Wirth

Wirth v. State

Good Law
142 Cal. App. 4th 131·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1282·2006 Daily Journal DAR 11183·47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7820
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 31, 2006C050065California3,889 words

Opinion

Opinion

Butz, J.

Plaintiffs Daniel J. Wirth and the California Correctional Supervisors Organization (collectively CCSO) filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to compel defendants — the Governor, the State of California and the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) — to afford salary increases for state correctional supervisors in fiscal year 2003-2004, increases that plaintiffs claimed were mandated by Government Code sections 19849.18 and 19849.22.

Section 19849.18 provides that supervisors of correctional officers shall receive “salary and benefits changes” that are “at least generally equivalent” to the changes granted to their rank-and-file subordinates. Section 19849.22 establishes the maintenance of a “supervisory compensation differential” as a legislative goal. CCSO, an employee organization representing supervisors in the Departments of Corrections and the California Youth Authority, contends that DPA violated these statutes when it refused to grant correctional supervisors the same percentage salary raise as the officers they supervised, instead giving them a smaller raise supplemented by other compensatory benefits. The trial court denied the petition,…

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.