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],ril22, 1986

Honorable Carl A. P.arker Chairman EducationCommittee Texas State Senate P. 0. Box 12068,Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711

Dear Senator Parker: OpinionNo. JM-481
Ret Scope of section 13.909 of the EducationCode,which grantspublic school teachers the right to a 30- tinute lunch period free of all duties and responsibilities

You request our interpretationof section 13.909 of the Education Code,which provides:

(a) E:nceptas 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 connectedwith the instruction and supervision of students. Each school district may set flexible or rotat,ingschedules for each classroom teacher in the tiistrictfor the implementation of the duty-free lunchperiod. (b) The implementationof this sectionmay not result in a lengthenedschoolday. (c) If necessarybecause of a personnel shortage, ext,remeeconomic conditions, or an unavoidable or unforeseencircumstance,a schooldistrict may requlirea teacher entitled to a duty-free lunch to superrrisestudents during lunch. A teachermay not be required to supervise students under this subsection more than one day in any schoolwe,ek. The State Board of Educationby rule shall prescribe guidelines for determining what constituws a personnel shortage,extreme economic conditions, or an unavoidable or unforeseen circumstancefor purposes of this subsection.

p. 2201Honorable 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.therschool building locations, s, classrooms:workrooms, **teachers ’**  lounges? 2. May teachers be required by school authoritiesto rtmain on campus or schoolproperty during the 30-minute statutoryperiod?
We conclude that section 13.909 would not permit either of the restrictionsyou inquireabout.
In addition to House Bill No. 505, which became section 13.909, the Sixty-ninthLegislature: considered severalbills thatprovided for a duty-free lunch break for teachers. H.B. No. 511; S.B. No. 220; S.B. No. 520. The legislativehistory 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 CcltmitteeMeeting, 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-minuteduty-free lunchbreak in the cafeteria.
In regard to your second question,we conclude that the language of section 13.909 does not .permita rule requiring teachers to remain on school property during their lunch break. If the legislaturehad intended nothingmore than 'togive teachers a break from the physical presence of students, it couldhave simplyprovided that teachershad to have an opportunity to eat lunch outside the physical presence of students. However, the legislaturemandated 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 (teacherplanning and preparation time). -

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

SUMMARY Section 13.909 of the Education Code, which provides for a duty-free lunchbreak 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 schoolproperty.

JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas JACK HIGHTOWER First AssistantAttorney General
MARY KELLER ExecutiveAssistantAttorney General
ROBERT GRAY SpecialAssistantAttorney General RICK GILPIN Chairman,Opinion Comittec! Preparedby SarahWorlk AssistantAttorney General

p. 2203