Case: Arnett v. California Public Employees' Retirement System

3:95-cv-03022 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Aug. 28, 1995

Closed Date: 2008

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On August 28, 1995, former police officers, correctional officers, and other "safety employees" of the State of California and local agencies filed a class action lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit was brought under 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (ADEA) against the administrators of the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), the State of California, and various municipalities. The plaintiff class-representatives, represented by private counsel, sought for back pay and injunctive relief for future class members, alleging that California Government Code §21417 created a system of disparate treatment or impact based solely on age and without valid business necessity. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that the way CalPER code treated municipal employees who retired pursuant to industrial injury was discriminatory based on age alone, since the age at time of hiring determined percentage of compensation regardless of length of service.Employees of California's state agencies are automatically covered by CalPERS, and local agencies may elect to join CalPERS to provide benefits for their employees. The Plaintiff-Employees were "safety employees," defined by California Government Code §§ 20371(b), 20403, including patrol officers, state peace officers, and firefighters. All were hired at age 40 or later and retired from their jobs because of industrial disabilities. Until 1980, under California Government Code, any safety employee injured on the job received 50 percent of final compensation as a disability benefit, regardless of age or the number of years of actual service, and upon retirement he or she received a disability retirement allowance of 50 percent of his or her final compensation. In 1980, California changed the scheme to one where injured retirees received a percentage equal to twice what their years of service would have been if they had worked until age 55, not to exceed 50 percent. The effect was that regardless of the years of actual service, all employee's hired at or before age 30 would receive the 50 percent maximum and those hired after age 30 could never get to that level of compensation.In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that § 21417 violates the ADEA under a disparate treatment theory because it reduces disability benefits based solely upon workers' ages at hire. The District Court (Judge Charles R. Breyer) disagreed and granted defendants' motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the Employees failed to state a disparate treatment claim. The Court did, however, grant leave to amend the complaint to allege a disparate impact claim. The Court then dismissed that claim, finding that ADEA regulations authorized the statutory scheme in § 21417, and alternatively, that the benefit differential was justified by "business necessity. Arnett v. CalPERS, No. C95-03022 CRB, 1998 WL 118180 (N.D. Cal. Mar 02, 1998). The Plaintiff class appealed the dismissal.On June 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Judge Mary Margaret McKeown) reversed and remanded to the District Court. Arnett v. CalPERS, 179 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court of Appeals found that there was adequate evidence presented to make a prima facie case, and held that a defense of "business necessity" was inappropriate for judgment upon pleadings alone. The defendants sought certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court.On January 18, 2000, the United States Supreme Court, by Memorandum, but without Justice Breyer (whose brother was the district court judge in the case), vacated the Ninth Circuit Court decision and remanded to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), where the Court had earlier held that ADEA's abrogation of 11th Amendment State sovereign immunity was beyond the scope of Congress' enforcement powers under § 5 of the 14th Amendment. CalPERS v. Arnett, 528 U.S. 1111 (2000).On March 16, 2000, on remand to the Ninth Circuit, the Court (Circuit Judges Mary Margaret McKeown, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, and Senior District Judge Charles R. Weiner of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation) held that because California never raised 11th Amendment immunity before any court, the case was still proper for further remand to the District Court for consideration consistent with Kimel. Arnett v. CalPERS, 207 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 2000). The Circuit Court also unanimously denied defendants' petition for rehearing. Id. After final remand, on September 5, 2000, the District Court granted the EEOC's motion to intervene as a party plaintiff. On November 19, 2001, the Court (Judge Breyer) certified a defendant class consisting of local public government entities that contract with CalPERS to provide retirement benefits. Finally, on January 29, 2003, the Court (Judge Breyer) issued a Verdict and Settlement Summary, whereby CalPERS agreed to recalculate and pay the benefit entitlements of all industrial disability retirement recipients as of July 1, 2001. Arnett v. CalPERS, No. 95-03022CRB, 2003 WL 1855062 (Verdict and Settlement Summary) (N.D.Cal. Jan. 29, 2003). The docket shows subsequent squabbles about individual money damages, but no other class-wide proceedings.The decree was entered in 2003 and scheduled to last 2008. No further docket entries exist, so the case is closed.

