Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association et al. v. County of Los Angeles
In the Court of Appeal of the State of California
22 July 2008; B200582

Cash out Option Denial for Deferred Excess Vacation Hours Illegal

Plaintiffs in this case are 14 retired deputy sherrifs who took a leave of absence following their retirement by virtue of Section 4850 of the Labor Code.

The section provides that when a public officer “is disabled, whether temporarily or permanently, by injury or illness arising out of and in the course of his or her duties, he or she shall become entitled,… to a leave of absence while so disabled without loss of salary…”

At retirement, the deputy sherrifs were paid for their deferred excess vacation hours.

The payment however, did not become part of calculation of salary for purposes of retirement so the plaintiff’s retirement benefits are thus lower than they would have been if the hours had been cash out.

Due to this, the sherrifs and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers filed an action for declaratory relief. They pray that the County’s policy which denies employees on 4850 leave the cash out option be declared violative of the following:

1. Section 4850 and 132a, which prohibits discrimination against disable employees); and


2. Constitutional guarantees of equal protection of the law, and impaired the employees’ rights under their employment contract.

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. It ordered the County to report to the Los Angeles County Employees’ Retirement Systems, as pensionable income, the amounts which should have been paid to plaintiffs in a cash-out at the end of the deferred year.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court saying that the County’s policy violated the Labor Code on the following grounds:

• Section 4850 prohibits discrimination in “salary”. The term salary includes sick pay and other fringe benefits which accrue incident to the employees service and to which the employee is entitled.


• At the trial, the County stipulated that it “would not have implemented any policy or established practice of forcing employees in the positions or assignments occupied by the Individual Plaintiffs to use deferred excess vacation prior to the end of the deferral year. It cannot now argue on appeal that plaintiffs might have been ordered to use excess vacation hours.


• The evidence did not prove that the County established that the plaintiffs, if not on 4850 leave, would have been forced to use their deferred vacation hours, and would not have received a cash payment. The County’s reliance in Professional Peace Officers’ Assn case is misplaced as the cash out was not a benefit to which the plaintiff employees were entitled, because it was not a “benefit” any employee got. In this case, the evidence was to the contrary.

Based on the foregoing, the Court deemed it no longer necessary to resolve, nor discuss, violations of the constitutional guarantees and employment contracts.