Das v. Sullivan

4 Citing cases

  1. Robson v. Colvin

    Case No. 15-cv-03652 NC (N.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2016)

    "Where economic and social welfare legislation is grounded in some rational basis, it is well settled that it does not offend due process simply because the classification is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality." Das v. Sullivan, 789 F. Supp. 324, 326 (N.D. Cal. 1992), aff'd sub nom. Das v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1994). Other judges have found that the Windfall Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7), is grounded on the rational basis of eliminating a retirement windfall at the expense of the Social Security Trust Fund, and is therefore constitutional.

  2. Das v. Department of Health & Human Services

    17 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that Windfall Elimination Provision comports with due process

    WIGGINS, Circuit Judge: Satyendranath Das appeals the district court's grant of a motion for summary judgment to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. 789 F. Supp. 324 (1992). The Secretary found that Das's social security retirement benefits are subject to reduction pursuant to the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7).

  3. Perez v. Colvin

    No. C 15-03012 WHA (N.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Given that the WEP is neither arbitrary nor a result of invidious discrimination, it satisfies the rational basis test and its application here did not deprive Perez of due process. See also Das v. Sullivan, 789 F.Supp. 324, 326-27 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (Judge William Ingram) (WEP did not violate due process). CONCLUSION

  4. Templeton Coal Co., Inc. v. Shalala, (S.D.Ind. 1995)

    882 F. Supp. 799 (S.D. Ind. 1995)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to the Coal Act and granting defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment

    Legislation "does not offend due process simply because the classification 'is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.'" Das v. Sullivan, 789 F. Supp. 324, 326 (N.D.Cal. 1992), aff'd, 17 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78, 31 S.Ct. 337, 340, 55 L.Ed. 369 (1911)). See also Colorado Springs, 758 F. Supp. at 10 ("There is no requirement that the burden imposed by legislation be exactly proportionate to the benefits received.").