41 Cal.App.5th 428
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Cari McCormick, a Lake County Appraiser III, developed systemic/respiratory symptoms (pain, fatigue, dizziness) she associated with the Lakeport courthouse workplace.
- County refused her requests for relocation or telecommuting; she subsequently exhausted leave, was terminated, and applied for CalPERS disability retirement.
- Medical opinions acknowledged real, workplace-associated symptoms; one doctor said she could work if removed from the courthouse environment; CalPERS medical reviewer found no condition preventing job performance generally.
- An ALJ and the CalPERS Board denied disability retirement, reasoning she could perform duties in a different/theoretical location.
- The trial court denied McCormick’s petition for writ of administrative mandate; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding eligibility under Gov. Code § 21156 depends on ability to perform duties for the actual employer (i.e., at the location the employer requires) and that CalPERS cannot deny retirement solely because an unprovided accommodation might have enabled work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of “usual duties” under § 21156 | McCormick: duties are defined by the actual employer; inability to work at Lake County courthouse means incapacity. | CalPERS: Nolan requires showing inability to perform duties in the state service generally (i.e., not limited to current employer). | Court: Legislature amended statute post-Nolan; inquiry is employer-specific — whether member can perform duties for the actual employer. |
| Relevance of a theoretical alternative work location | McCormick: ability to work somewhere else is irrelevant when employer will not permit that location. | CalPERS: Eligibility can be denied if member could perform duties at a different/theoretical location or with accommodation. | Court: Member is eligible if unable to perform duties at the only location the employer will allow; theoretical locations do not defeat entitlement. |
| Effect of employer’s failure to accommodate | McCormick: she requested accommodation (relocation/telecommute) and was denied; denial should not bar disability retirement. | CalPERS: eligibility may turn on whether reasonable accommodation would enable job performance. | Court: PERL contains no accommodation prerequisite (unlike Teachers’ Retirement Law); CalPERS may not deny under §21156 solely because an accommodation not provided might have allowed work. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. City of Anaheim, 33 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2004) (interpreting former §21156 and prompting legislative amendment)
- Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central, 43 Cal.4th 201 (Cal. 2008) (ability-to-perform inquiry is employer‑specific; focus on current environment)
- Mansperger v. Public Employees’ Retirement System, 6 Cal.App.3d 873 (Cal. 1970) (defines incapacity as substantial inability to perform usual duties)
- Hosford v. Board of Administration, 77 Cal.App.3d 854 (Cal. 1978) (job descriptions must be read in context to determine usual duties)
- Jones v. Los Angeles County Office of Education, 134 Cal.App.4th 983 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (§21156 test for disability)
- Ogundare v. Department of Industrial Relations, 214 Cal.App.4th 822 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of independent judicial review for administrative decisions affecting vested rights)