Steve Cikes

Renne Public Law Group • San Francisco


Steve Cikes is a partner at Renne Public Law Group whose nearly 20 years of experience spans a range of complex cases across state and federal courts, administrative tribunals and arbitrations. He primarily represents and advises public agencies in labor, employment and government law matters.


"What drew me to the field was the variety and breadth of issues that practitioners are often called up to help clients navigate," Cikes said. "I also find there is a real 'human' component to the field not found in other practice areas -- labor and employment practitioners have to deal with the everyday struggles that both employers and employees face in the workplace."


One notable case for Cikes, Rose v. County of San Benito, involved two former San Benito County employees who claimed a vested right to fully paid retiree health benefits, he said. Cikes explained the case hinged on the interpretation of legislative intent regarding such benefits. 


Despite objections, the trial court considered testimonies about subjective beliefs on retiree health benefits, which led to a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. 


However, on appeal, the judgment was reversed due to the trial court's reliance on inadmissible evidence to ascertain legislative intent, aligning with the argument that evaluation of an implied vested right should be confined to the legislative record at the time of enactment, Cikes said.


"The Rose case was significant because it helped clarify the type of evidence that is relevant and admissible when one is asserting an implied vested contractual right against a public agency," he said. "It also reaffirmed that when a public agency intends to confer such a benefit, it may only do so through legislative enacted by its governing body as a whole."


Cikes said one obstacle he faced was dealing with the trial court's admission of evidence, namely, the testimony of former county supervisors and high-ranking staff, that he felt had no relevance to the issues. 


"We had to strike a balance of preserving our objections to this evidence, while still presenting our case and having faith that the trial court's admission of this evidence would be overturned on appeal (which it was)," he said. 


A separate matter involved a group of 16 former deputy sheriffs who sued the county and the California Public Employees' Retirement System. They argued that their service time as police officers at the city of Perris should be credited as county service under Riverside County's higher-cost formula, Cikes said. 


This claim was based on a provision in the Public Employees Retirement Law that had not been previously interpreted by any court and was contrary to CalPERS's longstanding interpretation, he added. The plaintiffs contended that a "merge" occurred after Perris disbanded its police department and began contracting with the county for law enforcement services.


"The trial court ruled in favor of the county and CalPERS after a four-day bench trial," Cikes said. "The plaintiffs have since appealed the decision, and the case is currently pending in the Fourth Appellate District."