowering the

        service requirements for certain retirees but not others violated his right to equal protection.

        In addition, he asserts that the hearings officer’s failure to hold a hearing was a violation

        of his due process. We deny the petition for review.

               Prior to 2001, the RRA stated that individuals were entitled to an annuity if, among

        other things, they had ten years of service. In 2001, Congress enacted The Railroad

        Retirement and Survivor’s Improvement Act of 2001 (“RRSIA”), P.L. 107-90, § 103,

        which amended the RRA and provided that a railroad employee with less than 10 years of

        service, but at least 5 years of service after December 31, 1995, was eligible for an annuity.

        Hairston had 60 months of service between 1977 and 1988, and he asserts that the differing

        service requirements are unconstitutional.

               Discrimination against workers who do not have five years of service after 1995 is

        not based on a characteristic such as race or sex that would trigger strict or heightened

        judicial scrutiny. Burns v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 701 F.2d 193, 199 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Thus,

        as Hairston acknowledges, the “rational basis” criteria applies, and accordingly, there is a

        “significant presumption of constitutionality.” See id. As such, our inquiry ends if there

        are “plausible reasons” for Congress’s actions. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166,

        179 (1980); see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 83–84 (1976) (holding that the “task

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2169        Doc: 17        Filed: 07/26/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        of classifying persons for . . . benefits . . . inevitably requires that some persons who have

        an almost equally strong claim to favored treatment be placed on different sides of the

        line”).

                  Here, the RRSIA increased retirement and disability benefits for employees and

        their spouses. It also overhauled how such benefits are financed. The statute was based

        on a joint recommendation negotiated by a coalition of rail labor organizations and rail

        freight carriers. Presumably then, Congress sought to increase benefits while keeping the

        program solvent. No benefits, including Hairston’s, were reduced. Instead, certain

        nonretroactive increases were made to retirement benefits for current or recent employees.

        We can surmise that such was done, at least in part, to make these jobs more appealing and

        to increase recruitment and retention. To do the same for employees who had not recently

        worked for a railroad would arguably be cost prohibitive and not meet the presumed goals

        of recruitment and retention. Given that these reasons are plausible, Hairston’s equal

        protection claim is without merit. See Fritz, 449 U.S. at 179 (noting that it is irrelevant

        whether the “plausible reasons” are the actual legislative intent).

                  Hairston next argues that the RRB’s failure to hold a hearing denied him due

        process. However, Hairston did not and does not challenge the RRB’s factual findings

        regarding his service computation. Thus, the only issues before the RRB were whether his

        service credits were sufficient to render him eligible for an annuity and whether the relevant

        statute violated his rights to equal protection. Because these are strictly questions of law

        that were, in fact, considered by all tiers of administrative review, Hairston received all the

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2169      Doc: 17        Filed: 07/26/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        process to which he was entitled. See Steebe v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd., 708 F.2d 250, 258 (7th

        Cir. 1983).

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We grant the RRB’s motion to seal.

        We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                             PETITION DENIED

                                                    4