AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The County of Bernalillo employed Jocelyn Hotle, Dan Rand, and Mike Alexander as Court Security Officers (CSOs). The Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) was contacted to determine if their positions qualified for Municipal Police Member Coverage Plan 5 (Police Plan 5), which offers greater benefits than their current plan, Municipal General Member Coverage Plan 3 (General Member Plan 3). PERA concluded that CSOs did not meet the requirements for Police Plan 5, as their duties did not align with being "employed as police officers." This decision was upheld by the Public Employee Retirement Board (PERB) and subsequently by the district court (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, David K. Thomson, District Judge: Upheld PERB's order denying Petitioners' motion for rehearing and affirmed PERB's decision that CSOs qualify for General Member Plan 3, not Police Plan 5.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that CSOs should qualify for Police Plan 5 because they are required by statute to be peace officers, which entails being sworn law enforcement deputies with full powers and responsibilities within the confines of the county courthouse. They contended that the job description and statutory requirements support their eligibility for Police Plan 5 (paras 10-11, 14-15).
• Respondent (PERB): Maintained that CSOs do not meet the criteria for Police Plan 5 as their primary duties do not align with being employed as police officers. PERB differentiated between peace officers and police officers, indicating that not all peace officers qualify for Police Plan 5 based on their duties and the nature of their work (paras 15-16).

Legal Issues

• Whether Court Security Officers (CSOs) are "employed as police officers" and therefore qualify for Municipal Police Member Coverage Plan 5 (Police Plan 5) under the Public Employees Retirement Act (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, which upheld the Public Employee Retirement Board’s (PERB) order. The order found that Petitioners, as CSOs, qualify for coverage under General Member Plan 3, not Police Plan 5 (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Stephen G. French, with Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge Emil J. Kiehne concurring, based its decision on the interpretation of the Public Employees Retirement Act and the specific duties of CSOs. The court noted that the act and PERA's regulations distinguish between police officers and peace officers, with Police Plan 5 reserved for those employed as police officers. The court found that the duties and functions of CSOs, as described in their job description and testified in hearings, align with the responsibilities covered under General Member Plan 3. The court concluded that PERB's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, was supported by substantial evidence, and was not contrary to law, emphasizing that the classification depends on the substantive aspects of the work and the attendant risks and hazards, rather than the formal title or the department employing the CSOs (paras 7-20).