* Court: State Appellate
* Public Employer: San Diego County consolidated courts
* Plaintiffs' Job Classes: Court employees
* Trial Court Decision: Not applicable (petition filed directly
with the appellate court)
* Appellate Court Outcome: In favor of public employer
* Plaintiffs' Counsel: Castle & Krause
* Issue Areas: Constitutionality of civil service status
San Diego Facts
* In June 1998, the voters amended the California constitution to
permit the unification of municipal and superior courts in a county
upon a majority vote within each level of judges in the county. If the
vote is in favor of unification, municipal court employees become
superior court employees.
* In August 1998, the San Diego county judges voted in favor of
unification.
* The municipal court employees had had civil service status; the
superior court employees had only at-will status.
* The association representing the municipal court employees filed
a petition for writ of mandate with the appellate court; the court
denied the petition.
Analysis of San Diego County Court Clerks Association
Decision
* A statute implementing the constitutional amendment required
court employees being unified to maintain their "benefits";
the court concludes that the term "benefits" does not
include civil service status.
* A section of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, i.e., the city and
county employees collective bargaining statute, continued the
bargaining status of county employees transferred to the courts. The
court distinguished this section of the Act, because the present case
does not involve county employees.
* Most importantly, the court rejected the argument that the
municipal court employees possessed either a federal or state
constitutional vested right or due process right to continued civil
service status. In other words, a public employee's civil service
status is not constitutionally protected; a city or county can
legislatively abolish that status.
