Bonner

Bonner v. County of San Diego

Bad Law
139 Cal. App. 4th 1336·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 804·2006 Daily Journal DAR 6587·44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 116·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4485
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 26, 2006D045238California6,597 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

INTRODUCTION

The County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (the CERL) (Gov. Code, § 31450) establishes retirement allowances for persons classified as “general members” (see § 31670 et seq.) and more generous retirement allowances for persons classified as “safety members” (see § 31662 et seq.). Although safety members receive more generous benefits, they must contribute to their county retirement systems at a higher rate than general members. (Compare § 31620 et seq. with § 31639 et seq.)

Section 31469.4 defines safety members to include “persons employed as probation officers,” but provides, “The provisions of this section shall not be applicable in any county until the board of supervisors by resolution make the provisions applicable.” When a county adopts the provisions of section 31469.4, the employees affected must elect, within one year, to be treated as safety officers. (§ 31558.6.) When by amendment to the CERL the definition of safety members is expanded, affected employees may also elect to have their previous service treated as service of a safety member. (§ 31639.7.) However, the employees must make this election at the time they elect to be treated as safety…

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.