Young v. State Board of Control

Opinion

EVANS, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff, Erma Young, an employee of the State of California (State), from an order denying her request for a peremptory writ of mandate seeking to annul the effect of

[639]

California Administrative Code, title 2, section 102 (hereafter SPB rule 102), and directing that the State pay her back salary on merit and special in-grade salary adjustments according to Government Code sections 18854 and 18856, without regard to SPB rule 102.

1

The sole issue presented for our determination is the validity of that rule (102) which provides, in pertinent part, “If the appointing authority certifies in the manner prescribed by the executive officer that the employee has met the standards ... for the position, the employee who is not paid at the maximum step of the salary range shall receive a merit salary adjustment equivalent to one step in the salary range . . . effective on the first of the monthly pay period next following completion of:

“(a) Twelve months of qualifying service after:

“(1) appointment; or

“(2) last merit salary adjustment; or

“(3) last special in-grade salary adjustment; . . .”

Section 102 is interpretive of Government Code section 18854 which provides for merit salary increases in the following broad language: “After completion of the first year in a position, each employee shall receive a merit salary adjustment equivalent to one of such intermediate steps during each year when he meets such standards of efficiency as the board by rule shall prescribe.”

The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff was employed at the Stockton State Hospital in a classification which entitled her to a special in-grade salary adjustment (Gov. Code, § 18859; Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 2, § 102.6)

2

after six months of service. She received that adjustment