CalHR’s Special Salary Adjustments Deemed Insufficient
| On May 4, 2026, the Sacramento Superior Court rendered a ruling on a petition for writ of mandate filed by excluded peace officer supervisors at the California Department of Insurance (CDI) alleging lack of compliance by CalHR with a prior administrative decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The excluded CDI supervisors initially sought relief before an ALJ designated by Cal HR. California Government Code 19826, often referred to as the “like pay” statute, requires that like salaries shall be paid to employees who perform comparable duties. The statute specifically excludes represented employees from its scope and requires that salary adjustments for represented employees be addressed via collective bargaining. The excluded CDI first line supervisors alleged that the work they, and the higher-ranking classifications in their chain of command, performed was comparable work to that performed by peace officer supervisors and managers at the California Department of Justice (DOJ). On June 28, 2024, Cal HR adopted the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who noted that Cal HR’s Personnel Management Division (PMD)’s “Analysis shows the duties and responsibilities of the [CDI] claimants overlap with the DOJ Special Agents [sic], however the scope of the responsibilities may differ based on which division a DOJ Special Agent is assigned.” The PMD Analysis further indicated that the salary gap between the CDI Supervising Fraud Investigator I (7541), the Supervising Fraud Investigator II (7542) and the Chief Fraud Bureau, CDI (7545) and the DOJ Special Agent classifications should be reduced. The ALJ recommended that the CDI supervisors’ salary be further reviewed to determine whether a Special Salary Adjustment, Pay Differential, or Alternative Range Criteria “may be an appropriate mechanism to bring the salary into closer alignment with DOJ Special Agents.” In an attempt to comply with the ALJ’s decision, and under the apparent reliance that the decision merely required CalHR to implement a pay mechanism which brought the CDI supervisors/managers’ salary “into closer alignment” with comparable DOJ classes, on December 11, 2024, CalHR implemented a one-time Special Salary Adjustment of 5% for all Unit 7 supervisory/managerial classifications with the exception of DOJ retroactive to October 1, 2024. Dissatisfied with the limited relief afforded by the SSA’s, the CDI excluded supervisors sought a petition for writ of mandate in Sacramento Superior Court. The court ruled that once a determination was made by CalHR that the work performed by the classifications at issue was comparable, there was a duty to bring the lower paid classifications into salary equivalency. The court noted that even after the SSA’s were implemented, salary disparities of 18%, 21% and 4% continued to exist with the comparable DOJ classifications. The court granted the writ and ordered CalHR to achieve like salaries between the classifications and awarded back pay retroactive to the ALJ’s decision on June 28, 2024. Given the magnitude of the relief and the potential impact on not only CDI excluded classifications, but also similarly situated excluded employees, it is likely CalHR will seek to appeal the superior court decision to the Third District Court of Appeal. As indicated above, the like pay statute does not apply to employees covered by collective bargaining agreements. And though at the time the ALJ’s decision was rendered an MOU was in effect, CalHR could have but did not seek to extend the SSA’s to represented CDI peace officers. Now that the pay range of first line CDI supervisors may be increased by 18%, CalHR will need to determine how to address the significant pay gap with the 8610 classification (reverse compaction) as well whether and how CalHR may intend to apply any increase to the CDI Investigator/Detective class to other Unit 7 peace officer classes for example at ABC, Department of Cannabis Control, Department of Consumer Affairs and Department of Motor Vehicles. According to the CalHR website, CalHR tries to maintain an appropriate vertical salary relationship between classes and strives to have a first line supervisor max salary which is 10% above the max salary for the full journey-level class it supervises. With the understanding that CalHR is presently analyzing these issues to determine next steps, CSLEA has already reached out to begin addressing bargaining unit impact with them. Updates will be made as information becomes available. A copy of the ALJ’s decision and the Superior Court’s Ruling are attached at the links below. Superior Court Ruling ALJ Decision CalHR Website: About Salary Ranges and Merit Salary Adjustments |
