Arthur Hairston, Sr. v. Railroad Retirement Board ( 2023 )

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UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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