Summary Authors

Keri Livingston (8/10/2008)

Clearinghouse (12/2/2018)

People

Judge(s)

Breyer, Charles R. (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Attorney for Defendant

Beasley, Alice M. (California)

Cabatic, Linda A. (California)

Canby, Rhonda Cate (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Cheung, Raymond T. (California)

Judge(s)

Breyer, Charles R. (California)

Spero, Joseph C. (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Faunce, Edward L. (California)

Frankovich, Thomas E. (California)

Lake, Ellen (California)

Pingel, Stephen R. (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Beasley, Alice M. (California)

Cabatic, Linda A. (California)

Canby, Rhonda Cate (California)

Hewitt, Henry S. (California)

Neri, Miguel Angel (California)

Pepper, Robert M. (California)

Rickards, Cyrus J. (California)

Tamura, Irene K. (California)

Wertheimer, Jeffrey M. (California)

White-Sperling, Jennifer Elizabeth (California)

Other

Cheung, Raymond T. (California)

Janiak, Peter A. (California)

Offen-Brown, David F. (California)

Peck, Jonathan T. (California)

Tamayo, William Robert (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

3:95-cv-03022	Docket	May 25, 2004	May 25, 2004 Docket
81 3:95-cv-03022	Order Granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Arnett v. CA Public Employees' Retirement System	March 2, 1998	March 2, 1998 Order/Opinion 1998 WL 118180
99-00850	Order Granting Writ of Certiorari Supreme Court of the United States	Jan. 18, 2000	Jan. 18, 2000 Order/Opinion 528 U.S. 1111
210 3:95-cv-03022	Consent Decree in Partial Resolution of Lawsuit Arnett & EEOC v. CALPERS	Aug. 3, 2001	Aug. 3, 2001 Order/Opinion
430 3:95-cv-03022	Supplemental Consent Decree Arnett & EEOC v. CalPERS	Jan. 29, 2003	Jan. 29, 2003 Order/Opinion
3:95-cv-03022	Disabled Public Safety Officers to Receive Benefits in Historic EEOC Settlement for Age Discrimination Arnett and EEOC v. California Public Employee Retirement System No Court	Jan. 30, 2003	Jan. 30, 2003 Press Release

show / hide documents

Resources

Resources related to this case
Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Under the Radar: Visibility and the Effects of Discrimination Lawsuits in Small and Large Firms Carly Knight, Frank Dobbin, Alexandra Kalev	Research on how discrimination lawsuits affect corporate diversity has yielded mixed results. Qualitative studies highlight the limited efficacy of lawsuits in the typical workplace, finding that lit…	March 2022	April 1, 2022 https://cris.tau.ac.il/...

show / hide resources

Docket

Last updated March 27, 2025, 8:41 a.m.

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1	Aug. 28, 1995	COMPLAINT; Summons(es) issued; Fee status pd entered on 8/28/95 in the amount of $ 120.00 ( Receipt No. 117469); jury demand [4:95-cv- 03022] (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/30/1995)	PACER
2	Aug. 28, 1995	ORDER RE COURT PROCEDURE and SCHEDULE by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong : Proof of service to be filed by 10/12/95 ; counsels' case management statement to be filed by 12/26/95 ; initial case management conference will be held 3:45 1/3/96 . (cc: all counsel) (cp, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/30/1995)	PACER
3	Oct. 12, 1995	APPLICATION by Plaintiffs to enlarge Rule 34 scheduling dates; declaration of Thomas E. Frankovich; order [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/12/1995)	PACER
4	Jan. 3, 1996	ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong denying application [3-1] ( Date Entered: 1/4/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/04/1996)	PACER
5	Jan. 11, 1996	RETURN OF SERVICE on summons and complaint and related documents executed upon defendants on 1/8/96 [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/12/1996)	PACER
6	Feb. 6, 1996	WAIVER OF SERVICE by defendant Fremont City of served on 1/19/96 in response to the Request for Waiver sent on Not mentioned [4:95-cv- 03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/07/1996)	PACER
7	Feb. 6, 1996	ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong that the City of Fremont's time to respond to the complaint herein iis extended to February 28, 1996 (Date Entered: 2/9/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/09/1996)	PACER
8	Feb. 22, 1996	PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant City of Fremont of stipulation for extension of time to respond to complaint. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/1996)	PACER
9	Feb. 28, 1996	ANSWER by defendant Fremont City of to complaint [1-1] [4:95-cv- 03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/29/1996)	PACER
	March 3, 1996	SUMMONS issued as to defendants on first amended complaint [4:95- cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/06/1996)	PACER
10	March 4, 1996	First AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by Plaintiffs; jury demand [4:95- cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/04/1996)	PACER
11	March 4, 1996	LETTER dated March 4, 1996 from Thomas E. Frankovich re: filing a pleading on defendants who have not answered. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/04/1996)	PACER
12	March 4, 1996	ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong ileave is granted to plaintiffs to file their first amended complaint for injuntive relief, back pay and damages. (Date Entered: 3/5/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/05/1996)	PACER
	March 5, 1996	RECEIVED letter from Thomas Frankovich re: age discrimination in employment act [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/06/1996)	PACER
13	March 7, 1996	First AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by Plaintiffs; jury demand [4:95- cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/08/1996)	PACER
14	March 7, 1996	STIPULATION and order to file first amended complaint filed by plaintiff [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/08/1996)	PACER
15	March 19, 1996	STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong: to enlarge Rule 34 scheduling dates; Case Management Statement is due 6/11/96; Case Management Conference set for 3:00 on 7/10/96; disclosure is due 5/7/96 ; (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv-03022] (kc, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/21/1996)	PACER
16	March 27, 1996	ANSWER by defendant West Covina City of to complaint [10-1] [4:95- cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/28/1996)	PACER
17	April 1, 1996	ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong that time is extended through and until April 22, 1996 for defendants to file and serve their response (Date Entered: 4/2/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/1996)	PACER
18	April 8, 1996	PROOF OF SERVICE by state defendants of stipulation and order extending time to respond to first amended complaint [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/09/1996)	PACER
19	April 18, 1996	ANSWER by defendant Riverside County to complaint [1-1] [4:95-cv- 03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/18/1996)	PACER
20	April 22, 1996	MOTION before Judge Saundra B. Armstrong by state defendants to dismiss complaint with Notice set for June 4, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. [4:95-cv- 03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/1996)	PACER
22	April 22, 1996	REQUEST by defendants for judicial notice. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/1996)	PACER
23	April 23, 1996	ANSWER by defendant Orange City of to first amended complaint [10- 1] [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/1996)	PACER
24	April 23, 1996	RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant CA Employees' Retire, defendant CA Board of Admin., defendant Harry Bubb, defendant Robert Carlson, defendant Richard "Bud" Carpenter, defendant Thomas Clark, defendant Kathleen Connell, defendant Jerry Cremins, defendant William Crist, defendant Michael Flaherman, defendant Matt Fong, defendant William "Bill" Rosenberg, defendant Kurato Shimada, defendant David Tarapelle, defendant Charles Valdes, defendant State of California, defendant CA Youth Authority, defendant CA Dept. of Cor., defendant West Covina City of, defendant Pete Wilson, defendant DMV, defendant Orange City of, defendant Riverside County, defendant Fremont City of on 3/6/96 [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/1996)	PACER
25	April 25, 1996	AMENDED MOTION before Judge Saundra B. Armstrong by defendant State of California to dismiss complaint with Notice set for June 18, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/25/1996)	PACER
