FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 11 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GAIL M. SCHNEYER, No. 12-56617
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00965-JVS-SP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 6, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District
Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Gail Schneyer appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security that the Government Pension Offset (“GPO”)
provision of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 402(k)(5)(A), applied to
Schneyer’s spousal benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 402(b), and thereby reduced her
monthly benefit payment to zero. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review the decision of the district court de novo, Edlund v. Massanari, 253
F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001), and the district court must affirm an
administrative agency’s factual conclusions so long as they are supported by
substantial evidence, but reviews decisions of law de novo, Robbins v. Soc. Sec.
Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The GPO provides that spousal benefits “shall be reduced (but not below
zero) by an amount equal to two-thirds of the amount of any monthly periodic
benefit payable to such individual for such month which is based upon such
individual's earnings while in the service of . . . any State.” 42 U.S.C. §
402(k)(5)(A). Schneyer receives a pension from the California State Teacher’s
Retirement System (CalSTRS), which was originally based on her earnings during
her employment with the Alhambra School District until her retirement in 1995. In
2000, the California Legislature created the Minimum Guarantee Monthly
Allowance (“MGMA”), Cal. Educ. Code § 24410.5, which established a minimum
-2-
pension for retired state educators, with the amount of the pension calculated based
on an employee’s length of service, regardless of salary. The passage of the
MGMA increased Schneyer’s monthly pension by approximately $95.
Schneyer argues 1) that the GPO applies only to pensions that are calculated
with reference to the amount of earnings an employee received while employed, 2)
that the MGMA is not calculated based on earnings, and 3) that because the
MGMA is higher than her previous earnings-based CalSTRS pension, the MGMA
replaced CalSTRS and made her eligible to receive spousal benefits without the
GPO. Assuming, arguendo, that her first two arguments are correct, we
nonetheless affirm the decision of the district court.1 The MGMA is not a stand-
alone pension, but an amendment to the existing CalSTRS pension regime. The
statutory provision that established the MGMA is but one chapter in a lengthy and
interconnected set of statutory provisions that set out the CalSTRS retirement
program. See Cal. Educ. Code §§ 22000-25115 (T. 1, D. 1., Pt. 13, “State
Teacher’s Retirement System”). CalSTRS informed its members of the MGMA
1
The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) contests both of the legal
theories offered by Schneyer. It argues that the GPO applies to all government
pensions, whether earnings- or service-based, and that even if the GPO applies
only to earnings-based pensions, the MGMA is in fact earnings based because it
calculates length of service based upon years of employment, which necessarily
entails at least some level of earnings. We need not reach these questions of
statutory interpretation, and will not do so here.
-3-
program by repeatedly defining it not as a new or independent program, but as an
“increase” to the existing benefits package. For these reasons, the earnings-based
nature of the overall CalSTRS pension is not affected by the addition of a single
element that turns on length of service.
Schneyer raises two other claims, both of which we reject. First, she argues
that the SSA is equitably estopped from opposing her suit because in a public
document, it restated the language of 42 U.S.C. § 402(k)(5)(A), noting that spousal
benefits would not be reduced if an otherwise eligible person is “receiving a
government pension that is not based on [that person’s] earnings.” SSA
Publication No. 05-10007. However, “[a] private party seeking estoppel against
the government must establish that: (1) affirmative misconduct going beyond mere
negligence has occurred; (2) the government's wrongful act will cause a serious
injustice; and (3) the public’s interest will not suffer undue damage by imposition
of the liability.” Weinfield v. United States, 8 F.3d 1415, 1419 (9th Cir. 1993)
(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Schneyer cannot show that any
misconduct or injustice has occurred based on the SSA’s accurate restatement of
the statute, and we decline to reverse the decision of the district court on this
ground.
-4-
Second, Schneyer requests an order that compels the SSA to release any
documents considered during the administrative review process that were not
included in the administrative record, and argues that the SSA’s prior failure to do
so violated her due process rights. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) requires the SSA to file an
administrative record with the district court, which it did. Schneyer cites no
authority for further disclosure, and we decline to enter the order she requests.
AFFIRMED.
-5-