Over the past two decades, class action lawsuits against Social Security have forced the agency to waive billions in pandemic-era SSI overpayments, restore benefits stripped under an overbroad felony-warrant rule, order rehearings for thousands of disability claimants denied by biased judges, fix a computer error that miscounted early deposits as resources, pay $22.7 million to Black male employees at headquarters, and defend recent staffing cuts and data-sharing under the Department of Government Efficiency. The cases below are the ones most likely to matter if you receive Social Security or SSI, work for the agency, or were denied benefits in the last several years.
Campos v. Kijakazi: Pandemic SSI Overpayments
Campos is the largest recent case affecting current beneficiaries. Filed in September 2021 in the Eastern District of New York, the lawsuit challenged the SSA’s efforts to recover SSI overpayments that built up in early 2020, when field offices were closed and manual processing was suspended. Justice in Aging, the New York Legal Assistance Group, and Arnold & Porter argued the streamlined waiver process was arbitrary and that procedural barriers kept people from asking for relief they were entitled to.1Justice in Aging. Campos et al. v. Kijakazi Settlement Agreement: What SSI Advocates Need to Know
The court approved the settlement on November 20, 2023, and it became final on January 20, 2024. It covers more than two million SSI recipients.2Social Security Administration. Campos v. Kijakazi Settlement Information The main terms:
- SSI overpayments incurred between March and September 2020 that were manually processed are waived automatically. If you already repaid one, you get a refund treated as an “underpayment.” Cases involving fraud, representative payee misuse, or overpayments already reversed are excluded.3Justice in Aging. Campos v. Kijakazi Settlement Information for Advocates
- For overpayments from October 2020 through April 2023, the SSA issued internal guidance directing staff to weigh COVID-related circumstances — office closures, illness, travel restrictions, inability to reach the agency — when deciding whether a recipient was “at fault.”2Social Security Administration. Campos v. Kijakazi Settlement Information
- You can still file a standard waiver request on Form SSA-632 or pursue individual appeals. There is no deadline for submitting a waiver application.1Justice in Aging. Campos et al. v. Kijakazi Settlement Agreement: What SSI Advocates Need to Know
The SSA began mailing settlement notices on February 12, 2025, staggered over 13 weeks, with final notices expected by June 2025. Most automatic waivers have been applied through SSA systems, though some cases require manual processing by field office staff.4Social Security Administration. Campos v. Kijakazi Emergency Message
Martinez v. Astrue: Felony Warrant Benefit Suspensions
For years the SSA suspended or denied Social Security, SSI, and Special Veterans Benefits based on any outstanding felony arrest warrant. Martinez v. Astrue, filed in the Northern District of California, challenged that policy on behalf of elderly and disabled people who were not fleeing anything. Some had been misidentified; others had warrants for minor matters unrelated to flight.5Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Martinez v. Astrue
The court approved the settlement on September 24, 2009. Effective April 1, 2009, the SSA narrowed the warrants that can trigger a suspension to three specific codes: flight to avoid prosecution or confinement, escape from custody, and flight-escape. Parole and probation violation warrants no longer qualify.6Social Security Administration. Martinez Settlement Information
For people whose benefits were suspended or denied on or after January 1, 2007, the agency reinstated benefits, paid back withheld amounts to the first month of suspension, and refunded any overpayments it had collected. For those affected between 2000 and 2006, the agency stopped collecting overpayments and erased remaining balances tied to the old rule.7Social Security Administration. Martinez Settlement Notice The class included more than 100,000 people.5Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Martinez v. Astrue
Padro v. Colvin: Biased Disability Judges in Queens
Padro targeted five Administrative Law Judges at the Queens Office of Disability Adjudication and Review — Michael D. Cofresi, Seymour Fier, Marilyn P. Hoppenfeld, David Z. Nisnewitz, and Hazel C. Strauss — alleging general bias against disability claimants in their decisions on SSDI and SSI benefits.8Social Security Administration. Padro Settlement Notice
