CalPERS Changes Eligibility Rules for Industrial Disability Retirement

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) posted Circular Letter 200-018-17 on March 30, 2017. Among other things, this Letter addresses changes to the eligibility determinations for certain local safety members applying for industrial disability retirement. 


In the past, CalPERS relied on the employer’s recommendation to verify eligibility of any member for industrial disability retirement. However, CalPERS will now independently evaluate whether certain members are eligible. The employer must obtain CalPERS’ determination of a member’s eligibility to apply for disability retirement before the employer starts the process of a disability determination for any of the following circumstances:

• Disciplinary process underway prior to the member’s separation from employment.

• The member was terminated for cause.

• The member resigned in lieu of termination.

• The member signed an agreement to waive his or her reinstatement right as part of a legal settlement (i.e., Employment Reinstatement Waiver).

• The member has been convicted of or is being investigated for a work-related felony.

The Letter also imposes a requirement for local agencies to re-evaluate eligibility determinations for disability retirees under the voluntary service retirement age. The purpose is to verify whether the recipient remains physically or mentally disabled from the position which they disability retired for the condition(s) that they were approved for.

The Letter requires employers to provide all relevant personnel documents and medical records to CalPERS. This information will be used to conduct the second evaluation of a member’s medical incapacity and employment status.  However, providing such information to CalPERS creates a conflict for safety employers. For example, Penal Code section 832.7 prohibits employers from disclosing peace officer personnel records without the peace officer’s written consent or a Pitchess motion. Employers are also prohibited from disclosing medical information without written authorization from the employee.

Third Appellate District Upholds Award of Penalties for Late Advance Disability Pension Payments

In the recently decided Gage v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board, (CA3, Nov. 22, 2016 No. C081618)  the Court upheld the ability for employees to receive penalties for late advance disability pension payments. In this case, a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy, represented by Greg Gomez of Mastagni Holstedt, APC, sustained a job-related injury and applied for an industrial disability retirement. In cases like these involving peace officers, the injured party can also apply for advance disability pension payments in order to cover living expenses while the disability retirement application is being decided.

Here, Gage petitioned for these advance payments and applied for industrial disability retirement on March 6, 2015. When payments did not arrive, Gage petitioned for late payment penalties against the County on June 2. The County claimed not to have received the application until June 11. The County also asserted that the Workers Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB) did not have authority over advance payments of pension because that would fall under another a different law (County Employees Retirement Law of 1937), and thus it could not apply penalties.

While this issue was being decided, the County continued to stall payments due to some additional technicalities (legal joinder). On June 29, it finally approved payment of benefits. Gage filed a petition for penalties because the benefit check wouldn’t arrive until July 2, almost 4 months after her initial request.

A workers compensation judge initially agreed with Gage that disability pension payments were considered compensation, and thus were subject to penalties for late payment. The County appealed arguing that advance pension disability payments were an obligation of the retirement system, and thus not subject to the penalty. On appeal, the WCAB overturned the workers compensation judge’s initial decision.

When the case was finally appealed to the Third Appellate District, the Court explained that the workers compensation law was intended to be liberally construed for the purpose of extending benefits to those injured in the course of employment. This includes making sure that those in law enforcement are given all the rights attendant to the workers compensation law. The advance disability pension payments are specifically provided to help officers who would otherwise have difficulty making the monthly bills if they had no income due to being injured. In fact, the payment of such benefits was made mandatory in 2002.

The Court also discredited the County’s argument that under the applicable code section, the repayment of retirement benefits was outside of WCAB’s jurisdiction. The Court stated that while the repayment of retirement benefits once disability retirement was approved was outside the scope of the WCAB’s jurisdiction, that did not bar it from asserting penalties on late payments, because such payments are considered compensation and therefore fall under WCAB’s jurisdiction. While the court remanded the case to determine if the delay in this case was sufficiently unreasonable such that penalties were required, this case still stands as a big win for employees seeking disability retirement. Mastagni Holstedt, APC is requesting that this case be published so that it has precedential value.

