Ruiz-Cano v. County of San Diego

California Court of Appeal Oct 16, 1979 No. Civ. 18368Published

Before: Focht

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the San Diego County Charter provisions imposing a broad, indiscriminate ban on the employment of noncitizens in public service positions are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Issues

Whether San Diego County Charter provisions prohibiting the employment of noncitizens in public service violate the equal protection clauses of the California and United States Constitutions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold only that a flat ban on the employment of aliens in positions that have little, if any, relation to a State’s legitimate interest, cannot withstand scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

“The ban on alien employment contained in the charter provisions under consideration in the case at bench is indiscriminate and cannot be upheld under the special public interest or governmental function exceptions”

Opinion

FOCHT, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting plaintiff Etelvina Ruiz-Cano a peremptory writ of mandate ordering certain officials of San Diego County to reinstate plaintiff to a previously held employment position with the county, together with associated benefits, and awarding her back pay with interest.

Plaintiff was hired by the county on August 24, 1977, as a mental health assistant in a program known as the “Battered Women’s Project.” Pursuant to certain provisions of the San Diego County Charter then in existence, plaintiff was informed she would have to file proof of

[805]

United States citizenship or of having filed a petition for naturalization in order to continue to receive compensation. Upon her failure to do so she was given notice of termination on March 14, 1978.

Sections 41 and 89 of the county charter at the period in question contained the provisions with which this appeal is concerned.

Section 41 provided in relevant part as follows: “It shall be unlawful to knowingly employ, engage or appoint any person to serve in the public service who is not a native or fully naturalized citizen of the United States;...” Section 89 provided in relevant part: “No person shall be certified to any position in the classified civil service, or employed or appointed to any position or office in the unclassified service, unless such person is a native-born or fully naturalized citizen of the United States, provided however, that the prohibitions of this section shall not apply ...(c) to the employment of any person who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States.

“. . .The term ‘Person who has declared his intention to become a citizen’ shall not include any person who fails to secure his certificate of naturalization within six months after the time he is entitled by law to secure the same.”

Plaintiff was lawfully admitted to the United States as a permanent resident in 1944 at the age of four. She has been a resident of San Diego County for the past 33 years.

Ruiz-Cano v. County of San Diego

AI Brief

FOCHT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief