A city employee began working as an airport security guard (ASG) in 1985. The city reported the ASG’s service as a local miscellaneous member to the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (Board). The ASG retired. In 2000 and in 2015, the ASG requested the Board to reclassify her as a local safety member. Each time, the Board declined.
In 2018, the ASG appealed the denial of her request to the California Superior Court. The ASG argued that her duties qualified as “active law enforcement” as required for safety member status, because she patrolled the airport, responded to emergencies, issued citations, and received law enforcement training. In 2021, the ASG filed a preemptory writ of mandate to request the court to direct the Board to reclassify her position to local safety member. The court denied this petition. The ASG appealed.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court concluded that the ASG’s duties only sometimes involved elements of law enforcement, and did not primarily consist of “active law enforcement service” such as: the investigation and suppression of crime; or the arrest and detention of suspected criminals. Instead, the evidence indicated that ASGs primarily performed security, administrative, and operational tasks and were directed to “observe and report” rather than engage in active enforcement or apprehend individuals.
The Court distinguished the ASGs work from others who have more extensive law enforcement responsibilities or comparable risks. It emphasized that occasional involvement in law enforcement activities does not meet the statutory criteria for reclassification as a safety member. Ultimately, the Court upheld the trial court’s denial of a writ of mandate.