Judges: MARK PRYOR, Attorney General
Filed Date: 8/22/2002
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable Jim Argue, Jr. State Senator 5300 Evergreen Drive Little Rock, AR 72205-1814
Dear Senator Argue:
I am writing in response to your request for an opinion on the following questions concerning the payment of accrued sick leave to police officers and fire fighters at retirement:
1. For purposes of payment of the specified portion of accrued sick leave for a Police Officer or a Firefighter covered by requirements of LOPFI, what constitutes `retirement?'
2. Does a municipality have any obligation to pay a portion of sick leave to any terminating Police Officer or Firefighter whose age plus years of service are less than specified in the answer to question 1?
3. Does the statute allow a municipality to pay a portion of accrued sick leave to a police officer or firefighter terminating with less than the age and service requirements specified in response to question 1?
4. Since LOPFI operates independently of any municipality, can a municipality require documentation from the terminating employee and/or LOPFI to verify the age and service requirements have been met prior to paying any portion of accrued sick leave (especially in light of multi-employer and/or military service being available for inclusion)?
RESPONSE
I recently addressed your first question in Attorney General Opinion
Question 1 — For purposes of payment of the specified portion ofaccrued sick leave for a Police Officer or a Firefighter coveredby requirements of LOPFI, what constitutes `retirement?'
Please see the enclosed Attorney General Opinion
The statutes that govern LOPFI do not define the term `retirement.' However, these statutes do make clear by other means that they contemplate `retirement' to include both separation from employment and eligibility to receive retirement benefits. First, these statutes define the term `retirant' as follows: `Retirant' means a former member receiving a plan annuity by reason of having been a member[.]' Second, a former member is not eligible to receive retirement benefits unless he has reached `normal retirement age.' `Normal retirement age' entails not only attaining a particular age, but also accruing a certain number of years of credited service. . . . Accordingly, I must conclude that a police officer who has accrued 20 or more years of credited service, but who has not yet attained the age of eligibility to receive retirement benefits cannot be deemed `retired.' For this reason, this officer is not eligible to receive payment for his accrued sick leave under the provisions of A.C.A. §
14-52-107 (c), which require `retirement' or `death' as a condition for receiving such payment.
Op. Att'y Gen.
This analysis is equally applicable to a fire fighter who participates in LOPFI.1
Question 2 — Does a municipality have any obligation to pay a portion ofsick leave to any terminating Police Officer or Firefighter whose ageplus years of service are less than specified in the answer to question1?
It is my opinion that the answer to this question is "no" with regard to an officer covered by LOPFI.
Question 3 — Does the statute allow a municipality to pay a portion ofaccrued sick leave to a police officer or firefighter terminating withless than the age and service requirements specified in response toquestion 1?
It is my opinion that the answer to this question is "no" with regard to an officer covered by LOPFI.
Question 4 — Since LOPFI operates independently of any municipality, cana municipality require documentation from the terminating employee and/orLOPFI to verify the age and service requirements have been met prior topaying any portion of accrued sick leave (especially in light ofmulti-employer and/or military service being available for inclusion)?
Although the uniform sick leave statutes are silent with regard to procedures for verifying eligibility, it is my opinion that a municipality can require documentation from the terminating employee pursuant to its duty and authority to administer the uniform sick leave requirements. Seegenerally Donaldson v. Taylor,
Assistant Attorney General Elisabeth A. Walker prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
MARK PRYOR Attorney General
MP:EAW/cyh