Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Two employees of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, classified as deputy sheriff II, opted to remain working in jail operations after a departmental reorganization in 2008. Deputies assigned to jail operations worked a mandatory “platoon schedule,” which included a built-in half-hour of overtime (coded as “6FE”) every two weeks. Upon their retirement in 2018, these deputies petitioned to have the 6FE overtime pay included in their pension calculation, arguing it was part of their regular compensation.Their requests were initially denied by the Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS), which concluded that the 6FE overtime was not “compensation earnable” under the applicable statute because it was not ordinarily worked by all individuals in the deputy sheriff II classification. After an administrative hearing, a hearing officer recommended granting the petitioners’ request. However, the OCERS Board of Retirement rejected this recommendation and excluded the 6FE overtime from the retirement calculations, reasoning that only deputies assigned to jail operations worked this overtime and that the relevant statutory language required comparison with all deputy sheriff II’s, not subgroups.The petitioners sought review in the Superior Court of Orange County, which granted writs of administrative and traditional mandamus. The court found that deputy sheriff II’s working in jail operations constituted a separate grade or class from those working patrol, and that the 6FE overtime was part of the normal working hours for all jail deputies. The court ordered OCERS to include the 6FE overtime in the pension calculations, both retroactively and prospectively.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that deputy sheriff II’s working in jail operations are a distinct grade or class, and the 6FE overtime is “compensation earnable” under Government Code section 31461, subdivision (a), requiring its inclusion in the retirement benefit calculation. View "Szewczyk v. Orange County Employees Retirement System" on Justia Law

A divorced couple with a special-needs adult daughter became involved in a dispute over the calculation of child and spousal support. The father, after losing his high-paying job, sought to reduce his support obligations. The mother, who is the primary caregiver for their daughter and works part-time as an instructional aide and as an in-home caregiver for the daughter through the In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, objected. She argued that her IHSS payments should not be counted as her income in calculating support, and she contended that the father’s substantial assets and lifestyle indicated that his actual income was higher than reported.The Superior Court of San Diego County consolidated the parties’ motions and held a hearing. The court determined that, although the daughter had reached adulthood, she remained incapacitated and was entitled to continued support. The court calculated the father’s income based on unemployment benefits and later self-employment, and the mother’s income as including both her instructional aide wages and her IHSS payments. The court found that, due to insufficient evidence of the father’s assets’ value or liquidity, it would not include them as part of his income. The court adjusted the father’s support obligations downward but did not terminate them. The mother appealed these orders.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the lower court’s orders. The appellate court held that IHSS payments received by a parent for providing care to their child are not excluded from gross income under Family Code section 4058(c), as the child, not the parent, is the statutory recipient of the needs-based public assistance. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the father’s income and deciding not to impute additional income from his assets. View "Marriage of R.M. and P.N." on Justia Law

After her 18th birthday, a young woman with severe disabilities, requiring 24-hour care and living in a subacute facility since infancy, was placed under extended foster care as a nonminor dependent. She had no family contact and lacked the mental capacity to make independent decisions. Her county child welfare agency regularly submitted reports and transitional independent living plans, documenting her progress and confirming her continued eligibility for extended foster care. The agency recommended continued jurisdiction, especially while her application for supplemental security income was pending, and later reported plans for her care to be managed by a regional center as she approached adulthood.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County repeatedly found that she was making satisfactory progress toward her care goals and met the requirements to remain a nonminor dependent. The court ordered continued jurisdiction until, in a subsequent review, the agency recommended dismissal, citing the transition of her care to the regional center. Following a contested hearing, despite arguments from her counsel and guardian ad litem for continued court oversight, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction. The court reasoned that ongoing jurisdiction was not in her best interest, finding no further benefit to her from county oversight given her new care arrangements.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the appeal. The court held that the juvenile court applied the wrong legal standard by terminating jurisdiction based on a subjective best interest determination instead of the statutory criteria. Under section 391, jurisdiction over a nonminor dependent may only be terminated if the nonminor does not wish to remain under jurisdiction, is not participating in a reasonable transitional plan, or cannot be located. None of these circumstances applied. The appellate court therefore reversed the termination order and directed reinstatement of jurisdiction. View "In re Violet S." on Justia Law

A former court reporter who worked for nearly four decades for a California county discovered, as she approached retirement, that the county had failed to enroll her in the state retirement system (CalPERS) for several years early in her employment. Upon learning this, she attempted to secure a complete employment record from the county, which CalPERS required to adjust her retirement benefits. The county failed to provide complete records, reportedly due to records being lost or destroyed, and provided only incomplete information to CalPERS. This left her unable to purchase prior service credit or receive full retirement benefits, causing her financial harm and forcing her to delay retirement.After filing a claim with the county and receiving no response, the plaintiff brought multiple causes of action in the Humboldt County Superior Court, including alleged violations of statutory duties and negligence against the county and individual employees. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrers, dismissing all statutory claims without leave to amend and granting leave to amend only the negligence claim. When the plaintiff submitted an amended complaint limited to negligence, the trial court again sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding no statutory duty supported the claim.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that the plaintiff had stated valid causes of action against the county for violation of mandatory statutory duties to maintain personnel records and to enroll eligible employees in CalPERS under Government Code section 815.6. The court also held, in an unpublished portion, that the plaintiff stated a viable negligence claim against the individual defendants, with the county potentially vicariously liable. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of these claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gibbs v. County of Humboldt" on Justia Law

A participant in the federal Section 8 housing assistance program received notice from the local housing authority that her benefits would be terminated based on several alleged violations, including a recent eviction for serious lease violations, untimely submission of eligibility documentation, failure to allow an inspection, and failure to maintain her unit. The participant contested the termination, explaining that her appeal of the eviction was still pending and that she ultimately complied with inspection and paperwork requirements.At the administrative hearing, the hearing officer concluded that because a court-ordered eviction had occurred and, according to the officer, had been upheld on appeal, termination of assistance was mandatory under federal regulations. The participant then petitioned the Superior Court of Riverside County for a writ of administrative mandamus, arguing that the finding regarding her eviction was factually incorrect, as the appeal was still pending. Soon after, the appellate division of the Riverside County Superior Court reversed the eviction judgment for insufficient evidence. The trial court acknowledged that the hearing officer’s findings regarding the eviction were not supported by the record. However, it proceeded to independently review the evidence and found other violations of program obligations, upholding the housing authority’s discretionary decision to terminate benefits.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, found that the trial court misunderstood the scope of judicial review under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The appellate court held that the trial court was required to review whether the administrative agency’s factual findings—not any alternative grounds—were supported by the record. Since the hearing officer’s findings were unsupported and the court could not uphold termination based on new grounds not adjudicated at the administrative hearing, the judgment was reversed with instructions to grant the petition and vacate the termination of assistance. View "Harrington v. Housing Authority of Riverside County" on Justia Law

A former employee of the County of San Diego pleaded guilty to a felony charge for violating a state conflict-of-interest law, which prohibits public employees from having a financial interest in contracts made in their official capacity. After the guilty plea, but before sentencing, the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association (SDCERA) notified him that a portion of his accrued pension benefits would be forfeited under Government Code section 7522.74, as he had been “convicted” of a job-related felony. At sentencing, the criminal court reduced the offense to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b)(3). The employee then requested reinstatement of his pension benefits, which SDCERA denied.The employee challenged SDCERA’s denial through administrative appeals, including to its chief executive officer and Board of Retirement, but both appeals were denied. He subsequently petitioned the Superior Court of San Diego County for a writ of administrative mandate to set aside SDCERA’s decision. The court denied the petition, finding that section 7522.74 precluded reinstatement of the forfeited pension benefits. The employee timely appealed the judgment.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that a public employee is “convicted” for purposes of Government Code section 7522.74 upon an adjudication of guilt—whether by plea or jury verdict—and not only upon entry of judgment. The reduction of the felony to a misdemeanor at sentencing under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b)(3), did not retroactively affect the forfeiture. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the employee’s pension benefits remained forfeited, and SDCERA properly denied reinstatement. View "Bishop v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn." on Justia Law

The appellant, a Ventura County Deputy Sheriff, suffered two work-related back injuries in 2014 and 2015. Medical evaluations revealed degenerative disc disease and herniation at the L5-S1 level. Multiple physicians recommended surgical intervention, and the County authorized surgery to address his condition. However, the appellant declined the recommended procedures, citing concerns about surgical outcomes and referencing anecdotal experiences of colleagues. Later, his condition progressed, and more extensive surgery was suggested, but authorization for additional procedures was denied due to insufficient evidence. Despite ongoing pain, the appellant also declined to participate in a recommended home exercise program and a work hardening regimen.After the appellant applied for service-connected disability retirement, his application was challenged by the County and assigned to VCERA’s hearing officer for review. During the administrative hearing, the appellant testified about his refusal of surgery and physical therapy, while medical experts presented conflicting views on his prognosis and ability to return to work. The hearing officer found that the appellant had unreasonably refused recommended medical treatments with a high probability of success, and that his refusal likely worsened his condition, making him ineligible for service-connected disability retirement benefits. The Board adopted these findings and denied his application.The Superior Court of Ventura County denied the appellant’s petition for a writ of administrative mandate, concluding that his unreasonable refusal of authorized surgery and other treatments constituted valid grounds to deny benefits under the doctrine of avoidable consequences/mitigation of damages. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed this decision. The court held that a disability retirement application may be denied if the disability is caused, continued, or aggravated by an unreasonable refusal to undergo medical treatment, even if the refused treatment is no longer effective due to the passage of time. View "Mendoza v. Bd. of Retirement of the Ventura County" on Justia Law