Mastagni Holstedt, APC is privileged to have represented the Sacramento Deputy Sheriffs Association and Ms. Gage in obtaining this important result. Greg Gomez of Mastagni Holstedt, APC represented Ms. Gage in this matter.

Arbitrator Awards BART POA Nearly $1.1 Million Dollars in Illegal Subcontracting Grievance

The BART Police Officers’ Association secured an award of nearly $1.1 million for its members at arbitration. Arbitrator Ron Hoh ruled for BPOA, finding the Bay Area Rapid Transit District  subcontracted BPOA bargaining unit work in violation of the union's MOU.  

The Bay Area Rapid Transit District decided to replace the nearly forty year old fire alarm systems at seven stations on the San Francisco side of its operations.  The District entered into a contract with Blocka Construction Company to retrofit fire alarm systems at the stations.  When decommissioning the old alarms, the District circumvented the MOU between the District and BPOA by requiring Blocka to subcontract non-union security personnel to act as “Firewatch” while the decommissioned alarms were replaced.

As soon as the BPOA discovered this MOU violation, a grievance was filed demanding the positions immediately be provided to BPOA members along with traditional make-whole remedies. Knowing the MOU prohibits subcontracting, the District attempted to avoid its contractual obligations by supplanting the CSOs with security personnel disingenuously labeled “Firewatch.”  The District could not refute the evidence confirming that the jobs the District subcontracted out were actually jobs historically performed by CSOs.  The Arbitrator stated:

“[t]he evidence thus shows that CSO’s regularly monitor from fixed-site posts [at] various District locations for both safety and security reasons, including safety functions whose goal is to keep the public away from both stations and rail right-of-way at construction locations and when station and track related repairs and necessary.  In addition, their job description includes the duty of ‘monitor(ing) construction sites when contractors are not working at night’ - a major element of the station alarm replacement project involved here - and ‘report(ing) situations requiring...emergency assistance.’  It cannot be disputed that the existence of fires on District property ‘...require(s)...emergency assistance.’”

The District's Project Manager claimed the two positions are wholly unrelated.  But, Arbitrator Hoh admonished the District, stating:

“It is apparent that her (Patrice McElroy) decision during the grievance procedure that the fire watch duties were closest to those of the District Safety Monitor was founded upon less than fully necessary information...The duties involved here do not better fit those of Safety Monitors as claimed by the District.  The fire watch function has nothing to do with either ‘assist(ing) independent contractors in safety areas,’ serving as ‘liaison between the District and (contracted) construction crews’ or reporting to the District and/or those contractors any incidents, injuries or violations of safety work practices.’”

Mastagni Holstedt, APC is privileged to have represented BPOA and its members in obtaining the largest grievance arbitration award in BPOA’s history.  Sean Currin of Mastagni Holstedt, APC represented the BART POA in this matter.    

PERB Vindicates Right of Public Safety Professionals to Wear Union Insignia on Duty

In a decisive win for labor, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) overturned an administrative law judge and held firefighters at Sacramento’s airports have the right to wear Sacramento Area Fire Fighters, IAFF Local 522 union logos on duty.

The case has statewide importance for two reasons. First, the ruling means public safety professionals, such as firefighters and peace officers who were a uniform, still have the right to wear union insignia on duty. Second, firmly established that the right to wear union insignia cannot be limited to pins, but includes other apparel such as T-shirts, caps, and clothing.

In County of Sacramento (2014) PERB Decision No. 2393-M, firefighters wanted to wear union logos on the Class B uniform t-shirts, caps, and sweatshirts. Local 522 provides the apparel at cost to firefighters it represents throughout the Sacramento area. The Local 522 apparel conforms to uniform specifications and includes the union logo.

