Haas v. City of Los Angeles

California Supreme Court Dec 21, 1942 No. L. A. 18389Published

Before: Gibson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An employee of the fire department is entitled to pension benefits if their duties have a substantial connection with fire prevention or extinguishment, regardless of their specific civil service classification or designation.

Issues

Whether a fire department employee whose civil service classification is 'painter' is entitled to pension benefits under the city charter.
Whether the determination of pension eligibility can be properly addressed through mandate proceedings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“An employee of the fire department, under whatever classification or designation he may be carried, whose duties have a substantial connection with fire prevention or fire, extinguishment, is entitled to pension benefits”

GIBSON, C. J.

— This is a proceeding in mandamus to compel payment of a pension to petitioner as a member of the Los Angeles Fire Department. After a hearing on the merits, petitioner secured judgment directing the issuance of a per

[394]

emptory writ of mandate and from this judgment defendants appealed.

Substantially the same problem, arising under the same city charter provisions, was presented and determined in the case of

McKeag

Board of Pension Commrs., ante,

p. 386 [132 P.2d 198] (this day decided). In that case we held that it can properly be determined upon mandate proceedings whether the requirements of the charter have been met. Those requirements are that petitioner be a person ‘ ‘ duly and regularly appointed in the Fire Department under civil service rules and regulations whose duty it is to prevent or extinguish fires in the City of Los Angeles, under whatever " designation . . . [he] may be described in any salary or departmental ordinance providing compensation for said Fire Department” (§ 185) and that he have been such for the requisite number of years (§ 181),

Defendants concede that petitioner was duly and regularly appointed “Painter — Fire Department” under civil service rules, that he has served for the requisite number of years, and that he paid into the pension fund the same proportionate contribution as was paid by other members of the fire department from the beginning of his employment in 1911 until some time in the latter part of 1939. They contend, however, that petitioner was not under a duty to prevent or extinguish fires. Defendants argue that petitioner was not physically qualified for the position of fireman and not employed as such, that his hours were not those of firemen, that he was never carried on the personnel lists of the fire department nor under the civil service codes as a fireman. They* contend that the fire chief could not, by assigning different duties, transform a painter into a fireman under the civil service system, citing

Pinion

Haas v. City of Los Angeles

AI Brief

GIBSON, C. J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief