Reported / Citable
Background
After a 2008 Orange County Sheriff’s Department reorganization, deputy sheriff II employees generally worked patrol, but some—including Robert Szewczyk and Rodney Morikawa—remained in jail operations. Jail deputies worked a mandatory platoon schedule of 80.5 hours every two weeks, including a regularly scheduled half hour coded as 6FE overtime.
When the deputies retired, the Orange County Employees Retirement System excluded that pay from the compensation used to calculate their pensions. The retirees obtained writs directing OCERS to include it as “compensation earnable” under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937. OCERS appealed, characterizing the payment as nonpensionable overtime.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District affirmed. Pensionability turns on the substance of the work and pay, not merely an employer’s payroll label. The extra half hour was built into the ordinary, mandatory schedule for every deputy assigned exclusively to jail operations and was paid at the same rate to workers in that relevant grade or class.
The court rejected OCERS’s effort to define the comparison class so broadly that patrol deputies’ different schedules controlled. Substantial evidence supported treating deputy sheriff II employees assigned to jail operations as the relevant grade or class. Because the 6FE time was regularly and ordinarily worked by that group, it qualified as compensation earnable.
Key Takeaways
- A payroll code calling compensation “overtime” does not conclusively determine whether it is pensionable.
- Courts examine whether the hours are mandatory, regular, and ordinarily worked by the relevant employee class.
- The correct grade or class may reflect actual assignment and working conditions, not only a broad job title.
- Public employers and retirement systems should preserve schedule, classification, and historical pay-practice evidence.
Why It Matters
The ruling may affect county pension calculations wherever employees sharing a formal classification work distinct mandatory schedules. For public agencies, unions, and retirees, the factual definition of the comparison group can determine whether recurring pay belongs in final compensation.
Agencies should review recurring “overtime” that is embedded in normal schedules. Retirees challenging an exclusion should focus on uniformity, regularity, rate of pay, and the actual duties of similarly situated workers.