Legal Definition of Social Security Law

According to subsection 7(b), an authority requiring individuals to disclose their social security number must inform individuals whether disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what legal or other authority that number is requested, and what use it will be made. See Crawford v. U.S. Trustee, 194 F.3d 954, 961-62 (9th Cir. 1999) (rejecting the government`s argument that disclosure of the applicant`s Social Security Number is expressly required by federal law and section 7 is totally unenforceable, stating that “the exclusion in section 7(a)(2)(A) for federal statutes applies only to the limitation in section 7(a)(1)”), and the conclusion that the notification requirements of section 7(b) “do not affect the publication of the applicant`s social security number […] […] by the government”, which was only challenged); Alcaraz v. Block, 746 F.2d 593, 608-09 (9. Cir. 1984) (finding that the notification requirement in paragraph 7(b) is met if the Agency “has informed participants of the voluntary nature of the disclosure, the source of the authority, and the possible uses for which the disclosed numbers may be used”); GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., No. 1:09-CV-594, 2009 WL 5033444, at*9-10 (N.D. Ga.

December 14, 2009) (Concluding that “one or both defendants violated section 7(b)” when officers “asked [the applicant] for his identification card, firearms license, and social security number. But neither agent told [the applicant] whether he had to provide his Social Security number, on what authority they relied to request the number, or what the number would be used for”); Szymecki, 2008 WL 4223620, at *9 (finding that the plaintiff filed a Section 7 claim, alleging that the city threatened to arrest and detain him if he did not provide his social security number, and that the city did not tell him why it needed a number or how it would be used); Russell v. Bd. of Plumbing Exam`rs, 74 F. Supp. 2d 339, 347 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (finding a violation of section 7 and ordering an injunction if the defendants did not inform the petitioners that the provision of the social security number was optional, that they also did not grant a legal power of attorney from which the number was requested, and that there was no legal authority); Greidinger v. Davis, 782 F. Supp. 1106, 1108-09 (E.D. Va.

1992) (finding a violation of the Data Protection Act if the State failed to give timely notice in accordance with section 7(b) when collecting the Social Security Number for voter registration), revised and remanded in custody for other reasons, 988 F.2d 1344 (4th Cir. 1993); Oakes v. IRS, No. 86-2804, 1987 WL 10227, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 1987) (noting that the agency requiring the person to disclose his or her Social Security number was required to notify the person under section 7(b) but was not required to publish a notice in the Federal Register); Doyle v. Wilson, 529 F. Supp.

1343, 1348-50 (D. Del. 1982) (finding that the requirements of paragraph 7(b) are not met unless positive efforts are made to disclose the information required under paragraph 7(b) “no later than the time the number is requested”); Doe v. Sharp, 491 F. Supp. 346, 347-50 (D. Mass. 1980) (following Green and McElrath with respect to article 7(a); the conclusion of Article 7(b) establishes a positive obligation for the authorities to inform the applicant of the use of social security numbers – “ex post declarations” are not sufficient); and Chambers v.

Klein, 419 F. Supp. 569, 580 (D.N.J. 1976) (following Green, McElrath and Doe v. Sharp in relation to paragraph 7(a); Finding that section 7(b) was not violated if the Agency failed to inform the applicants of the Social Security Numbers because the State had not begun to use them prior to the full implementation of the law requiring their disclosure), aff`d, 564 F.2d 89 (3d Cir. 1977) (decision not published on the table). See Gonzalez, 671 et seq.3d p. 663-64 (concluding that qualified immunity shielded police officers from liability when officers “asked [the applicant] for his social security number” but “did not provide him with the information listed in section 7(b)”, since “the obligation of public servants to make disclosures under section 7(b) was not clearly established at the time of the applicant`s arrest”); Doe v. Herman, Nr. 297CV00043, 1999 WL 1000212, at *9 (W.D. Va.

Oct. 29, 1999) (Magistrate`s recommendation) (citing Doe v. Sharp and paragraph (e)(3)) for the proposition that “if an agency applies for a Social Security number, it must inform the person of its use”), adopted in the relevant part and revised in another part (W.D. Va. 24 July 2000), partly chartered, partly revised and dismissed for other reasons. Chao, 306 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2002), aff`d, 540 U.S. 615 (2004).

