Thurston v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal May 5, 1953 No. Civ. 19506Published

Before: Fox

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A retired county employee who was a member of a prior retirement system and filed a timely election to become a safety member under the new consolidated system is entitled to safety member benefits, even if the employee was no longer actively employed on the system's operative date.

Issues

Whether an employee must be actively employed on the operative date of a new retirement system to qualify as a 'safety member' under Government Code section 31558.
Whether the petitioner met the statutory requirements for transfer to the new retirement system by filing a written election while a member of the prior system.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Petitioner’s rights as a safety member in the new system became vested upon his compliance with the requirements of the new law, though benefits therefrom were deferred until the operative date of the new system.”

“To accept defendants’ argument that to be eligible for benefits under the new law the member must still have been employed on January 1, 1952, is to add a condition for such eligibility that is not set forth in the act.”

FOX, J.

Petitioner was an employee of Los Angeles County from January 10, 1921, to December 1,1951. He was in the Department of the Forester and Firewarden, and was a member of the Foresters, Firewardens and Firemen’s Retirement System. (Gov. Code, tit. 3, div. 4, pt. 3, ch. 5 [§ 32200 et seq.] known as the County Fire Service Retirement Law.) Petitioner’s 60th birthday occurred on November 1,1951, and, pursuant to section 32350 of the Government Code, he was involuntarily retired on December 1, 1951. He made all contributions which were required of him by that system so that he became entitled to a pension thereunder. His terminal salary, which was the average salary earned during the last three years of his service was $543.72 a month. His pension was 50 per cent of this amount or $271.86 per month.

Prior to 1952 there were in addition to the County Fire Service Retirement Law, two other separate retirement systems for county and certain other public employees. One was the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (Gov. Code, § 31450 et seq.) which covered county employees in

[620]

general. The other was the County Peace Officers’ Retirement Law (Gov. Code, tit. 3, div. 4, pt. 3, ch. 4, § 31900 et seq.]), which governed the system for deputy sheriffs, deputy marshals and other employees in the police classification. Separate systems were maintained in the police and fire classifications so that greater benefits could be provided employees in these hazardous occupations than for those in sedentary work.

In order to obtain the practical administrative advantages of one retirement system instead of three, and at the same time recognize the differences between the hazards of police and fire work and ordinary sedentary employment, the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 was amended by the statutes of 1951, chapter 1098, page 2843, to create a separate class of members known as “Safety Members” covering those in police and fire services. This statute went into effect on September 22, 1951. The new law authorized the board of supervisors to abolish the retirement system for those in the police and fire departments effective January 1, 1952. An ordinance for that purpose was adopted by the board on September 4, 1951. It went into effect on October 5, 1951, but by its terms it did not “become operative” until January 1, 1952.

Thurston v. County of Los Angeles

AI Brief

FOX, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief