California Department of Justice v. Board of Administration of California Public Employees' Retirement System
194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 619
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background:
- Angelita Resendez, a DOJ Special Agent Supervisor, took industrial disability retirement in Dec 2008 for a spine condition from on‑the‑job injuries.
- In Sept 2009 Resendez applied to CalPERS for reinstatement; CalPERS’s orthopedic exam (Feb 25, 2010) found she was no longer incapacitated for the condition that led to retirement.
- DOJ offered reinstatement only on condition Resendez complete medical and psychological evaluations and a new background investigation; Resendez rejected the conditional offer.
- CalPERS upheld reinstatement; DOJ appealed to OAH and then filed writ petitions challenging CalPERS and the State Personnel Board (SPB) decision; SPB ordered unconditional reemployment and awarded back pay (later litigated).
- The trial court affirmed that CalPERS’s review was limited to the disabling condition for which retirement was granted, that DOJ must reinstate under Gov. Code §21193, and DOJ may not impose pre‑reinstatement conditions; DOJ appeals.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DOJ) | Defendant's Argument (Resendez/CalPERS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of CalPERS’s reinstatement medical review | CalPERS must verify no other physical, mental, or emotional conditions exist that would disqualify under Gov. Code §1031 | CalPERS need only evaluate whether the original disabling condition persists | CalPERS’s review is limited to the condition that produced the disability retirement; it need not screen for new conditions |
| Duty to reinstate after CalPERS determination | Reinstatement requires CalPERS determination plus DOJ offer; DOJ retains discretion | Once CalPERS finds the retiree not incapacitated, state employer must reinstate per §21193 | Reinstatement is mandatory for state employees after CalPERS determines the original disabling condition has ended |
| Conditioning reinstatement on §1031 requirements | DOJ may condition reemployment on medical/psychological exams and updated background check under §1031 | Employer cannot impose §1031 prerequisites before reinstatement; employer must reinstate first then evaluate | DOJ may not impose pre‑reinstatement §1031 conditions; it must reinstate and then, if necessary, pursue evaluations at its own expense |
| Back pay entitlement timing | Back pay should run from SPB’s later order date | Back pay should run from CalPERS’s Feb 25, 2010 determination of eligibility | Court awarded back pay from Feb 25, 2010 (CalPERS’s determination) |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckley v. Board of Administration of California Public Employees’ Retirement System, 222 Cal.App.4th 691 (2013) (CalPERS evaluates duties relevant to the class; scope of disability review is for CalPERS to decide)
- Hulings v. State Dept. of Health Care Services, 159 Cal.App.4th 1114 (2008) (mandatory reinstatement cannot be conditioned on a new background investigation)
- White v. County of Los Angeles, 225 Cal.App.4th 690 (2014) (employer must restore employment upon medical certification and may later obtain its own fitness‑for‑duty exam at its expense)
- Roccaforte v. City of San Diego, 89 Cal.App.3d 877 (1979) (retirement benefits and reinstatement rights are fundamental vested rights)