26	April 29, 1996	CERTIFICATION of discussion of ADR options by defendant Riverside County . [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/01/1996)	PACER
27	May 14, 1996	LETTER dated May 11, 1996 from Timothy S. Thomesch re: renoticed by the state defendants form the original hearing date of June 4, 1996 to June 18, 1996. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/15/1996)	PACER
28	May 28, 1996	MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs in opposition to state defendants' motion to dismiss. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/29/1996)	PACER
29	May 28, 1996	DECLARATION by Steven R. Pingel on behalf of Plaintiffs in opposition to state defendants' motion to dismiss. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/29/1996)	PACER
30	May 28, 1996	REQUEST by Plaintiffs for judicial notice [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/29/1996)	PACER
31	June 4, 1996	ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong setting hearing on motion to dismiss complaint [25-1] 2:00 7/30/96; that state defendants' reply to plaintiffs' opposiiton to motion to dismiss shall be served and filed with the Court by July 16, 1996. ( Date Entered: 6/6/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/06/1996)	PACER
32	June 4, 1996	ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong Case Management Conference set for 2:00 7/30/96 ; ( Date Entered: 6/6/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv- 03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/06/1996)	PACER
33	June 10, 1996	PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant of order [31-1] [4:95-cv-03022] (scu, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/10/1996)	PACER
34	June 25, 1996	MOTION before Judge Saundra B. Armstrong by defendant Orange City of, defendant Fremont City of for judgment on the pleadings on behalf of the cities of West Covina, Fremont, and Orange with Notice set for July 30, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/25/1996)	PACER
35	June 25, 1996	MEMORANDUM by defendant Orange City of, defendant Fremont City of in support of motion for judgment on the pleadings on behalf of the cities of West Covina, Fremont, and Orange [34-1] [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/25/1996)	PACER
36	July 5, 1996	JOINDER by defendant Riverside County of Riverside in motion for judgment on the pleadings on behalf on the cities of West Covina, Fremont, an Orange. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/10/1996)	PACER
37	July 9, 1996	MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs in opposition to City defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/10/1996)	PACER
38	July 12, 1996	ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong Case Management Conference set for 2:00 9/17/96; ( Date Entered: 7/15/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv- 03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/15/1996)	PACER
39	July 16, 1996	REPLY by defendant Orange City of, defendant Fremont City in support of City defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. [4:95-cv- 03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/16/1996)	PACER
40	July 16, 1996	State defendants' reply in support of motion to dismiss [25-1] [4:95-cv- 03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/16/1996)	PACER
41	Sept. 9, 1996	LETTER dated September 6, 1996 from Thomas E. Frankovich re: joint case management conference statement [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/11/1996)	PACER
42	Sept. 11, 1996	Joint CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/12/1996)	PACER
43	Sept. 24, 1996	LETTER dated September 21, 1996 re: response to a conversation with clerk last week [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/27/1996)	PACER
44	Nov. 12, 1996	ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong granting motion for judgment on the pleadings on behalf of the cities of West Covina, Fremont, and Orange [34-1], granting motion to dismiss complaint [25-1] Case Management Conference set for 3:00 12/18/96 ; ( Date Entered: 11/13/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/13/1996)	PACER
46	Dec. 3, 1996	ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong Case Management Conference set for 3:00 1/30/97; plaintiffs shall have until December 17, 1996 to file their second amended complaint ( Date Entered: 12/4/96) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/04/1996)	PACER
47	Dec. 17, 1996	Second AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by Plaintiff; jury demand [4:95- cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/18/1996)	PACER
48	Jan. 17, 1997	NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendant West Covina City of, defendant Orange City of, defendant Fremont City of to dismiss case with Notice set for 3/11/97 at 2pm [4:95-cv-03022] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/21/1997)	PACER
49	Jan. 17, 1997	MEMORANDUM by defendant West Covina City of, defendant Orange City of, defendant Fremont City of in support of motion to dismiss case [48-1] [4:95-cv-03022] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/21/1997)	PACER
50	Jan. 17, 1997	REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE by defendant West Covina City of, defendant Orange City of, defendant Fremont City of [4:95-cv-03022] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/21/1997)	PACER
51	Jan. 17, 1997	ANSWER by defendant Riverside County to complaint [47-1] [4:95-cv- 03022] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/21/1997)	PACER
52	Jan. 17, 1997	NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendant CA Employees' Retire, defendant CA Board of Admin., defendant Harry Bubb, defendant Robert Carlson, defendant Richard "Bud" Carpenter, defendant Thomas Clark, defendant Kathleen Connell, defendant Jerry Cremins, defendant William Crist, defendant Michael Flaherman, defendant Matt Fong, defendant William "Bill" Rosenberg, defendant Kurato Shimada, defendant David Tarapelle, defendant Charles Valdes, defendant State of California, defendant CA Youth Authority, defendant CA Dept of Corr, defendant Pete Wilson, defendant DMV to dismiss case with Notice set for 3/11/97 at 2pm [4:95-cv-03022] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/21/1997)	PACER
