Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disability Retirement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Jose board denies disability retirement for former airport public information manager
Summary
Trustees denied Rosemary Barnes’ application for a service‑connected disability retirement, concluding the City could have accommodated her single permanent work restriction (left‑ear protection above 85 dB) as of her separation in March 2020.
Rosemary Barnes, a former City of San Jose public information manager, asked the Federated Retirement Board on Dec. 16, 2025, to approve a service‑connected disability retirement for hearing loss she said developed during 16 years working on the airport airfield and in office spaces near aircraft.
Barnes said her left ear is “more or less deaf” and that prolonged exposure to jet engines and airfield operations contributed to the loss. "It contributed to real and measurable damage to my hearing and I think it should be treated with the same seriousness as any other service related injury," Barnes told trustees during a formal, time‑certain hearing.
The board’s legal adviser and the disability committee agreed with Barnes that her hearing loss was connected to city work. But the committee recommended denying the application because independent medical review identified only one permanent restriction — that Barnes wear hearing protection when exposed to noise above 85 decibels — and the employing department had concluded it could accommodate that restriction as of Barnes’ separation from service in March 2020.
Under the governing standard the board applies, trustees must first determine whether an applicant was incapacitated from performing the duties of the position at the date of separation and, if so, whether employment contributed in a real and measurable way. Board counsel told trustees the committee found service connection but that accommodation by the department meant the incapacity threshold was not met.
Trustees asked clarifying questions about the timeframe and the mechanics of accommodation. Counsel and staff explained that the municipal code requires the board to evaluate the applicant’s status at the separation date and that separate remedies — for example, workers’ compensation or other administrative claims — may be available even if a disability retirement is denied.
After deliberation the board voted to uphold the disability committee’s recommendation and deny Barnes’ request, and trustees encouraged her to pursue other compensation avenues. The board also accepted, with a corrected footer, a separate disability memorandum that had erroneously carried another applicant’s name in the document footer.
The decision does not resolve whether Barnes qualifies for other compensation through workers’ compensation or other city processes; trustees and staff noted those are separate remedies outside the board’s pension‑retirement determination.
What’s next: the board closed the hearing after its vote. Barnes was thanked for her service and trustees wished her well.