(b) Any federal, state, or local authority that requires a person to disclose his or her Social Security account number must inform that person whether such disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what legal or other authority such number is requested, and what use it will be made. Section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Disclosure of Social Security Number)). To constitute a violation of section 7, an agency must not only require a person to disclose a Social Security number, but also deny that person a “right, benefit, or privilege” because the person refuses to disclose the Social Security number. See, for example, El-Bey v. N.C. Vol. of Nursing, No. 1:09CV753, 2009 WL 5220166, p.

*2 (M.D.N.C. 31 December 2009) (rejection of the plaintiff`s Privacy Act/Social Security Act because “the plaintiff only alleges that the defendants requested his number, not that they denied him a legal right because of their non-disclosure in order to potentially violate data protection law”); Johnson v. Fleming, No. 95 Civ. 1891, 1996 WL 502410, at *1, 3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 1996) (finding a violation of section 7(b) of the notification requirement or section 7(a)(1) because the plaintiff failed to prove that the police officer denied a “right, benefit or privilege” when the plaintiff refused to provide the police officer with his Social Security number). Section 208. A person`s right to future payment under this Title is not transferable or assignable at law or in equity, and none of the amounts paid or payable or duties under this Title shall be subject to enforcement, delivery, seizure, seizure or any other legal proceeding or the application of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.

“Social Security Act”. Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/Social%20Security%20Act. Retrieved 5 November 2022. A federal program designed to provide employees and their dependents with income-related benefits for retirement, disability and other purposes. The Social Security program is funded by a federal tax levied on employers and employees. In the United States, the Social Security Program (42 U.S.C. 401 ff.) was established in 1935 to provide old-age, survivors` and disability insurance benefits to workers and their families. Unlike social assistance, social security benefits are paid to an individual or his or her family, at least in part, on the basis of his or her employment history and previous contributions to the scheme. The program is administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA). Since the inception of the Medicare program in 1965, it and Social Security have been closely linked. While the original law used “Social Security” in a broader sense, including government-funded welfare programs and unemployment benefits within its scope, and the Medicare legislature took the form of amendments to that law, current usage associates the term with old age, survivors, and disability insurance.

One major law that requires disclosure of Social Security numbers is the Social Security Act (SSA), which expressly allows a state agency to use Social Security numbers for the purpose of identifying individuals “in the administration of tax, general public assistance, driver`s license, or motor vehicle registration laws in its jurisdiction.” see 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(i) (2018). The SSA also allows a state agency to use Social Security numbers to issue birth certificates and enforce child support orders, the Secretary of Agriculture to use Social Security numbers in the administration of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to use them in the administration of the federal Crop Insurance Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(c)(2)(C)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv). Several courts have interpreted section 7(a)(2)(A) as creating an exception to the general requirement that a person cannot be denied a benefit if he or she has not disclosed a social security number. See Tankersley v. Almand, 837 F.3d 390, 398-399 (4th Cir. 2016) (indicating that the Tax Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 405(c)(2)(c)(i), which allows states to require a person “affected or appears to be affected by the administration of a tax law in its jurisdiction” to disclose the person`s social security number, allowed Maryland to compel the plaintiff to provide his or her Social Security number to the Maryland Bar Association`s Client Protection Fund “or face suspension of his attorney`s license.” Peterson v. City of Detroit, 76 F. App`x 601, 602 (6th Cir.

2003) (rejecting the complainant`s allegation that the City had violated Article 7 of the Data Protection Act by denying him a taxi licence because he had not provided his social security number, on the grounds that “to the extent that [Article 7 of the Data Protection Act] refers to the `privilege` at issue in the present case, [the rejection of the applicant`s application] was replaced by a subsequent amendment to the Social Security Act”); Stoianoff v. Comm`r of the DMV, 12 F. App`x 33, 35 (2d Cir. 2001) (concluding that the applicant`s request under the Privacy Act would be denied because 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(i) “expressly authorizes states to require disclosure of Social Security numbers when administering driver`s license programs” and further provides that “any federal law that conflicts with this section is “void, void, and ineffective”); McElrath v.