Crumpler v. Board of Administration

• Decision Date: 22 May 1973
• Citation: 32 Cal.App.3d 567,108 Cal.Rptr. 293
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: John E. CRUMPLER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 12162.

Page 293

108 Cal.Rptr. 293

32 Cal.App.3d 567

John E. CRUMPLER et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Civ. 12162.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

May 22, 1973.

savele J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Palmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward M. Belasco and Thomas E. Warriner, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendants and appellants.

Tomlinson & Steinman and Kenneth W. Nydam, San Bernardino, for plaintiffs and respondents.

Ralph H. Prince, City Atty., San Bernardino, Sidney Maleck, Asst. City Atty., and Robert Kelly, Deputy City Atty., as amici curiae for defendants and appellants.

OPINION

TAMURA, Associate Justice.

Petitioners were hired by the Police Department of the City of San Bernardino as animal control officers. As city employees they became contract members of the Public Employees' Retirement System (system.) ¹ At the time of employment, each petitioner was classified under the retirement system as a local safety member. Years later, the executive officer of respondent Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (board) determined that petitioners had been erroneously classified as local safety members and reclassified them into miscellaneous membership. ² Following an administrative hearing on the issue of classification, the board determined that petitioners were not entitled to be classified as local safety members and that their reclassification to miscellaneous membership as of the dates they initially became members of the system was proper. Petitioners sought a writ of mandate in the court below to review and set aside the board's decision. The court found in favor of petitioners and entered judgment decreeing that a peremptory writ of mandate issue commanding the board to reinstate petitioners to the classification of local safety members and to treat them as such from the date each became a member of the system. The board appeals from the judgment.

The pertinent facts may be summarized as follows:

Petitioners, with the exception of petitioner Haskins, have been serving as animal control officers ever since their employment. Petitioner Crumpler was employed in 1950; petitioner Davis in 1963; petitioner Ingold in 1965; and petitioner Haskins in 1965. At the time of employment each petitioner was classified as a local safety member under the retirement system and each has since made contributions based upon that classification.

On December 14, 1970, following an investigation the executive officer of the board determined that petitioners should have been classified as miscellaneous members rather than as local safety members. Each petitioner was reclassified and refunded the difference between the amount contributed as a local safety member and the amount he would have contributed had he been a miscellaneous member. ³ Petitioners appealed the reclassification and requested an administrative hearing. ⁴ The board filed and served upon petitioners a 'Statement of Issues' alleging that following a staff investigation and report the executive officer had concluded that the principal duties performed by petitioners 'have not been and are not now, active law enforcement service,' and has refused to reinstate petitioners to local safety membership classification.

At the hearing before a hearing officer of the Office of Administrative Procedure, the following evidence was adduced:

When petitioners were employed, they were sworn in as police officers and were issued identification cards showing them to be police officers. They wore uniforms bearing the insignia of police officers, carried guns, and were required to be trained in the use of firearms. Their primary duties involved the enforcement of state and local laws and ordinances pertaining to the licensing Control and maintenance of animals. In performing those duties they sometimes used marked police vehicles equipped with police radios and were occasionally called upon to serve as back up officers at the scene of a crime. At the time of employment, each petitioner was informed he would be entitled to the same retirement benefits as policemen and each accepted employment on the strength of that representation.

Petitioner Crumpler has served as an animal control officer for 20 years. On December 12, 1970, he attained the age of 55. As a local safety member, at age 55 he would have been entitled to retire with substantial benefits. As a miscellaneous member he could retire at age 55 but would not receive substantial benefits until he attained the age of 65.

Petitioner Haskins was initially hired as a police patrolman but transferred to the animal control division in April 1965. After serving as an animal control officer for five years and four months, in February 1971 he retransferred to patrolman status.

Prior to his employment by the City of San Bernardino as an animal control officer, petitioner Ingold was a civil service employee of the United States Air Force with 15 years of service. In deciding whether to accept employment with the city police department, he weighed the relative advantages of the United States government pension system against the benefits he would receive as an employee of the police department and upon being advised that he would receive retirement benefits as a local safety member under the city's retirement system, he accepted city employment. When he did so, he lost his federal civil service retirement benefits.

The hearing officer rendered a proposed decision in which she found that while animal control officers are part of the city's police department personnel, 'their assigned duties do not fall within the scope of active law enforcement service even though such an employee is subject to occasional call or is occasionally called upon to perform duties within the scope of active law enforcement service.' She therefore concluded that petitioners had been erroneously classified as local safety members. However, she further concluded that since petitioners accepted employment and rendered services in reliance upon the representation that they were local safety members, the city was estopped from asserting that petitioners had been erroneously classified and from reclassifying them to miscellaneous membership.

The board refused to adopt the hearing officer's proposed decision and elected to decide the case itself upon the administrative record. ⁵ The board found that petitioners' duties as animal control officers 'do not fall within the scope of active law enforcement service,' concluded that petitioners had been improperly classified as 'local safety members,' and upheld their reclassification to miscellaneous membership. The petition for writ of mandate to review and set aside the board's decision ensued.

The trial court found, Inter alia, that petitioners' employment duties 'require and consistently demand that they engage in active law enforcement' and that while employed by the city they 'have continuously performed assigned duties which require that they engage in active law enforcement.' The court further found that prior to accepting employment as an animal control officer each petitioner was informed that he would be a local safety member in the retirement system and that each relied upon the representation in accepting employment, rendering services, and making contributions to the system. The court concluded: (1) Petitioners were entitled to be classified as local safety members by virtue of Government Code SECTION 20019 AND (2)⁶ the board was estopped from reclassifying them into miscellaneous membership. Judgment was entered directing the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the board to reinstate petitioners as local safety members from the date each became a member of the system and restraining the board 'from taking any further proceedings in the matter of the membership classification' of petitioners. The board appeals from the judgment so entered.

On this appeal, the City of San Bernardino was granted leave to file a brief 'amicus curiae in support of appellants.' The city contends it was an indispensable party to the mandate proceedings (and by implication to the administrative proceedings) and that the court below was without jurisdiction to proceed without making the city a party.

For the reasons which follow, we have concluded: (1) The city was not an indispensable party to either the administrative or mandate proceedings; (2) the board's determination that petitioners had been erroneously classified as local safety members must be upheld; (3) the board is estopped from reclassifying petitioners Nunc pro tunc as of the date they became members of the system but may reclassify them prospectively.

I

The city urges it was an indispensable party to the mandate proceedings because the decree affects both the city's fiscal interests and its power to transfer its employees to another city department and to assign them new duties. It is urged that under the decree the city's contribution to the retirement fund would be greater than that required if petitioners were classified as miscellaneous members and moreover that the decree would preclude the city from transferring petitioners to another city department or changing their duties. It also contends that had it been a party, it could have offered evidence to show that assistant humane officers have now been transferred from the police department to the 'Animal Control and Parking Department,' their job title and duties have been changed, and they no longer carry guns, wear police uniforms or engage in any active law enforcement duties. The city's contentions must be rejected.

The city was not an indispensable party to the administrative proceedings. It contracted to have its designated employees become members of the Public Employees' Retirement System as administered by the board and subject...