Forstner

Forstner v. City & County of San Francisco

Good Law
1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1790·239 Cal. App. 2d 516·48 Cal. Rptr. 805
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 1966Civ. No. 22477California2,570 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shoemaker, J.

Plaintiffs, employed as Class 8410 probation officers by the City and County of San Francisco (hereafter referred to as the “city”), brought this proceeding in mandamus to compel the city, its civil service commission, its board of supervisors and the individual members of both bodies, to reclassify plaintiffs’ positions so as to entitle them to the higher rate of compensation as established for Class T-56 probation officers, and to pay plaintiffs such amounts as may be found due them from July 1, 1962.

The facts are without dispute. Late in 1959, the civil service commission, acting under section 151 of the city charter, commenced a comprehensive survey of the city’s job classifications. As a result of this survey, it was found that *518 the existing position of Class T-56 probation officer was too broadly defined and actually contained two different levels of duties and responsibilities. The commission accordingly determined that there should be a reclassification by the creation of two new positions: Class 8410 (probation officer, juvenile court) and Class 8412 (senior probation officer, juvenile court). The more responsible duties previously encompassed within the T-56…

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.