Rexstrew v. City of Huntington Park

California Supreme Court Jul 30, 1942 No. L. A. 18270Published

Before: Gibson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that civil service employees may not be discharged under the guise of abolishing positions unless the action is taken in good faith, and that the city's civil service ordinances were not repealed by implication. However, the court remanded the case to determine if the employees earned outside income that must be offset against their back pay awards.

Issues

Whether the city's dismissal of civil service employees was a good-faith exercise of the power to abolish positions for economy.
Whether the Municipal Corporations Act operated as an implied repeal of the city's civil service ordinances.
Whether back pay awards for wrongfully discharged employees must be offset by earnings from other employment.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The power to abolish a position may not be used to effect the discharge of an employee protected by the salutary provisions of civil service regulations, unless such power is exercised in good faith.”

“Repeals by implication are not favored and are recognized only when there is a conflict-between two or more legislative enactments.”

“If they have been gainfully employed, any remuneration received from such employment should be deducted from the accrued salary due them.”

GIBSON, C. J.

In this proceeding in mandamus the trial court entered a judgment reinstating respondents Rexstrew and Cantonwine, respectively, to the positions of fireman and policeman in the city of Huntington Park, California, and directing payment of their salaries from the date of dismissal from service until their reinstatement. The defendant city and its officers have appealed from the judgment.

Huntington Park is a city of the sixth class. (Municipal Corporations Act, Stats. 1883, p. 93, as amended, Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1937, Act 5233.) In 1932 the electors of the city passed an initiative ordinance (No. 767) by which they inaugurated a civil service system for the employees of the fire department. In 1934 a similar initiative ordinance (No. 821a) was enacted for the members of the police department. In 1935 the Legislature conferred express authority on municipalities to enact such legislation for the selection, classification, suspension and discharge of appointive employees. (Stats. 1935, ch. 48, p. 380; Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1937, Act 1401.) At the same session the Legislature ratified all existing municipal ordinances creating civil service systems. (Stats. 1935, ch. 136, p. 485; Stats. 1939, eh. 579, p. 1987; Deering’s Gen. Laws, Act 1402.) This express ratification established the validity of the two initiative ordinances relied on by respondents.

(City of Sacramento

Adams,

171 Cal. 458, 464 [153 Pac. 908];

City of Redlands

Brook,

151 Cal. 474, 478 [91 Pac. 150].)

The record shows that on or about June 10, 1938, the personnel of the fire department was increased by two new members, Snoeberger and Peterson. On August 22, 1938, approximately two months later, the city council passed a resolution (No. 1758) which recited that “for purposes of economy to effect a reduction of expenses in the Police and Fire Departments” the number of members of those departments should be reduced, and nine persons were ordered discharged. The resolution also recited that the employees so named' were those

[632]

Rexstrew v. City of Huntington Park

AI Brief

GIBSON, C. J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief