Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1974 )

- .__
j February 26, 1974
The Honorable Tom Hanna Opinion No. H- 244
District Attorney
Jefferson County Re.: Whether Article
P. 0. Box 2553 6252~da, V. T. C.S.,
Beaumont, Texas 77701 granting re-employ-
ment rights to return-
ing veterans, app,lies
to teachers of an
] independent school
Dear Mr. Han&: / district
Your request for our opinion asks whether Article 6252-4a,V.,T.C.S..
grants re-employment rights Bnd other privileges to former school’district
employees who Left their jobs kor the purpose’of active military service
and who have since returned from active duty under honorab\e conditions.
i
ArticLe 6252-4a was am$nded by Acts 1967, 60th Leg., ch. 469,
p. 1074 and now provides in papt:
Sec. I “Any empldyee of the State of Texas or x
political subdivisian, state institution, county or
municipa~lity theredf, . . . who leaves his position
for the purpose of bntering the Armed Forces of the
United States . . . ishall, if discharged, separated
or released. . . ujder honorable conditions, be
restored to employkent in the same department,
office, commissio; or board of the State of Texas
or any political suti~division, state institution, county
or municipality thereof. . . .‘I (emphasis added)
Prior to the 1967 amenddent the statute granted re-employment rights
only to “any employee of the State of Texas. ” Attorney General Opinion WW-
1443 (1962) held that the language “employee of the State” did not extend re-
/
p. 1128
1
I
- - .~-~- -~- ___. --- .-.-,..- ,... ...,_,,,.__ ,_. _
-.
2’kx Hcr.orable Tom Hanna, page 2 (H-244)
employment rights to employees of independent school districts or common
school districts since school districts are not primarily agencies of the
State, but rather are public corporations of the same general character as
municipal corporations.
However, since its amend+&slC,in 1967, the statute has applied both
to state employees -and to employees of x political subdivisioh. county or
municipality of the State.
School dist&ts have been classified as political subdivisions of
the State, Port Arthur Independent Schools District v. City of Groves, ,376
S.W.2d 330 (Tex. 1964); Watts v. Double Oak Independent School District,
377 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. Civ.App., Ft. Worth, 1964). no writ; King’s Estate
v. School Trustees of Willacy County, 33 S.W.2d 783 (Tex. Civ. App., 1930,
error refused); and as quasi public corporations of the character of munici-
pal corporations, University Interscholastic League v. Midwestern Univer-
sib 255 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. 195,3); Love v, City of Dallas, 40 S.W.2d 20
(Tex. 1931); Southwestern Broadcasting Go. v. oil Center Broadcasting Co.,
210 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. Civ.App., El Paso, 1947, ref. n. r.e.). And see
Article 6252-6(2a), V. T. C. S., which defines “local po.litical .subdivisions”
to include “counties, cities, towns, schoo.1 districts, flwd control districts,
: , . and the like. I’ (eniphasis’idded)
Therefore, in our opinion, Artic1.e 6252~da, as amended, does extend
rr-employment iights to veterans returning to farmer positions with school
districts of this State. See Attorney General Opinions M-250 (1968) and M-
886 (1971).
SUMMARY
Veterans returning to positions with school
distri.cts of this State are given the right to re-employ-
ment in accordance with the provisions pf Article 6252-
4a, V. T. C. S.
//
Attorney General of Texas
p. 11,29
The Honorable Tom Hanna, page 3 [H-244)
DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman
Opinion Comrkttez
p. 1130