Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Monroe v. Cal. Public Employees' Retirement System

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: B345865

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (432)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 2/18/26; Certified for Publication 3/11/26 (order attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO
RANDY MONROE, B345865

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. 24PSCP00069)

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT
SYSTEM,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed.
Larry Watkins for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Renee Salazar and Preet Kaur for Defendant and Respondent.

---

While under investigation for on-duty misconduct, parole agent
Randy Monroe (Monroe) applied for service retirement, pending a claim
for disability retirement. His application was accepted, and he was
thereafter found ineligible for disability retirement because his
departure was not related to a disability and occurred while he was
under investigation for misconduct. The CalPERS Board of
Administration affirmed the denial of his application because a
prerequisite for disability retirement was lacking: the right to return
to service. Monroe petitioned for a writ of mandate to reverse the
Board’s decision, which the trial court denied. We agree with the Board
and the trial court, and therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
1. Facts
Monroe was a parole agent with the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) between 2011 and 2022. In
2021, he was informed that he was being investigated for misconduct
related to his romantic involvement with a family member of a parolee
he supervised.
On August 10, 2021, Monroe contacted CalPERS about disability
retirement. The next day, he was served with a notice that he would be
interviewed about the alleged misconduct. That interview took place
on August 31, 2021.
On March 3, 2022, CalPERS received Monroe’s application for
service retirement pending disability retirement. Monroe claimed
disability of “neck, bilateral upper extremities” from “cumulative
occupational trauma.” On March 10, 2022, CalPERS processed
Monroe’s service retirement application, rendering him retired as of
March 1, 2022.
On March 23, 2022, Monroe was issued a notice of adverse action
(NOAA) stating he was going to be dismissed as a parole agent effective
April 1, 2022, based on misconduct including inexcusable neglect of
duty, dishonesty, and misuse of state property. Monroe requested and

2
was granted a Skelly 1 hearing, which occurred on March 30, 2022, and
the parole administrator upheld the decision to dismiss him.
On April 8, 2022, the CDCR learned that Monroe had already
service retired, effective March 1, 2022. The same day, the regional
parole administrator sent a letter to Monroe acknowledging “receipt of
[his] retirement from employment with the [CDCR], effective” March 1,
2022, and stating her determination that his retirement was “ ‘under
unfavorable circumstances.’ ”
The CDCR then withdrew its notice of adverse action.
2. CalPERS determines Monroe is ineligible for disability
retirement
On May 13, 2022, CalPERS sent Monroe a notice that he was
ineligible for disability retirement because his employment ended for
reasons not related to a disabling medical condition.
On June 10, 2022, Monroe appealed the rejection of his disability
claim.
3. Administrative hearing
A hearing was held in August 2023 before the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH), and the administrative law judge
upheld CalPERS’s determination that Monroe is barred from applying
for disability retirement benefits.
4. Petition for writ of mandate and denial
Monroe then filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the trial
court, and the trial court agreed that Monroe was barred from applying
for disability retirement.
DISCUSSION
1. Standard of review
Although we generally review the trial court’s administrative
mandamus decision for substantial evidence (JKH Enterprises, Inc. v.
Department of Industrial Relations (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1046, 1058),
where, as here, the facts are undisputed and the appeal involves only

1 Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194.
3
an issue of law, “we apply our independent judgment regarding the
action of the administrative agency” (Stermer v. Board of Dental
Examiners (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 128, 132).
2. Monroe’s service retirement was a complete severance
that rendered him ineligible for disability retirement
Disability retirement is available to state employees shown to be
“incapacitated physically or mentally for the performance of [their]
duties and . . . eligible to retire for disability.” (Gov. Code, §§ 21152,
21156; Martinez v. Public Employees’ Retirement System (2019) 33
Cal.App.5th 1156, 1161 (Martinez).) “[D]isability retirement is only a
‘[t]emporary separation[ ] from . . . service.’ ” (Martinez, at p. 1174; Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 2, § 446; see Willis v. State of California (1994) 22
Cal.App.4th 287, 291 [“A disability retirement is not, by definition,
permanent”].)
A member who is terminated for cause generally loses the right
to claim disability benefits because “a complete severance” of the
employee-employer relationship “eliminat[es] a necessary requisite for
disability retirement—the potential reinstatement of [the] employment
relationship . . . if it . . . is determined that [the person] no longer is
disabled.” (Haywood v. American River Fire Protection Dist. (1998) 67
Cal.App.4th 1292, 1297.) Where “an employee is fired for cause and the
discharge is neither the ultimate result of a disabling medical condition
nor preemptive of an otherwise valid claim for disability retirement,
termination of the employment relationship renders the employee
ineligible for disability retirement.” (Ibid.)
Monroe’s service retirement while under investigation for
misconduct rendered him ineligible for disability retirement because it
“ ‘constituted a complete severance of the employer-employee
relationship,’ ” thereby extinguishing the possibility of reinstatement.
(Martinez, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 1174; see Collins v. County of
Los Angeles (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 594, 597 [a “resignation is in the
nature of a notice of . . . termination”].) In Vandergoot, the CalPERS
Board of Administration (Board) extended the reasoning in Haywood to

4
an employee who settled a pending termination for cause by resigning.
(In the Matter of Application for Disability Retirement of Vandergoot
(2013) CalPERS Precedential Dec. No. 13–01 (Vandergoot).)
Vandergoot acknowledged that “bright line distinctions need not be
made” in determining when and under what circumstances a
resignation is made—what matters is that “it is no longer possible for
[the employee] to be reinstated under Government Code section 21193.”
(Vandergoot, at pp. 7–8.) Equally here, whether Monroe service retired
or was terminated for cause is immaterial. He departed under
unfavorable circumstances, with no right to return to his employment.
Monroe argues that the trial court erred in considering the
testimony of Teresa Lopez, a parole agent serving as “Assistant
Employee Relations Officer.” He fails to cite any law or parts of the
record to support this argument, and we decline to address it further.
(L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616, 620 [an appellant who fails
to cite support for an argument waives it].)
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order is affirmed. CalPERS is entitled to its
costs on appeal.

LUI, P. J.
We concur:

CHAVEZ, J.

RICHARDSON, J.

5
Filed 3/11/26
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO
RANDY MONROE, B345865

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. 24PSCP00069)

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC ORDER CERITIFYING
EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT OPINION FOR
SYSTEM, PUBLICATION

Defendant and Respondent.

The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on February 18,
2026, was not certified for publication in the Official Reports. For good
cause it now appears that the opinion should be published in the
Official Reports, and it is so ordered.

LUI, P. J.