City of Pleasanton v. Board of Administration of Public Employees' Retirement System
149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 729
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Linhart, a Pleasanton fire captain turned division chief, retired in 2006 with a PERS retirement; standby pay was paid as 7.5% of his division chief pay under the Interim Compensation Plan.
- PERS regulations and Government Code §20636 govern pensionable compensation, requiring payrate plus specifically designated special compensation; standby pay had not been affirmatively determined to be special compensation.
- Pleasanton and Linhart had included standby pay in pension calculations from 1998–2006; PERS later informed Pleasanton that standby pay was not reportable for retirement purposes and corrections were needed.
- Administrative proceedings before an ALJ found standby pay not special compensation; the board adopted the ALJ’s decision after staff and counsel submitted competing analyses in an agenda packet.
- Linhart petitioned for a writ of mandate seeking retroactive pension increases; the trial court granted some relief on due process and merits, which the court of appeal reversed.
- This opinion reverses and remands for entry of a new judgment denying the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process in board decision | Linhart contends Miles’s dual role violated due process. | PERS contends no due process violation occurred given public, nonex parte communications were allowed. | No due process violation; communication within a public packet is permissible. |
| Standby pay as pensionable special compensation | Standby pay comprises special compensation under Regulation 571 categories. | Standby pay fails normal hours and not one of Regulation 571 enumerated items. | Standby pay is not pensionable special compensation under §20636 and Reg. 571. |
| Standby pay as base pay or payrate | Standby pay should be included as part of Linhart's base payrate. | Waived theories show standby pay not part of base pay; exclusion aligns with statute and regulation. | Standby pay not part of payrate; Linhart waived base-pay theory. |
| Estoppel or fiduciary duty | PERS’s conduct estops it from denying benefits; fiduciary duty requires timely notice and fair dealing. | Estoppel and fiduciary duty claims fail as law precludes estoppel here and no breach occurred. | Estoppel and fiduciary-duty theories rejected as a matter of law. |
| Waived issues | Other theories about additional pay categories were raised in administrative proceedings. | Linhart waived theories not raised in the administrative proceedings. | Waived issues are not reviewable; only properly raised claims are before the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Oakland v. Public Employees’ Retirement System, 95 Cal.App.4th 29 (Cal. App. 2002) (standards for timing of eligibility and fiduciary duties in PERL matters)
- Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 45 Cal.4th 731 (Cal. 2009) (impartial adjudicators and practical due process approach)
- Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., 40 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2006) (separation of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions; APA implementation)
- Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills, 108 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. App. 2003) (prosecutor-adviser contacts and due process considerations)
- Crumpler v. Board of Administration, 32 Cal.App.3d 567 (Cal. App. 1973) (estoppel and board authority limitations in PERL context)
- Molina v. Board of Administration, 200 Cal.App.4th 53 (Cal. App. 2011) (independent judgment standard in reviewing PERL determinations)