53	Jan. 17, 1997	MEMORANDUM by state defendants in support of motion to dismiss case [52-1] [4:95-cv-03022] (kk, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/21/1997)	PACER
54	Feb. 20, 1997	JOINDER by defendant Riverside County in motion to dismiss on behalf of the cities of West Covina, Fremont, and Orange [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/21/1997)	PACER
55	March 4, 1997	ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong setting hearing on motion to dismiss case [48-1] 2:00 5/6/97; plaintiffs shall have up to and including April 15, 1997 to file their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss second amended complaint and defendants shall have up to and including April 22, 1997 to file their reply ( Date Entered: 3/5/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/05/1997)	PACER
56	April 15, 1997	MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs in opposition to City defendants' motion to dismiss [4:95-cv-03022] (scu, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/15/1997)	PACER
57	April 15, 1997	MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs in opposition to state defendants' motion to dismiss [4:95-cv-03022] (scu, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/15/1997)	PACER
58	April 18, 1997	Declaration of Irene K. Tamura in support of ex parte motion for extension of time to file reply brief. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/18/1997)	PACER
59	April 22, 1997	ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong that State Defendants shall have until April 29, 1997 to file and serve their reply brief. The hearing scheduled for May 6, 1997, is continued to May 20, 1997 at 2:00 p.m. Pursuant to Civil Rule 7-1(b) the Court may adjudicate the matter without oral argument (Date Entered: 4/23/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv- 03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/23/1997)	PACER
60	April 22, 1997	Reply in support of motion to dismiss on behalf of the Cities of West Covina, Fremont, and Orange. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/25/1997)	PACER
61	April 29, 1997	MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in reply to opposition to State defendants' motion to dismiss. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/30/1997)	PACER
62	April 29, 1997	Declaration of Martha Barger in support State Defendatns' reply to opposition to motion to dismiss. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/30/1997)	PACER
63	April 30, 1997	PROOF OF SERVICE by state defendants of ex parte motion for extension of time to file reply brief. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/05/1997)	PACER
64	May 19, 1997	ORDER by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong setting hearing on motion to dismiss case [52-1] 2:00 7/15/97 ( Date Entered: 5/20/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/20/1997)	PACER
65	June 4, 1997	MEMORANDUM by Plaintiffs in opposition to motion to dismiss. [4:95- cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/04/1997)	PACER
66	June 4, 1997	REQUEST by Plaintiffs for judicial notice. [4:95-cv-03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/04/1997)	PACER
67	June 4, 1997	OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Ronald Arnett, Plaintiff Harold Bailey, Plaintiff Jim Bean, Plaintiff Marguerette Howard, Plaintiff Joycelyn Keller, Plaintiff Wayne E. Lord, Plaintiff Diane S. Militano to motion to dismiss case [52-1], motion to dismiss case [48-1] [4:95-cv-03022] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)	PACER
68	June 4, 1997	OPPOSITION by Plaintiff Ronald Arnett, Plaintiff Harold Bailey, Plaintiff Jim Bean, Plaintiff Marguerette Howard, Plaintiff Joycelyn Keller, Plaintiff Wayne E. Lord, Plaintiff Diane S. Militano to motion to dismiss case [52-1], motion to dismiss case [48-1] (no original signature) [4:95-cv-03022] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/05/1997)	PACER
70	June 17, 1997	MEMORANDUM by State defendants in support of motion to dismiss case [52-1]. Notice set for 7/15/97 at 2:00 pm [4:95-cv-03022] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/17/1997)	PACER
71	June 17, 1997	Supplemental brief re: disparate impact in support of motion to dismiss on behalf of the Cities of West Covina, Fremont and Orange [4:95-cv- 03022] (cg, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/19/1997)	PACER
72	Dec. 5, 1997	Reassignment ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer vacating hearing re motion to dismiss case [52-1], vacating hearing re motion to dismiss case [48-1] referring to Judge Charles R. the motion to dismiss case [52-1], referring to Judge Charles R. Breyer the motion to dismiss case [48-1] All status and case management conference dates are vacated , Case reassigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer, Courtroom 8 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco, CA ( Date Entered: 12/5/97) (cc: all counsel) [4:95-cv-03022] (mmr, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/05/1997)	PACER
73	Dec. 22, 1997	CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by plaintiffs. [3:95-cv- 03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 12/23/1997)	PACER
74	Jan. 5, 1998	CLERK'S NOTICE Initial Case Management Conference set for 2:30 1/12/98 ; [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/07/1998)	PACER
75	Jan. 12, 1998	MINUTES: ( C/R none) ( Hearing Date: 1/12/98) Initial Case Management Conference held ; further case management conference set for 10:00 2/27/98 ; setting hearing on motion to dismiss case [52-1] 10:00 2/27/98, setting hearing on motion to dismiss case [48-1] 10:00 2/27/98 [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/14/1998)	PACER
