Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

. \
- .
The Attorney General of Texas
Aupmt 14. 1985
JIM MAl-lOX
Attorney General
5u~mm Cewl Building Ronorable Bob Bullack Opinion No. Jn-337
P. 0. Box 12543 Comptroller of Public AcconlltE
*u*in, TX. 75711-254s L.B.J. State Office Building Re: Whether a state employee is
5lW75-2501 Auetin, Texar 18774 entitled to paternity leave
Telex Ola57~lJB7
wecoviw 512l4750265
Hr. James Ilambletow
Director
714 Jackson.Sulle 700 State Law Library
cle1111.
TX. 75202-4505 P. 0. Box 12367, Upitol Station
2W742-5544
Austin, Texu 78:ll.l
a4 Aibma Ave.. sulto ((IQ Gentlemen:
ElPuo.lx. 79K627w
91%3%3434 You inqeire uhether the General Approprietione Act entitlea ule
employee0 to peternity leave.
1001T~Xse.suite 700
Nuuelon. TX. 77002.3111 Mr. Bullock elks the following questions:
7tSrZ235fJm
1. Does the General Appropriations Act entitle
mele employeee to six weeks pregnancy leave?
9W Bmedwy. SUNS312
LubboclsTX. 794013479
8w7476235
2. Does thm Pregnancy D%scrlminatlon Act
cnntainrd in Title VII of the Civil glghtr Act of
1984 reciuiire M to grant male aployeea six weeks
43W N. Tenth. BuNa B *. of pre6mmcy leave?
NcAem, TX 7B501-le95
5lm524547
Hr. Bdleton inquires about tba interpretation of 6lck leave
prodeioua fonnd jLr~article V. section g of the General Appropriationr
97 &et fur 1903-8s. me ads:
1. Ilay l male take sick leave uuder 8.~. vhen
bir parum ia pregnent?
2. 'If l ule wanted to t&e some 'paternity
luve' Cleave without pay) under eectlonr8.g. and
a.m., would thet male employee exhaust sick leave
u well. aa rscatlon leeve before going on leave
tithaut p8y?
Mr. Eambl~too all*, ub ma to addxass rh questlon of maternfty or
patenitty leave for adoptive parentr.
p. 1534
,
Waorablr Bob Bollock
nr. Jues RaBbleton
rage 2 (JnaX’)
We will address tlr. Bulltxk’ s first qucstlon.
The relevant sick leave provisions in the Generel Appropriations
Act are ae follow:
c. Employees 429 U.S. 125 (1971ijl; sea il.&, Rep. Ilo. 948. 95th COng., 2d
Seas., B. Gilbert held thiithe exclualou of pregnancy coverage
from Callfornla’s dlaablllty insurance plan did not constitute
sex-baaed amployment dlacrirLnatlon under Title VII of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act. Mr. Bullock raiser the applicability of tha 1978
amendment to msle employees vho become parents - whether they are
entitled to the same leave ,r:lghts as preguaut employees.
The Pregnsncy Dlacriaiamtlon Act requires tbat voom disabled due
to prewmncyr childbirth. or other related wdlul .condltlona be
provided the same benefits as those provided other vorkera disabled by
other medical conditions mmder any sick leave plan available ln
connection with crploymant.. 29 C.T.P. )1604.10(b) (1984); R.P. Rep.
lo. 948, B, at 5. lk regulation or case suggests tbet a ule
vorker should be entitled KC, leave on account of blo uife’a pregnancy
on the aaaa terma that a faule vorkar receives laave for her wn
pw-~. The ati weeks leave allows the feule vorker to recover
from the dlaabilltlea of her pregnancy and delivery. The 1978
amendmnt doer not entltl~! rle employees to leave to recover from
anotherperson’sdisability,. Section 2OOOeB states that
vomen affected by pregnancy, cblldblrtb, or
related mdlcal %ndltlons ahall be treated the
Mme for 011 employmsnt-related purpoaee .