For a time, firefighters were allowed to wear the union logo apparel occasionally. In October, firefighters wore pink versions of their union logo apparel to support breast cancer awareness. There were no operational problems or complaints. Then, the County ordered the firefighters not to wear “hats, T-shirts and sweatshirts with the union logo” and announced it would discipline any firefighter who wore the union logo.

Local 522 filed an unfair practice charge with PERB, alleging the prohibition against wearing the Local 522 logo interfered with their rights under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, one of California’s public sector collective bargaining statutes. Local 522 members expressed their strong desire to support and show solidarity with their union which they had worked hard to join by wearing union apparel on duty.

The County claimed the firefighters did not have the right to wear union insignia on their Class B uniform. It claimed that since the firefighters wore public safety uniforms, the County had the right to ban union insignia since they were not part of the uniform. The County also claimed union members only have a right to wear small union pins, not other kinds of union apparel.

PERB rejected the County’s arguments and upheld the right of Local 522 members to wear the union logo. PERB held the “fundamental right to wear union insignia at work” applies equally to employees who wear public safety uniforms. PERB rejected the notion that a union member’s right to wear union insignia is limited to wearing pins, noting, “The County offers no logical argument why a protected right to wear union insignia transforms into an unprotected right because the insignia appears on clothing rather than an object that is attached to clothing.”

Thus, PERB held the County had to demonstrate there was a special circumstance justifying the restriction on wearing the union logo. The County provided no evidence of a special circumstance and the evidence showed several other agencies permit firefighters to wear union insignia at work without incident. Thus, PERB decided the County violated Local 522 members’ rights and ordered it to cease and desist and post notice of its violation of state law.

Local 522 was represented in the matter by Jeffrey R. A. Edwards, a senior associate at Mastagni Holstedt, APC.

BART POA Wins Injunction Protecting Identity of BART Officer Involved in Critical Incident

In BART Police Officers Association v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al., the BART Police Officers’ Association (BPOA) successfully defended the privacy rights of its members and prevented the unlawful disclosure of the name of an officer under investigation in a critical incident.

The Department sought to release the name of an officer identifying the officer as the subject of a disciplinary investigation following a use of force incident that gained widespread notoriety.

Following a use of force incident, a citizen made a complaint against the officer, and the department made statements to the media that the incident was under investigation. The Department informed the officer that they intended to release the officer’s name to the media, identifying him as the officer under investigation for the incident. The Department informed BART POA it intended to release the officer’s name to the press.

BART POA President Keith Garcia immediately moved to protect the officer’s privacy. BART POA sent a cease and desist letter to the Department and prepared an application for a temporary restraining order. Then the POA secured an agreement from the District to preserve the officer’s privacy until the dispute could be heard by a court on an expedited basis.

Then, on April 17, 2014, the Alameda Superior Court and the parties agreed to a preliminary injunction protecting officer privacy until at least 30 days after the California Supreme Court decides two closely related cases.

The California Supreme Court is considering two important cases about peace officers’ privacy rights. In Federated University Police Officers Association v. Superior Court, the Court will decide whether or not the California Public Records Act can be used to force disclosure of peace officers’ names in a report about the use of pepper spray at UC Davis in 2011.

In Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach, the Court will decide whether the California Public Records Act requires agencies to release the names of officers involved in officer-involved shootings. Together, these cases will establish the legal foundation for how these information requests must be treated in the future. In the meantime, officers can protect their rights by pursuing injunctions like the one BART POA won in this case.

Mastagni Law attorneys Kevin A. Flautt, David E. Mastagni, Jeffrey R. A. Edwards, and Brendon P. Parenti represented BART POA in the matter.

Court of Appeal Protects Police Officers' Workers' Compensation Benefits

In City of Sacramento v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (Cannon) (December 26, 2013, Court of Appeal Case No. C072944), the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of accuracy and fairness when rating workers’ compensation injuries.  The decision establishes the Almaraz/Guzman rule is not limited to “complex and extraordinary" workers’ compensation claims.

