JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. Box 12548 

Austin, TX. 76711- 2548 

512i475~2501 

TAX 9lo/a74.l387 

Telecopier 51214750266 

714 Jackson. Suite 700 

Dallas. TX. 75202-4506 

214/742-a944 

4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 

El Paso, TX. 75905.2793 

915/5333464 

r 

,l Texas, Suite 700 

Houston. TX. 770023111 

713/223-5888 

606 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock, TX. 794013479 

8061747.5238 

4309 N. Tenth. Suite B 

McAllen, TX. 78501-1585 

5~682.4547 

200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 

San Antonio, TX. 782052797 

512n25-4191 

An Equal OppOrtunityI 

Affirmative Action Employer 

The Attorney General of Texas 

A],ril 22, 1986 

Honorable Carl A. P.arker 

Chairman 

Education Committee 

Texas State Senate 

P. 0. Box 12068, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Dear Senator Parker: 

Opinion No. JM-481 

Ret Scope of section 13.909 of the 

Education Code, which grants public 

school teachers the right to a 30- 

tinute lunch period free of all 

duties and responsibilities 

You request our interpretation of section 13.909 of the Education 

Code, which provides: 

(a) E:ncept as provided by Subsection cc) of 

this section, each teacher actively engaged in the 

instructi~m and supervision of students in public 

schools is entitled to at least a 30-minute lunch 

period free from all duties and responsibilities 

connected with the instruction and supervision of 

students. Each school district may set flexible 

or rotat,ing schedules for each classroom teacher 

in the tiistrict for the implementation of the 

duty-free lunch period. 

(b) The implementation of this section may not 

result in a lengthened school day. 

(c) If necessary because of a personnel shortage, ext,reme economic conditions, or an unavoidable or unforeseen circumstance, a school district 

may requlire a teacher entitled to a duty-free 

lunch to superrrise students during lunch. A 

teacher may not be required to supervise students 

under this subsection more than one day in any 

school we,ek. The State Board of Education by rule 

shall prescribe guidelines for determining what 

constituws a personnel shortage, extreme economic 

conditions, or an unavoidable or unforeseen circumstance for purposes of this subsection. 

p. 2201 
Honorable Carl A. Parker - Page 2 (JM-481) 

You ask the following questions: 

1. May the school principal require teachers 

to remain in the school cafeteria during this 

statutory 30-minute period, or may teachers spend 

this period in o.ther school building locations, 

s, classrooms: workrooms, teachers’ lounges? 

2. May teachers be required by school 

authorities to rtmain on campus or school property 

during the 30-minute statutory period? 

We conclude that section 13.909 would not permit either of the 

restrictions you inquire about. 

In addition to House Bill No. 505, which became section 13.909, 

the Sixty-ninth Legislature: considered several bills that provided for 

a duty-free lunch break for teachers. H.B. No. 511; S.B. No. 220; 

S.B. No. 520. The legislative history of all those bills shows that 

the purpose of a mandatory lunch break for teachers was to give 

teachers time away from students and a chance to relax over lunch. 

See Tape of Senate Education Ccltmittee Meeting, February 20, 1985, 

regarding S.B. No. 220 and S.B. No. 520; Tape of House Public 

Education Committee Meeting, April 30, 1985, regarding H.B. No. 505 

and H.B. No. 511. 

Therefore, it would undermine the purpose of section 13.909 if 

teachers were required to spend their lunch "break" in the cafeteria 

with students except under extreme circumstances as authorized in 

subsection (c). Thus, teachers may not be required to spend their 

30-minute duty-free lunch break in the cafeteria. 

In regard to your second question, we conclude that the language 

of section 13.909 does not .permit a rule requiring teachers to remain 

on school property during their lunch break. If the legislature had 

intended nothing more than 'to give teachers a break from the physical 

presence of students, it could have simply provided that teachers had 

to have an opportunity to eat lunch outside the physical presence of 

students. However, the legislature mandated a "lunch period free from 

all duties and responsibilities connected with the instruction a=d 

supervision of students." Educ. Code 513.909(a). The legislature 

also described the break 8,s "duty-free." Id. 113.909(a), (c). An 

obligation to stay on school property would-self be a "duty," and 

any reason a school could give for making such a requirement would 

necessarily be "connected with" the instruction and supervision of 

students. Therefore, teachers may not be required to spend their 

30-minute duty-free lunch break on school property. Cf. Educ. Code 

013.902 (teacher planning and preparation time). - 

p. 2202 
Honorable Carl A. Parker - Page 3 (JM-481) 

SUMMARY 

Section 13.909 of the Education Code, which 

provides for a duty-free lunch break for teachers, 

dces r.ot permit ZI ~lb requiring teachers to spend 

the break in the 4cafeteria. Nor does it permit a 

rule requiring teachers to spend the break on 

school property. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

JACK HIGHTOWER 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Comittec! 

Prepared by Sarah Worlk 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 2203