Stephens v. Clark

California Supreme Court Nov 6, 1940 No. Sac. 5397Published

Before: Edmonds

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the state personnel board had the authority to establish salary ranges for positions brought into the civil service system, and that such an initial classification did not constitute an unlawful reduction of salary for employees previously earning more than the newly established maximum.

Issues

Whether the state personnel board's establishment of a salary range for a civil service position constitutes an unlawful reduction of salary for an employee previously earning a higher amount.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a salary in excess of the maximum salary range established by the personnel board for his classified position.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The classification of the position by fixing a salary range was the original determination of the personnel board, and petitioner has no right to a salary in excess of the maximum therein provided.”

“This does not result in a reduction of salary under the Civil Service Act, supra; it merely means that the board set up a standard, where none existed before, which must be followed.”

[491]

EDMONDS, J.

Prior to the adoption of article XXIV of the Constitution, which became effective December 20, 1934, the petitioner was a state employee not under civil service. He brought this proceeding to recover the difference between the salary received by him before that date and the lower amount later specified for his position in the classified civil service. The case is here upon an appeal from a judgment requiring the defendant state officers to fix the petitioner’s salary at the higher amount and to pay him the sum which would be due him on that basis.

In 1934, the petitioner was .an investigator in the department of motor vehicles, receiving a salary of $275 per month. The constitutional amendment which was adopted by the voters in that year declares that the state civil service shall include every employee of the state, with certain exceptions not applicable to the petitioner. It also provides: “All persons not hereinbefore provided for in subdivision (d) hereof, holding positions subject hereto for more than six months immediately preceding the effective date hereof, shall continue to hold such positions subject to the provisions hereof save that the (state personnel) board in adopting rules relative to classes or grades of the position held by such person shall give each such person such class or grade as it may deem just and such probationary term to commence on the effective date hereof of not less than two months nor more than eight months in the class or grade assigned as it may fix.” (See. 5 [e].) Petitioner’s rights are governed by the provisions of this section.

Acting pursuant to these provisions, in September, 1935, the board gave his position the classification of “supervisor of non-resident registration”, with substantially the same duties as the petitioner was then performing. On November 7, 1935, it established a salary range for this position at a minimum and maximum of $205 and $250 per month respectively. Since that date the petitioner has been paid at the maximum rate.

The appellant officers assert that the resolution of the board fixing the salary range for the petitioner’s position automatically reduced his salary to the maximum allowed therefor, and also that any claim for back salary is barred by the statute of limitations. In support of the judgment of the trial court in his favor, the petitioner contends that as he

Stephens v. Clark

AI Brief

EDMONDS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief