Gonzalez v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 849
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Gonzalez appeals a denial of mandamus to compel the Department to file for disability retirement on his behalf after a work injury.
- Trial court held the Department need not file for disability retirement and could medically demote Gonzalez to a lower-paid, non-disabled, available position.
- Gonzalez injury occurred March 14, 2007; treating physician declared permanent in 2008 and unable to perform as a correctional officer.
- Options discussed: medical demotion to an office assistant or disability retirement; Department declined to file on his behalf.
- Statutes at issue are Government Code sections 19253.5 and 21153; the trial court held no conflict and that demotion could be used if appropriate.
- Court affirming the judgment held no conflict between 19253.5 and 21153 and that the Department’s duty to apply for disability retirement arises only when medically unable to perform present or any other position and eligible for disability retirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do 21153 and 19253.5 conflict? | Gonzalez: Department must apply on his behalf. | Department: may demote or retire if not eligible. | Department need not file if demotion is appropriate or employee can be reallocated. |
| Is medical demotion within 19253.5 permissible when disability exists? | Gonzalez: demotion should be compelled only if no other option. | Department may demote if able to perform another position. | Permitted where employee is unable to perform present position but able to perform another within agency. |
| Does FEHA require accommodation before disability retirement? | Gonzalez: FEHA obligations bind the agency. | Agency already accommodated or sought to. | FEHA duty to accommodate remains; substantial evidence supports accommodation efforts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lazan v. County of Riverside, 140 Cal.App.4th 453 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (duty to apply for disability retirement depends on disability determination)
- Haywood v. American River Fire Protection Dist., 67 Cal.App.4th 1292 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (distinguishes 21153/19253.5 interplay; local vs state agency)
- Hastings v. Department of Corrections, 110 Cal.App.4th 963 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (FEHA applicability to civil service employees when harmonized)
- California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Golden Valley Unified School Dist., 98 Cal.App.4th 369 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (statutory interpretation; de novo review of legal conclusions)