Monroe v. Cal. Public Employees’ Retirement System (CA2/2 B345865, filed 2/18/26, pub. 3/12/26) Public Employee Disability Retirement | Misconduct – Employment Law Weekly

Monroe v. Cal. Public Employees’ Retirement System (CA2/2 B345865, filed 2/18/26, pub. 3/12/26) Public Employee Disability Retirement | Misconduct

Phyllis W. Cheng, Esq.

ADR Services Mediator, Former Director of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”)

March 12, 2026

While under investigation for on-duty misconduct, parole agent Randy Monroe (Monroe) applied for service retirement, pending a claim for disability retirement. His application was accepted, and he was thereafter found ineligible for disability retirement because his departure was not related to a disability and occurred while he was under investigation for misconduct. The CalPERS Board of Administration affirmed the denial of his application because a prerequisite for disability retirement was lacking: the right to return to service. Monroe petitioned for a writ of mandate to reverse the Board’s decision, which the trial court denied. We agree with the Board and the trial court, and therefore affirm.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B345865.PDF

There are 0 comments

Share:

More Posts

Ayala-Ventura v. Superior Court (CA5 F089695, filed 2/19/26, pub. 3/17/26) Arbitration

Jazmin Ayala-Ventura filed a putative class action complaint against her former employer, CCS Facility Services-Fresno Inc. (CCS), alleging various state law violations for unpaid wages,

Payan v. LACCD (9th Cir. 24-1809 3/11/26) ADA Title II | Damages

Reversing and vacating the district court’s final judgment after retrial on remand in a disability discrimination action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (US 24-1238 oral argument 3/5/26) Preemption | Negligent Selection of Driver by Broker

Does 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c) preempt a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver? Oral Argument Transcript Oral

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 25-228 3/4/26) First Amendment | Seattle’s App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion by Uber Technologies, Inc. and Maplebear Inc. for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the City

Send Us A Message