Bowen v. City of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 02 June 1953
• Citation: 118 Cal.App.2d 297,257 P.2d 672
• Parties: BOWEN et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. Civ. 19352.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 672

257 P.2d 672

118 Cal.App.2d 297

BOWEN et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al.

Civ. 19352.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

June 2, 1953.

Rehearing Denied June 19, 1953.

Hearing Denied July 28, 1953.

Ray L. Chesebro, City Atty., John J. Tully, Jr., Asst. City Atty., Los Angeles, for appellants.

Kenneth Sperry, Long Beach, for respondents.

SHINN, Presiding Justice.

Respondents, with others who do not appeal, members of either the Fire Department or the Police Department of Los Angeles City, passed civil service examinations and were placed on eligibility lists, the firemen on November 17, 1925, and the the firemen on November 17, 1925, and the policemen on October 13, 1926. At that time the charter of the City of Los Angeles provided a yearly pension for firemen and policemen equal to 50 per cent of the annual salary attached to the position one year prior to the date of retirement for 20 years of service, plus 1 2/3 of such salary for each year over 20 and less than 30, and 2/3 of such salary for 30 years of service. Stats.1925, p. 1085, § 181. By Statutes 1927, page 2020, § 181 was amended to provide a pension equal to 50 per cent of the average monthly salary during the three years immediately preceding his retirement with 25 years of service, plus 1 2/3 per cent of such rate for each year over 25 and less than 35, and 2/3 of such rate for 35 years of service. The effective date of this amendment was January 17, 1927, and it was provided that any member appointed prior to that date should receive a pension 50 per cent of the average monthly rate of salary he received during 3 years immediately preceding retirement for 20 years of service, plus 1 2/3 per cent of such rate for each year over 20 and less than 30, and 2/3 of such average monthly rate for 30 such years of service. The charter was again amended by Statutes 1947, page 3679, but it affected plaintiffs only by continuing in effect the 1927 schedule.

Respondents were appointed subsequent to the effective date of the 1927 amendment. In this action for declaratory relief they contend they are entitled to pensions at the rates and on the terms which prevailed at the time they were placed on the lists of eligibles and, although they were appointed after the effective date of the 1927 amendment, that the city could not lawfully reduce their pensions below those received by others appointed prior to January 17, 1927, from the same eligibility lists. The amounts which would have accrued in favor of respondents under the schedule effective prior to the 1927 amendment, in excess of those which acrued under the schedule provided by the amendment ranged from $125.05 to $336.84 up to the time of judgment. Respondents were awarded these respective sums and defendants appeal.

The trial court held that the amendments were ineffective as to respondents for the reason that they were in conflict with the provisions of §§ 11 and 21 of Article I of the California Constitution and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The argument of respondents is simply this: The city could not constitutionally discriminate between those who were appointed prior to January 17, 1927 and those who were appointed afterwards from the same lists of eligibles; they had preferred rights to appointment from the time they were placed on the eligibility lists, which is true; although they were appointed after January 17, 1927, they have rendered the same services rendered by others who were appointed from the same eligibility lists prior to January 17, 1927, and that the discrimination between the two classes was unreasonable, arbitrary, and not founded upon any natural, intrinsic or constitutional ground of distinction. In other words, they claim that being on the lists of eligibles is the same as being appointed as members of the classified...