AgdaPkt 2004-01-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.A-iI LEGAL FILING The League would like to provide special had a policy of not rehiring individuals that were thanks to the individuals listed below who wrote a previously terminated. The court concluded that friend-of-the-court letter for their efforts on behalf the employer's no-rehire policy p~"ides a legiti- of the League. League action and a brief sum- mate, nondiscriminatory reason for ,,ot rehiring mary of the case appear below. A bopy of the filing the former employee, and there was ~:o violation is available at: www.cacities.or,q/recentfilings, of the American with Disabilities Act. The name of the case is Raytheon Co. v. City Policy Related to Racial Profiling Chal- Hemandez, 2003 WL 22843597 (U.S. Dec. 2, lenged 2003). The League filed a friend-of-the-court letter brief urging the Califomia Supreme Court to hear a AB 719 from page 1 ................ case involving whether a city may adopt a policy requiring police officers to record certain informa- · PERS will review the most recent three- tion for purposes of a study of possible racial years of employee payroll history (prior to the profiling without being subject to the meet and request date) and use the single highest pay rate found in calculating the required contribution. confer requirements of the Meyers Millias Brown Act (MMBA). The court of appeal concluded that city must first meet and confer with the police · If the single highest pay rate reported after officers union before adopting the policy. The reinstatement from retirement is lower than the letter brief argues that the city's act of adopting the final compensation average used in the prior policy falls within the managerial and policy excel>- retirement calculation, PERS will use the final tion, and is exempt from the meet and confer compensation average figure in calculating the requirements of the MMBA. The League thanks required contribution. Andrea Saltzman and Art Hartinger with Meyers Nave Riback Silver and Wilson for writing the How Does the Member Pay? letter brief on behalf of the League. The member has two options for paying for The name of the case is Claremont Police ~- the service credit. First, you can spread the Officers Association v. City of Claremont, No. payments over a 15 year period, or you can pay in S10546, 112 Cal. App. 4th 639 (2~ Dist. Oct. 9, one lump sum. You must have separated from service if you want to use your 457 or 403(b) 2003). funds. Disparate Treatment Not Found In Refusal to · Initiate the payments/benefit on say, your Rehire Former Employee with Drug Addiction last day of active employment, then, when you The United States Supreme Court recently retire, you can pay the remaining cost through a concluded that Americans with Disability Act does 457 or 403(b) account. not confer preferential rehire rights on employees lawfully terminated for misconduct, such as illegal · You cannot buy the additional 5 years bf drug use. The case arose in the context of a job service credit if you are already retired. You must applicant who sued his former employer alleging initiate it while you are an employee and you disparate treatment because the employer refused cannot use a 457 or 403(b) during your active to rehire him due to his perceived drug addiction status. disability. The applicant argued that the employer's action violated the Americans with · If you decide to pay in one lump sum, while Disability Act. The employer stated that the former you are an active employee, again, you cannot employee was not rehired because the employer use 457 or 403(b) accounts. Continued on Page 5 Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE