Orange County Employees Assn. v. County of Orange

Caution
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1119·234 Cal. App. 3d 833·285 Cal. Rptr. 799·91 Daily Journal DAR 11908·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7799
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 1991G009829California4,490 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sonenshine, J.

Is the County of Orange required, pursuant to section 53205.2 of the Government Code, to provide retired county personnel with health care benefits equal to those provided to active employees, at no additional out-of-pocket cost to the retirees? Stated another way, does section 53205.2 mandate equal subsidies for retired employees? The trial court concluded it does and that mandamus was appropriate. We disagree and reverse the judgment.

I.

In October 1985, a mandamus petition was filed against the County of Orange and its board of supervisors (county), on behalf of Orange County Employees Association, Inc. (OCEA), an organization representing the interests of county’s active and retired personnel. Also named as a petitioner was Fred Preble, an employee scheduled to retire shortly after trial. A first amended petition filed in March 1987 added Frank Higginbottom, a county employee who had already retired. A second amended petition was filed in April.

The petition sought a peremptory writ of mandate commanding county to perform its “clear, unequivocal, present, and ministerial duty ... to give preference to such employee health benefits affected, and which provide the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.