A longtime deputy sheriff was convicted by a federal jury of mail and wire fraud after she submitted an insurance claim for items stolen during a burglary at her home, some of which she falsely claimed as her own but actually belonged to her employer, the sheriff’s office. She also used her employer’s fax machine and cover sheet in communicating with the insurance company and misrepresented her supervisor’s identity. The criminal conduct arose after a romantic relationship with a former inmate ended badly, leading to the burglary, but the fraud conviction was based on her false insurance claim, not on the relationship or the burglary itself.Following her conviction, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) determined that her crimes constituted conduct “arising out of or in the performance of her official duties” under Government Code section 7522.72, part of the Public Employees Pension Reform Act, and partially forfeited her pension. The administrative law judge and the San Francisco Superior Court both upheld CalPERS’s decision, reasoning that her actions were sufficiently connected to her employment, particularly in her misuse of employer property and resources and in the context of her relationship with the former inmate.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the statute requires a specific causal nexus between the criminal conduct and the employee’s official duties, not merely any job-related connection. The court found that the deputy’s fraudulent insurance claim, although it referenced employer property and resources, did not arise out of or in the performance of her official duties as required by the statute. Accordingly, the pension forfeiture determination was set aside. View "Myres v. Bd. of Admin. for CalPERS" on Justia Law

Several employees of the City and County of San Francisco who joined the city’s retirement system at age 40 or older and later retired due to disability challenged the method used to calculate their disability retirement benefits. The city’s retirement system uses two formulas: Formula 1, which provides a higher benefit if certain thresholds are met, and Formula 2, which imputes service years until age 60 but caps the benefit at a percentage of final compensation. Plaintiffs argued that Formula 2 discriminates against employees who enter the system at age 40 or above, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).Initially, the San Francisco City and County Superior Court sustained the city’s demurrer, finding the plaintiffs had not timely filed an administrative charge. The California Court of Appeal reversed that decision, allowing the case to proceed. After class certification and cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found triable issues and held a bench trial. At trial, plaintiffs presented expert testimony based on hypothetical calculations, while the city’s expert criticized the lack of actual data analysis and highlighted factors such as breaks in service and purchased credits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s post-trial decision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove intentional age discrimination or disparate impact under FEHA. The court found substantial evidence that Formula 2 was motivated by pension status and credited years of service, not age. The plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient because it relied on hypotheticals rather than actual data showing a disproportionate adverse effect on the protected group. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of leave to amend the complaint, finding no reversible error. The judgment in favor of the city was affirmed. View "Carroll v. City & County of S.F." on Justia Law

Catherine Baker was employed by San Mateo County as a Social Worker III but went on medical leave in 2009 due to back pain. In 2015, she returned to work in a different position as a screener trainee, which involved different duties but was compensated at the same pay rate as her original position. Her last paycheck was issued in January 2016. In 2017, Baker applied for a service-connected disability retirement, and the San Mateo County Employees Retirement Association (SamCERA) determined that the effective date for her retirement benefits should be January 22, 2016, the day after her last receipt of “regular compensation.”After SamCERA’s Board approved her application and set the effective date, Baker sought administrative review, arguing that her compensation as a screener trainee did not qualify as “regular compensation” under Government Code section 31724 because she had not returned to her original job. An administrative law judge recommended denial of her request to change the effective date, and the Board adopted this recommendation. Baker then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, which denied the petition and confirmed the January 22, 2016 effective date.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed whether “regular compensation” under section 31724 included Baker’s pay as a screener trainee. Exercising independent judgment on statutory interpretation, the court held that “regular compensation” refers to regular salary or full wages, regardless of whether the position is the employee’s original job. Because Baker’s screener trainee pay matched her original position’s rate, it qualified as “regular compensation.” The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, upholding the effective date set by SamCERA. View "Baker v. San Mateo County Employees Retirement Assn." on Justia Law