When a client suffers a permanent impairment, an evaluator rates the injury using the American Medical Association’s Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (“AMA Guides”). Almaraz/Guzman, allows the evaluator to give a fair and accurate rating of the client’s disability using any page from the AMA Guides. This is particularly useful when a strict rating under AMA Guides rating is unfairly low. The use of Almaraz/Guzman often results in a higher disability rating for the client.

In this case, the City of Sacramento challenged the rating for a police officer injured on the job. The City's first argued an evaluator may not rate solely on the basis of subjective complaints of pain. The AMA Guides does not allow a strict rating solely based on pain. Thus, defendant argued no rating should be given. But the Court of Appeal quoted the Almaraz/Guzman decision, and reaffirmed the evaluator is not limited to either strict compliance or mechanical application of the AMA Guides. Where a condition is entirely subjective, the evaluator is entitled to use his/her best judgment in assigning a disability rating.

Next, the City of Sacramento dissected four words from the Almaraz/Guzman opinion and asserted it can only be used in “complex and extraordinary cases." The Court of Appeal flatly rejected the claim. The City of Sacramento misinterpreted Almaraz/Guzman. The words “complex and extraordinary cases” referred to syndromes not fully understood or those manifested solely by subjective complaints.  Officer Cannon’s injury, plantar fasciitis, is mentioned nowhere in the AMA guides. Thus, it was clearly within the realm of cases contemplated by Almaraz/Guzman.

This case was not the first time the defense bar has claimed Almaraz/Guzman was limited to “complex and extraordinary cases."  Hopefully, it will be the last. We hope this decision makes it clear accuracy and fairness is the key to rating workers’ compensation injuries.  In those cases where the strict interpretation of the AMA Guides does not accurately reflect a client’s impairment, the evaluator should cite Almaraz/Guzman and provide a more accurate rating.  Mastagni attorney Eric D. Ledger argued the case for Sacramento police officer Arthur Cannon before the Court of Appeal.

British Firefighters Poised to Strike Over Retirement Age Increase

Firefighters in England and Wales announced today they plan a 4-hour strike to protest a proposal to raise their retirement age to 60 because raising the retirement age jeopardizes public safety.  The firefighters' labor union, the Fire Brigades Union, explained "It is ludicrous to expect firefighters to fight fires and rescue families in their late 50s - the lives of the general public and firefighters themselves will be endangered. None of us want a strike, but we cannot compromise on public and firefighter safety.” It will be the first nationwide strike of firefighters in that country in a decade.

Court Clarifies Peace Officers' First Amendment Rights

In Dahlia v. Rodriguez the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals expanded first amendment protections for peace officers. The court found speech made outside of the chain of command is protected by the First Amendment because it is made in an officer's capacity as  private citizen.  The case comes after a number of cases limiting public employees' free speech on topics related to their employment.

Officer Dahlia witnessed complained about alleged inappropriate behavior by other fellow officer to his lieutenant who allegedly threatened him, and other officers to keep quiet about the matter. Dahlia alleged he was warned not to be “a cheese eating rat”. Shortly afterward, he was interviewed in an IA investigation and reported these incidents to his Association president. He also repeated his concerns to a different police department investigating the same incident. Then, the Department put Dahlia w on administrative leave pending discipline. 

The court examined each of Dahlia’s actions to decide whether they were protected by the First Amendment or employee speech that is not protected. The Court said reporting to his supervisor was a part of his job duties as a detective investigating a crime and not protected by the First Amendment. The Court said the IA interview was more complicated because if Dahlia disobeyed orders by going to the IA interview, then he acted as a private citizen. The Court said he acted in his capacity as a private citizen when he spoke to his Association president and when he spoke to a different police department.

The court also found Dahlia suffered an adverse employment action as a result of his speech. The threats he received from his supervisor to put him in jail were sufficient to be considered an adverse employment action. Plus, in this case, the administrative leave was considered a punitive action. The court found that loss of overtime, promotional, and experience opportunities made administrative leave an adverse employment action. As a result, the Court found the adverse action would violate the First Amendment.

