A former airport security guard is challenging a decision that denied her reclassification to a higher retirement benefit status. Susan Galloway filed the complaint in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five, on September 5, 2024, against the Board of Administration of California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).
Galloway began working for the City of Santa Monica as an Airport Security Guard (ASG) in January 1985. Throughout her employment, her service was reported to CalPERS as a "local miscellaneous member." In May 2000, she requested CalPERS to reclassify her employment status to "local safety member," which would significantly enhance her retirement benefits. The request was denied because the duties of an ASG did not meet the criteria for active law enforcement under Government Code section 20425. Galloway retired in October 2000 and renewed her request in May 2015, which was again denied.
In June 2018, Galloway appealed CalPERS' decision but was informed she had no right to an administrative appeal. However, she was later advised that she could appeal and have a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings. During an administrative hearing starting on October 23, 2019, evidence including job descriptions and testimonies were presented.
The court examined job descriptions from different years showing ASGs patrolled the airport, monitored activities, issued citations for municipal code violations, responded to emergencies including aircraft crashes, and coordinated with federal agencies like FAA and Homeland Security. Despite these duties overlapping with those typically performed by police officers, ASGs were not authorized to carry firearms or make arrests beyond issuing citations.
Testimonies from various witnesses including Galloway herself and other ASGs highlighted their responsibilities such as monitoring airport activities and responding to incidents but clarified they lacked full law enforcement authority. For instance, they could not detain suspects or conduct criminal investigations without calling for police assistance.
Expert witness Richard Lichten argued that many of Galloway’s duties were consistent with those of police officers. However, city witnesses emphasized that ASGs were civilian employees without arrest powers or firearms training typical for police officers.
Ultimately, both the administrative law judge and later the trial court ruled against Galloway's petition for writ of administrative mandate seeking reclassification retroactive to her first day of employment. The court concluded that although ASGs performed some law enforcement-like duties occasionally, their principal functions did not constitute active law enforcement service required under section 20425.
Representing Galloway were attorneys Jens B. Koepke and Frank A. McGuire from Complex Appellate Litigation Group while Matthew G. Jacobs along with Renee Salazar and Elizabeth Yelland represented CalPERS. Liebert Cassidy Whitmore's Steven M. Berliner and Alex Y. Wong represented the City of Santa Monica.
Judge Craig D. Karlan presided over the case in Los Angeles County Superior Court under Case ID SS029320.