The Chief Judge of the Eastern District of New York approved the settlement on October 18, 2013. More than 4,000 claimants denied by those five judges gained the right to new hearings before different, independent ALJs.9NY Disability Law. Queens, New York ALJ Bias Class Action Settlement Approved by Court The five judges had to complete remedial training, and their decisions were reviewed by a special Appeals Council unit for 30 months. If a decision during monitoring was remanded, the case went to a different judge.8Social Security Administration. Padro Settlement Notice
Ershteyn v. Berryhill: Early-Deposit Miscalculation
When the first of the month lands on a weekend or holiday, SSI benefits arrive a day or two early. The SSA’s computers were counting that early deposit as a “resource” in the following month, pushing some recipients over the SSI asset limit and cutting them off or reducing their payments. NYLAG filed Ershteyn v. Berryhill in the Eastern District of New York in 2018, arguing the practice violated federal law and the agency’s own policies.10New York Legal Assistance Group. NYLAG Sues to Stop Widespread Social Security Mistake That Harms Recipients
The case settled in April 2020. By October 30, 2020, the SSA implemented a national “hard-stop” that blocks an employee from proceeding with a case if they fail to properly account for an early-deposited benefit. The agency also added staff training and simplified the computer interface for early-deposit months.11Empire Justice Center. Disability Law News – Ershteyn Settlement Update Roughly 8.1 million people receive SSI, so the fix reached far beyond the named plaintiffs.10New York Legal Assistance Group. NYLAG Sues to Stop Widespread Social Security Mistake That Harms Recipients
LNP v. Bisignano: Children of Early Retirees
LNP v. Bisignano, in the Eastern District of Virginia, challenges how the SSA calculates auxiliary benefits for the minor children of a parent who claims Social Security before full retirement age. The complaint argues the agency uses the retiree’s full Primary Insurance Amount when deciding whether a family has hit the family maximum benefit cap, rather than the smaller amount the early retiree actually receives. That inflates the calculation and shortchanges the children.12LNP Class Action. LNP v. Bisignano FAQ
On May 30, 2025, District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff certified a class of children of early retirees who were receiving benefits between May 10, 2024, and May 30, 2025 — more than 102,000 people.13Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. LNP v. Bisignano Consent Motion for Notice Approval The court ruled the SSA’s calculation is wrong, and on April 27, 2026, entered a Final Judgment Order directing the agency to use “actually payable benefits” rather than theoretically available benefits. An Amended Final Judgment followed on May 22, 2026. There is no settlement, and the SSA has indicated it intends to seek authority to appeal. A hearing on attorneys’ fees, with class counsel seeking up to 25% of past-due benefits recovered, is scheduled for July 10, 2026.14LNP Class Action. LNP v. Bisignano Case Updates
Hart v. Colvin: A Disqualified Doctor’s Reports
Hart v. Colvin was filed in February 2015 in the Northern District of California on behalf of Bay Area disability claimants whose benefits were denied or terminated based on medical reports by Dr. Frank Chen. The SSA had removed Dr. Chen from its consultative examiner panel in December 2013 for unprofessional conduct and failure to correct deficiencies. According to the complaint, his examinations often lasted ten minutes or less, referenced tests that were never performed, and contradicted existing medical records — but the agency never told the affected beneficiaries.15Justice in Aging. Plaintiffs Deprived of Disability Benefits File Lawsuit Against Social Security for Using Faulty Medical Reports
The suit sought to force the SSA to reopen every determination that relied on Dr. Chen’s reports, notify the people affected, and provide new examinations. The court granted class certification on October 9, 2015.16vLex. Hart v. Colvin, Case No. 15-cv-00623-JST
Greenberg v. Colvin: Windfall Elimination for Israeli Benefits
Greenberg v. Colvin (No. 1:13-cv-01837-RMC) covered beneficiaries whose OASDI payments were reduced or who were assessed overpayments after the SSA applied the Windfall Elimination Provision based on their receipt of Old Age Benefits from Israel’s National Insurance Institute. Unlike most SSA class actions, this one required class members to act: to receive relief, you had to request a “Settlement Claim Review” of your SSA records by June 22, 2017, by phone, by mail, or through class counsel at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. Dedicated phone lines were set up in the United States, Israel, Chile, South Africa, and the United Kingdom for beneficiaries living abroad.17Social Security Administration. Greenberg v. Colvin Detailed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement
Wilkerson v. SSA: Discrimination at Headquarters
Not every class action against the SSA is about benefits. Wilkerson et al. v. SSA, which originated in 2007, alleged the agency discriminated against African American male employees at its Woodlawn, Maryland headquarters in the distribution of monetary awards, bonuses, and worker compensation, with a disparate impact on Black men at the GS-14 level and below.18WBAL-TV. Social Security Administration Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
The EEOC granted final class certification in April 2022 after rejecting the SSA’s appeal. An EEOC administrative judge later approved a $22.7 million settlement fund covering African American men who worked at SSA headquarters at any time between 2003 and 2023. Notice went out to class members on December 1, 2023. The agreement also requires the SSA to report on all award and bonus decisions at headquarters for two years.19FedWeek. Settlement Approved in SSA Class Action Discrimination Suit
Wilkerson followed a related matter, Jefferson v. SSA (formerly Burden v. Barnhart), in which the EEOC found the SSA had breached a 2003 settlement that included $6.35 million in relief and commitments to merit-based awards. The EEOC ordered that African American men employed at headquarters from April 2003 through September 2005 were “presumptively entitled” to the average awards received by the general workforce, valuing relief at $2,298.23 per class member. That figure was upheld on appeal in 2019.20Social Security Administration. Kator Parks – SSA Class Action
DOGE-Era Staffing Cuts and Data Access
A newer wave of litigation targets the restructuring of the SSA under the Department of Government Efficiency. In April 2025, a coalition including the American Association of People with Disabilities, the National Federation of the Blind, Deaf Equality, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare filed AAPD v. SSA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit challenges the termination of roughly 7,000 employees (cutting the workforce from 57,000 to 50,000), the closure of internal offices including the Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity, and policies requiring in-person field office visits that plaintiffs say are inaccessible to people with disabilities. It alleges violations of the Rehabilitation Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and constitutional due process protections, and asks the court to halt further cuts and reinstate wrongfully terminated employees.21American Association of People with Disabilities. AAPD Sues SSA and DOGE
AFSCME v. SSA, filed in the District of Maryland in February 2025, concerns DOGE personnel’s access to sensitive, non-anonymized Social Security data. The district court granted a preliminary injunction limiting that access; the Fourth Circuit en banc declined to stay it by a 9–6 vote; the Supreme Court then stayed the injunction on June 6, 2025, pending further proceedings.22Supreme Court of the United States. SSA v. AFSCME, No. 24A1063 On April 10, 2026, the Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm. The court acknowledged the government had admitted to sharing SSA data through an unauthorized third-party server and potentially with a political advocacy group, and remanded the case so those disclosures could be considered.23Justia. AFSCME v. SSA, No. 25-1411
How SSA Class Actions Usually Work
Most class actions against the SSA are certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), which covers cases seeking injunctive or declaratory relief that applies to the class as a whole. In practice, that means membership is automatic. You do not need to opt in, and in many cases you cannot opt out.
Because these cases usually seek systemic fixes rather than individual damages, settlements center on administrative changes: revised guidance, computer system corrections, new hearing procedures, or automatic waivers. When money is involved, it often flows automatically. The Campos settlement, for example, requires no paperwork from beneficiaries to trigger automatic waivers or refunds.2Social Security Administration. Campos v. Kijakazi Settlement Information Greenberg was an exception, requiring class members to submit a review request.17Social Security Administration. Greenberg v. Colvin Detailed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement
Implementation is often slow. The SSA typically posts settlement information on dedicated pages at ssa.gov and mails individual notices. If you think you fall within a class but have not received notice, checking the case’s SSA page or contacting class counsel is usually the next step. Class settlements do not cut off your right to pursue an individual waiver or appeal through the standard administrative process, even if the class-wide relief does not fully solve your case.