A California appeals panel has ruled the state must pay the legal fees for a former Lake County employee, who sued for a disability retirement because she was allegedly unable to work in her office because of an allergy, saying the ex-employee's suit could benefit other public workers.
The recent decision was written by Justice Jim Humes, with concurrence from Justice Sandra Marguiles and Judge Raymond Swope, of California First District Appellate Court. The decision favored Cari McCormick in her dispute with the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).
McCormick became an appraiser in 2002 for Lake County, working at the county courthouse in Lakeport.
Jim Humes
| courts.ca.gov
Lakeport is located on Clear Lake, about 65 miles of Santa Rosa.
In 2013, McCormick was terminated, because she suffered pain and fatigue from an allergy allegedly triggered by the courthouse and could no longer work there, according to court documents. The county had refused to let her telecommute or work elsewhere.
CalPERS then turned McCormick down for a disability retirement. CalPERS reasoned McCormick was not disabled because she could still work, except not at the courthouse. McCormick unsuccessfully tried to upset this decision in Lake County Superior Court. However, the First District Appellate Court overturned the decision in 2019, saying public employees are eligible for disability retirement when they "can no longer perform their duties at the only location where their employer will allow them to work."
McCormick next asked Superior Court Judge David Herrick to order CalPERS to cover the $812,000 in legal fees she rang up pursuing the case. McCormick contended coverage of the fees was warranted, because, under California's Code of Civil Procedure, her lawsuit significantly benefited the public. Herrick refused that request in 2021.
On appeal, Justice Humes agreed with McCormick that her legal victory had broader implications and coverage of the fees was deserved.
"Since her case resulted in a published opinion addressing eligibility for disability retirement under the Public Employees' Retirement Law, we conclude that it conveyed a significant benefit on the public," Humes said.
Humes explained the potential reach of the McCormick case.
"Our opinion not only concluded that McCormick herself was eligible for disability retirement but also emphasized that disability must be judged in light of a member’s actual job location and duties and that members need not seek an accommodation to become eligible. Our prior opinion addressed a statutory scheme bearing on employment benefits for millions of people, clarifying existing law and requiring it to be followed," Humes said.
In addition, Humes pointed out the McCormick ruling "clarified and protected the rights of employees who serve the public" and "principles we discussed may well affect cases that do not involve environmentally based disabilities like McCormick’s."
Humes noted that in approving McCormick's request for the fees, he was not agreeing to the amount sought. Rather, the sum to be paid by the state must be determined in superior court.
McCormick has been represented by Benjamin Karpilow, of Meechan, Rosenthal & Karpilow, of Santa Rosa.
CalPERS has been defended by in-house counsel Elizabeth Yelland, as well as by Raymond Cardozo and Kathryn Bayes, of the global firm of Reed Smith, which is headquartered in Pittsburgh and has offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Costa Mesa.