Assemblymember Eggman Introduces Bill to Slash Interest Due on Debts to Employees, Others

Under current law, when employees or labor associations win a judgement against a public entity, the agency has to pay interest on the debt until they pay it off.  The interest rate is set at 7% or 10%, depending on the type of case.  Now Assemblymember Susan Eggman has introduced AB 748 to let cities and counties pay minimal interest on these debts, jeopardizing employees' and unions' rights across the State.

Eggman's law would cap the interest a public agency has to pay at no greater than the rate on the "Pooled Money Investment Account."  That rate has been less than 1% for the past three years.  As a result, employees who are illegally terminated or denied their wages would receive much less interest on their awards than the interest they have to pay on their personal loans, mortgages, and credit card payments.  Cities win, employees lose.  Eggman previously served on the Stockton City Council were she voted to withhold employees' wages, even though they were guaranteed by labor contracts.

Sen. Leiu Introduces Bill to Expand POBR

Senator Ted Leiu introduced a new bill, SB 388, the expand officers' POBR rights under state law.  Under current law, agencies must inform public safety officers of the nature of an interrogation and allow them to have a representative, but only when the officer is "under investigation."  SB 388 expands the law to cover public safety officers "subject to interrogation without being under investigation."  This change makes clear officers have a right to notice regardless of whether an IA is opened on them and helps protect witness officers' rights.

SB 388 also expands the rule that public safety officers have a right to a representative "whenever an interrogation under any circumstances focuses on matters that could lead to punitive action."  Under the old law, the right to a representative only applied when an interrogation "are likely to result in" punitive action.  The bill is currently being considered by the committees on public safety and appropriations.

Michigan Voters Considering Constitutional Right to Collective Bargaining

After a string of stinging defeats at the ballot box, labor leaders in Michigan are trying to turn the tide by establishing a state constitutional right to collective bargaining.  Next Tuesday, Michigan voters will go to the polls to decide Proposal 2, which would create a state constitutional amendment locking in union rights in the state.  Proposal 2 would:

• allow police officers and firefighters to negotiate safe staffing levels
• establish a constitutional right to form a union and bargain collectively
• invalidate any attempts by the state legislature to limit collective bargaining rights
• override state laws about employees hours and conditions of employment 
• mandate binding arbitration for some police groups

If passed, Proposal 2 would be the first of its kind in the country.  The campaign to pass Proposal 2 got a big boost earlier today, when President Clinton endorses the measure.  

Crime Victims, Deputies Join Forces Against El Dorado Sheriff's Blanket Rotational Policy

Crime Victims United of California and the El Dorado County Deputy Sheriffs' Association joined forces at a press conference Tuesday to protest El Dorado Sheriff John D'Agostini for putting the public in danger by shifting experienced detectives out of the investigations unit.

In a press release, the DSA expressed "grave concerns" that "Sheriff D’Agostini’s new rotational policy on detective positions will undermine the department’s ability to successfully investigate cases and bring justice to victims and their families." DSA President Todd Crawford noted "Our department had a rotational detective policy before,” but had "over 40 unsolved homicides" under that policy.

CVUC echoed the DSA's concerns, expressing "outrage Sheriff D’Agostini has chosen to risk the public safety of the Citizens of El Dorado County" with the policy change.  CVUC's press release also announced "Crime Victims United stands with the men and women of the El Dorado County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association" on the issue.

News outlets throughout Northern California covered the press conference, including the Modesto Bee, KCRA, the Sacramento Bee, and CBS13.  According to news reports, the policy "is a move victims say will hurt victims who have already suffered enough."

The DSA has filed a grievance over the unilateral policy change.  Mastagni Law attorneys David E. Mastagni and  BJ Pierce represents the DSA in the matter.  Follow updates to this story by subscribing to the California Public Safety Labor Blog.

Watch the news video here.