THHE A-HTOWNHCY GRNERAL 

OF TEXAS 

AURTIN. -a 78711 

A-IT0EINEY oQN-*I. 

August 5, 1977 

Honorable Joe Christie, Chairman Opinion No. H-1036 

State Board of Insurance 

1110 San Jacinto Re: Validity of personnel 

Austin, Texas 78786 policy denying extended sick 

leave for pregnancy-related 

disabilities. 

Dear Mr. Christie: 

You ask whether the State Board of Insurance may deny 

extended sick leave with pay for disabilities arising from 

pregnancy. Under your present policy, employee requests for 

extended sick leave with pay on account of pregnancy-related 

disabilities are evaluated on the same case-by-case basis as 

are requests for extended sick leave on account of other disabilities. The employee's prior attendance and quality of 

job performance are considered in evaluating requests. The 

maximum amount of extended sick leave available to any individual depends upon the length of prior service. The Board 

proposes to adopt a policy denying extended sick leave with 

pay in the case of any illness or disability caused or contributed to by pregnancy, miscarriage, abortion, childbirth, 

or recovery therefrom. 

You first ask whether the proposed policy would violate 

article V, S 7b of the Appropriations Act. The State Board of 

Insurance, an entity financed by appropriated funds, is subject to this provision, which reads in part: 

b. Employees of the State shall, without 

deduction in salary, be entitled to sick 

leave subject to the following conditions: 

. . . . 

Sick leave with pay may be taken when 

sickness, injury, or pregnancy and oonfinement prevent the employee's performance of 

duty or when a member of his immediate family 

is actually ill. An employee who must be 

absent from duty because of illness shall 

notify his supervisor or cause him to be 

notified of that fact at th'e earliest 

practicable time. 

P. 4271 
. - 

Honorable Joe Christie, Chairman - Page 2 (H-1036) 

Exceptions to the amount of sick leave 

an employee may take may be authorized by 

the administrative head or heads of anx 

agency of the State provided such exceptions are authorized on an individual basis 

after a review of the merits of such particular case. A statement of any such authorized exceptions or the reasons for them 

shall be attached to the State agency's duplicate payroll voucher for the payroll period 

affected by such authorized exceptions. 

General Appropriations Act, Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 743, 

art. V, 9 7b, at 2849-50 (emphasis added). The same provision 

appears in the Appropriations Act for the 1977-79 biennium. 

The Act clearly provides that sick leave may be taken for 

pregnancy and confinement. Attorney General Opinions H-251 

(1974) ; M-1222 (1972). The Board's authority to spend appropriated funds for extended sick leave with pay derives from 

the third quoted paragraph and must be exercised in conformity with the legislative intent it expresses. See Attorney 

General Opinions H-684 (1975); H-456 (1974): H-116(1973). 

We believe that the Legislature intended that agencies granting 

extended sick leave should make it available for all the disabilities for which accrued sick leave may be taken. The 

second quoted paragraph indicates the purposes for which sick 

leave may be taken. In our opinion, the third paragraph, which 

provides for exceptions as to amount of sick leave, incorporates the initial statement as to purposes. Paragraph three 

also requires that the agency authorize exceptions on an individual basis after reviewing the merits of individual, cases. 

We believe the Board's present policy of making case-by-case 

determinations for extended sick leave accurately reflects 

the intent of the Appropriations Act, while the proposed 

policy of excluding pregnancy-related disabilities departs 

from the Legislature's intent. 

you next ask whether the Board may deny extended sick 

leave with pay to pregnant employees without violating the 

United States Constitution, the federal civil rights and 

equal employment statutes, the Texas equal rights amendment, 

or the Texas equal employment law, article 6252-16, V.T.C.S. 

Since you must continue your present policy in order to comply with the sick leave provisions of the Appropriations Act, 

we need not determine whether adoption of the proposed policy 

would violate other provisions of state and federal law. 

P. 4272 
. - 

Honorable Joe Christie, Chairman - Page 3 (H-1036) 

You finally ask whether the Board may deny extended sick 

leave to an individual pregnant employee, based on the merits 

of particular cases, without violating article V, section b of 

the Appropriations Act, the United States Constitution, the 

federal civil rights statute, the Texas equal rights amendment, or the Texas equal employment laws. 

The Appropriations Act expressly states that exceptions 

as to sick leave are to be "authorized on an individual basis 

after a review of the merits. . . .'I General Appropriations 

Act, Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 743, art. V, 9 7b. at 2850. 

We do not believe that the denial of extended sick leave 

to an individual pregnant employee, based on the same standards applied to other disabled employees, would violate any 

of the other provisions about which you inquire. See General 

Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 97 S.Ct. 401 (1976). Gedmiq v. 

Aiello, 417 U.S. 484 (1974); Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 

416 F.Zd 711, 718 (7th Cir. 1969); Union Free School Dist. No. 

6 v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd 320 N . E . 2d 859 

860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974); Attorney General'bpinions H-421, h-251 

(1,974) . Whether the denial of extended sick leave in a particular case would violate any equal protection or equal employment law would depend upon the facts of that case. 

You do not ask about and we do. not address any constitutional issue relating to the conditions under which maternity 

leave may be required. See Cleveland Board of Education v. 

La Fleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974) (holding that certain mandatory 

maternity leave regulations violated the due process clause); 

Attorney General Opinion H-251 (1974). 

SUMMARY 

The adoption by the State Board of Insurance 

of a policy denying extended sick leave with 

pay in the case of pregnancy-related disabilities would violate article V, Section 7b of 

the Appropriations Act. Denial of extended 

sick leave to an individual pregnant employee, 

based on the merits of the particular case 

would not violate state and federal equal 

rights and equal employment provisions. 

p. 4273 
-. - 

Honorable Joe Christie, Chairman - Page 4 (H-1036) 

Very truly yours, 

/!gLR& 

OHN L. HILL 

Gefieral'of Texas 

Opinion Committee 

klw 

p. 4274