Including receipt of benefits under frfoge benefit
prograan. aa othw persona not so affectad. . . .
The House Report on the 19X1 amendmentstates that
p. 1540
HonorableRob Rullock
Hr. Jeer Uamblaton
?age 8 (JR-337)
the bill is Intended to be limited to effects upon
the voasn vho is herself preguant, bearing A
child, or h55 a related aedlcal condition.and not
to include my effect upon oue uoasn due to the
prqaancy of another.
0.R. Rep. No. 948 -. at 5’.
The Supreae Court has hc1.d that ‘a dependant health insurance plan
violated Title VII because it Save less coapletr borpltallzatlon
benefits for pregaanciea of employee’s spouses than it did for ot!her
apouasl disabilities. ert -N&a Shipbuilding 4 Dry Dock v. EEOC,
462 U:S. 669. 77 L.Fd.2d S’T (1983). In the words of the Court of
Appeals, under the eaployee ‘5 plan, “a aale eaployee receives less
coaalete cwermte of saousal dlsabllltles than does a female
empioyee.”Navp&t News~Sbipbulldlng 6 Dry Dock v. EEOC, 667 F.2d
448. 449 (4th Clr. 1982) quoted la Supreme Court opinion, 462 U.S. at
673). The discrialnatlon agslnat feaale spouses in prwiding fringe
baueflta constitutes sex discrimination agalnat ule employees
prohibited by Title VII. 4CQ U.S., at 684.
The Newport Revs case does not aupport a clala that aale
employees receive paternity leave. The dlacrlalnatlon found in that
’ case related to the health insurance benefits available to a male
amployee on account of his, vlfe’s prega4ncy. As the court pointed
out, en eaployer need not ~?mvide dependent aedlcal coverage at all.
462 U.S., at 684. n. 25. The state of Texas proolder, and can
provide, leave of ebsence 1roa vork only to lte employees. It cannot
provide such beaafits to ~nsployees’ 5pouae5 abo are not theaselves
employed by the state. Thu5. the state’s leave of abseace prwlalona
include no dependant benefits anslagoua to those at laaue in Newport
w. Tke 1964 Civil Eights Act doea mot require state agencies to
provide ala reaka l paternity leave” to aale, aaployeea.
Article v, section 8g of the 1983 Cenerel
Appropriatioaa Act does not entitle rule srployaea
to sit make’ paternity leave follmiry the blrtb
of s child. The PreRasacy Dlecrialaatlon Act of
1978. 42 U.S.C. SZOOCe(k); 20OOr2 (1982). does
mot require atata 6gcnclea to grant ule eaployees
aueb leave.
A ule ewplqgee say take sick laave under
article V, eectl:m EC of the Appropriatloae Act
when a Vader o:this Wdlate faally. as &fired
In tbat prwiaica., 15 so disabled due to pregnancy
or childbirth 5:s to need the care of another
p. 1541
. . .
,' .. EonorablrBob Bullock
Mr. JIva samblocoe
PABe 9 (Jn-337)
person. Applicatlxls for sick leave for this
purpose should be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. If a rale weks to take unpaid sick leave
under article 0, scxtion Sm of the Appropriations
Act. be must first exhaust his vacation leave.
Whether he oust fil,st exhaust his sick leave is to
be determined in accordance with article V,
section Sm(1). The Appropriations Act does not
address the quest!.on of maternity and paternity
leave for emplo:wes who become parents by
adoption.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
Ton GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
’ DAVID B. RICSARDS
Executive Assfstant Attornag General
ROBEBTGRAY
Special Aeslstant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Comnlttee
Prepared by Suean L. Garrison
AaairtantAttorneyGeneral
APFROVED:
OPfRIOIl
CCWlITTEE
Rick Gilpin. Chairman
Susan Garrism
Jim noellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton
Sarah Uoelk
p. 1542