76	Jan. 20, 1998	NOTICE by Plaintiffs of change of address of counsel : LEMAIRE FAUNCE PINGLE & SINGER, 3030 Old Ranch Parkway, Ste 100, Seal Beach, CA 90740 ; tel. no. (310) 493-9360. [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 01/21/1998)	PACER
77	Feb. 18, 1998	LETTER dated 2/16/98 from Irene K. Tamura to Judge Breyer re issues raised in the motion to dismiss. [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/19/1998)	PACER
78	Feb. 20, 1998	LETTER dated 2/20/98 from Thomas E. Frankovich to Judge Breyer re enclosed binder containing major pleadings and copy of index. [3:95-cv- 03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/1998)	PACER
79	Feb. 20, 1998	LETTER dated 2/20/98 from Thomas E. Frankovich to Judge Breyer re additional authorities re motion to dismiss. [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/23/1998)	PACER
80	Feb. 27, 1998	MINUTES: ( C/R Rhonda Aquilina) ( Hearing Date: 2/27/98) that defendant's motion to dismiss case [52-1] is submitted [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/02/1998)	PACER
82	March 2, 1998	JUDGMENT: by Judge Charles R. Breyer that judgment be entered in favor of defendants against plaintiffs ( Date Entered: 3/4/98) (cc: all counsel) [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/04/1998)	PACER
83	March 6, 1998	ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer : case NOT related to C-97-21148 ( Date Entered: 3/11/98) (cc: all counsel) [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/11/1998)	PACER
84	March 11, 1998	NOTICE by defendant West Covina City of of entry of judgment. [3:95- cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/11/1998)	PACER
85	April 1, 1998	REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 2/27/98 ( C/R: Rhonda L. Aquilina) [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/02/1998)	PACER
86	April 2, 1998	NOTICE OF APPEAL by Plaintiff from Dist. Court decision judgment [82-1], order [81-1] Fee status pd, receipt # 130822. [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/03/1998)	PACER
	April 3, 1998	Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [86-1] [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/03/1998)	PACER
	April 3, 1998	Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/03/1998)	PACER
87	April 9, 1998	TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form filed by Plaintiff for dates 2/27/98 ; C/R: Rhonda Aquilina; appeal [86-1] [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/10/1998)	PACER
	April 13, 1998	NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 98- 15574 [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/13/1998)	PACER
	April 14, 1998	CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [3:95-cv- 03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/14/1998)	PACER
88	April 21, 1998	RECEIPT from USCA for certificate of record. [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 04/22/1998)	PACER
89	Sept. 8, 1998	COPY of USCA Order: re [86-1] Appellees' joint motion for extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The answering briefs are due October 2, 1998. The optional reply briefs are due 14 days from service of the answering briefs. [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/1998)	PACER
	Feb. 18, 1999	RECORD on Appeal to USCA re appeal [86-1] [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/18/1999)	PACER
90	Feb. 25, 1999	RECEIPT from USCA of clerk's record on appeal [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/25/1999)	PACER
92	Aug. 30, 1999	COPY of judgment from USCA reversing and remanding the Decision of the District Court [Appeal [86-1] Costs taxed in the amount of $806.45 [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/31/1999)	PACER
93	Sept. 13, 1999	CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [86-1] [3:95- cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/13/1999)	PACER
94	Sept. 13, 1999	CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 8:30 9/17/99 ; [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/14/1999)	PACER
95	Sept. 17, 1999	MINUTES: ( C/R none) ( Hearing Date: 9/17/99) Further Case Management Conference held and continued to 8:30 10/29/99 [3:95-cv- 03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/20/1999)	PACER
96	Sept. 17, 1999	STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer : Deadline for all motion filings is 11/8/99 ; Case Management Statement is due 10/5/99 ; Case Management Conference continued to 8:30 10/8/99 (cc: all counsel) [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/20/1999)	PACER
96	Oct. 25, 1999	LETTER dated 10/22/99 from Thomas E. Frankovich to Judge Breyer requesting one-day extension to file Joint Case Management Statement. [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/26/1999)	PACER
97	Oct. 25, 1999	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER filed by plaintiff, defendants. [3:95-cv-03022] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/26/1999)	PACER

show / hide docket entries

Case Details

State / Territory:

California

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 28, 1995

Closing Date: 2008

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

California State 'safety employees' who were age 40 or older at time of hire, and were subject to California Public Employees Retirement System

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State

State of California,

Defendant Type(s):

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.

Other Dockets:

Northern District of California 3:95-cv-03022

Supreme Court of the United States 99-850

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Damages

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2003 - 2008

Issues

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Pay / Benefits

Discrimination Basis:

Age discrimination

Recommended Citation

Case Summary of Arnett v. California Public Employees' Retirement System, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/8574/ (last updated 12/2/2018).