City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire

Filed 3/26/14 (Unmodified opinion attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

CITY OF OAKLAND, A136769 Plaintiffs and Respondents. (Alameda County v. Super. Ct. No. RG11580626) OAKLAND POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR Appellants and Respondents, REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] RETIRED OAKLAND POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants and Interveners.

It is ordered that the opinion filed February 28, 2014, be modified as follows: 1. The section heading on page 31 which currently reads “C. Equitable Defenses” is corrected to read “D. Equitable Defenses.” 2. Footnote 18 will be added to the end of the last paragraph of section II.D.1. on page 40, after the last sentence ending “compensation attached to rank.” 1

1 In Crumpler, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d 567, the executive officer of the PERS board determined that certain PERS members had been improperly classified years earlier and reclassified them. The reclassified members asked for an administrative hearing and, following that hearing, the PERS board determined that retroactive reclassification to their dates of hire was appropriate. (Id. at pp. 570-571.) The reclassified members then sought a writ of mandate to review and set aside the decision of the PERS board, and the trial court granted the writ. (Id. at p. 571.) On appeal, the Crumpler court concluded that the PERS board was estopped from reclassifying the PERS members prior to the date of the board’s reclassification decision, but could reclassify them prospectively. (Id. at

1

3. All subsequent footnotes will be renumbered. There is no change in the judgment. Respondent’s petition for rehearing is denied.

____________________________ REARDON, ACTING P. J.

We concur:

_________________________ RIVERA, J.

_________________________ HUMES, J.

p. 584-586; see also Gov. Code, § 20160, subd. (e) [correction of PERS benefit errors shall take place “as of the time that the correction actually takes place” when the purposes of PERS “will not be effectuated if the correction is performed in a retroactive manner”].) Thus, the court declined to end the estoppel on the date that PERS first indicated its change of position through its executive officer, or at any other point prior to the PERS board’s formal determination that an error had occurred. In the present case, the record is clear that the Board did not consider the issue of shift differential pay prior to the commencement of these proceedings. Under these circumstances, we conclude that estoppel in this case is appropriate for all payments made prior to the date that our decision in this matter becomes final. (Compare Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 305 [holding that decision overruling prior case law will be applied prospectively from the date that the decision becomes final based on notions of fairness and given reliance on the previous precedent].)