Bowen v. Los Angeles County
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Writing for the Court | GIBSON; CARTER |
| Citation | 249 P.2d 285,39 Cal.2d 714 |
| Parties | BOWEN v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al. L. A. 22012. |
| Decision Date | 17 October 1952 |
Page 285
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1952.
Wirin, Rissman & Okrand, A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, and Nanette Dembitz, New York City, Richard W. Petherbridge, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Gerald G. Kelly, Asst. County Counsel and Robert L. Trapp, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondents.
GIBSON, Chief Justice.
Petitioner, a Los Angeles County civil service employee, was discharged because she refused to sign the oath required of all public employees by the Levering Act, Gov.Code, §§ 3100-3109, and she has brought this original proceeding in mandamus seeking reinstatement and payment of compensation which was withheld following her suspension.
Before the Levering Act went into effect, petitioner executed an oath almost identical with that prescribed in section 3 of article XX of the state Constitution, and she also took the oath and made the affidavits required by the board of supervisors of Los Angeles County. 1 Thereafter she was directed [39 Cal.2d 715] by her superior to take the oath prescribed by the Levering Act, and upon her refusal to do so she was suspended without pay as of October 30 and was discharged on November 29, 1950.
Nearly all of the questions raised by petitioner with respect to the constitutionality and application of the Levering Act have been answered adversely to her in Pockman v. Leonard, Cal.Supp., 249 P.2d 267. She makes two additional contentions, however, with respect to asserted conflicts between the act and the provisions of the Los Angeles County Charter. The first of these, namely that the oath requirement
Page 286
violates section 41 of the charter, 2 falls by reason of our holding in the Pockman case, Cal.Sup., 249 P.2d 267, that the Levering oath does not constitute a religious or political test.Secondly, petitioner contends that the Levering Act is inapplicable to her because, she asserts, the power to regulate the qualifications of county employees is governed exclusively by the provisions of the Los Angeles County Charter adopted pursuant to section 7 1/2 of article XI of the state Constitution which authorizes county charters to provide for the regulation by boards of supervisors of the appointment, duties, qualifications and compensation of county employees. Under the charter the board of supervisors is empowered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steinmetz v. California State Bd. of Ed.
...supra, 39 Cal.2d 698, 249 P.2d 287, 250 P.2d 145; Tolman v. Underhill, 39 Cal.2d 708, 249 P.2d 280; Bowen v. County of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.2d 714, 249 P.2d 285; and Fraser v. Regents of University of California, 39 Cal.2d 717, 249 P.2d 283. I did not, at that time, believe that those cases ......
-
Ex parte Lane, Cr. 6929
...statutes involved in the Tolman case were superseded by the Levering Act (Gov.Code, §§ 3103-3109), and in Bowen v. County of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.2d 714, 715-716, 249 P.2d 285, 286, we held that this act likewise established 'a general and detailed plan with uniform standards for all public ......
-
Wolstenholme v. City of Oakland
...Gov.Code, §§ 3103-3109, oath was void because the state by that act had taken over the filed. In Bowen v. County of Los Angeles, 1952, 39 Cal.2d 714, 249 P.2d 285, the petitioner who had taken a loyalty oath required by the board of supervisors but refused to take the Levering Act Oath, con......
-
People v. Smith, Cr. A
...required by the State law in Government Code secs. 3100-3109. The court held they could not. In Bowen v. County of Los Angeles, 1952, 39 Cal.2d 714, 249 P.2d 285, the court held that the state had occupied the same field to the exclusion of an oath required by order of the Board of It is ob......
-
Steinmetz v. California State Bd. of Ed.
...Los Angeles, supra, 39 Cal.2d 698, 249 P.2d 287, 250 P.2d 145; Tolman v. Underhill, 39 Cal.2d 708, 249 P.2d 280; Bowen v. County of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.2d 714, 249 P.2d 285; and Fraser v. Regents of University of California, 39 Cal.2d 717, 249 P.2d 283. I did not, at that time, believe that......
-
Ex parte Lane
...statutes involved in the Tolman case were superseded by the Levering Act (Gov.Code, §§ 3103-3109), and in Bowen v. County of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.2d 714, 715-716, 249 P.2d 285, 286, we held that this act likewise established 'a general and detailed plan with uniform standards for all public ......
-
Wolstenholme v. City of Oakland
...Levering Act, Gov.Code, §§ 3103-3109, oath was void because the state by that act had taken over the filed. In Bowen v. County of Los Angeles, 1952, 39 Cal.2d 714, 249 P.2d 285, the petitioner who had taken a loyalty oath required by the board of supervisors but refused to take the Levering......
-
People v. Smith, Cr. A
......Cr. A. 3792. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California. June 23, 1958. Page 637. [161 Cal.App.2d Supp. 861] Brock, ...3100-3109. The court held they could not. In Bowen v. County of Los Angeles, 1952, 39 Cal.2d 714, 249 P.2d 285, the court held that the state had ......