The purpose of this Circular Letter is to provide an update on the case of Cargill v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The plaintiffs are individuals who have performed services for the District who allege that they should be classified as District employees. The plaintiffs allege they have been denied compensation, benefits, and employment rights as a result of this misclassification. The District and the other defendants deny these allegations. Under the law governing CalPERS, all persons in the employ of the District who are not expressly excluded by statute or under the terms of the District s contract with CalPERS must be enrolled as CalPERS members.
Plaintiffs contend that they are employees entitled to CalPERS membership.
State statutes that were originally enacted over 40 years ago govern the membership eligibility of individuals. The question before the court is the meaning of these statutes. CalPERS sought, and was granted, permission to intervene in the litigation as a party. CalPERS, plaintiffs, and the District each filed motions on the limited issue of CalPERS membership. The court relied on traditional rules of statutory interpretation to reach this result and expressly rejected the District s arguments that the employee must be paid directly by the public agency employer to qualify for CalPERS membership.