O'Connor

O'Connor v. State Teachers' Retirement System

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 273·43 Cal. App. 4th 1610·51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 540·96 Daily Journal DAR 3592·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2193
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 28, 1996Docket Nos. B082583, B083642California5,959 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

Introduction

These two consolidated appeals involve the calculation of retirement allowance for a member of the State Teachers’ Retirement System (STRS) who holds two full-time teaching positions simultaneously. Both actions arose after the member-teachers filed petitions for writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

In the first lawsuit, L. Edmund Kellogg requested an administrative hearing after the STRS Board informed him it had calculated his retirement benefits based on one of his two full-time positions only and considered the other full-time position to be overtime. After the administrative law judge ruled in favor of STRS and the Teachers’ Retirement Board Benefits, and Services Committee adopted the decision, Kellogg filed a petition for writ of mandate. The trial court granted the writ finding in favor of Kellogg, that the calculation of his retirement allowance should be based on both full-time teaching positions. STRS has appealed.

In the second action, under the same circumstances, the administrative law judge ruled, as had the administrative court in Kellogg’s case, in favor of STRS, rejecting Robert J. O’Connor’s…

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.