- .__

j February 26, 1974 The Honorable Tom Hanna Opinion No. H- 244 District Attorney Jefferson County Re.: Whether Article P. 0. Box 2553 6252~da, V. T. C.S., Beaumont, Texas 77701 granting re-employment rights to returning veterans, app,lies to teachers ofan independent school Dear Mr. Han&: ] / district Your request for our opinion asks whether Article 6252-4a,V.,T.C.S.. grants re-employment rights Bndother privileges toformer school’district employees who Lefttheir jobs kor the purpose’of active military service and who have since returned from active duty under honorab\e conditions. 

## i ArticLe 6252-4a was am$nded byActs 1967, 60th Leg., ch. 469, p. 1074 and now provides in papt:

Sec. I “Any empldyee ofthe State ofTexas orx political subdivisian, state institution, county or municipa~lity theredf,
. . . who leaves his position for the purpose ofbntering the Armed Forces ofthe United States . . .ishall, if discharged, separated or released.
. . ujder honorable conditions, be restored to employkent in the same department, office, commissio; or board ofthe State of Texas or any political suti~division, state institution, county or municipality thereof.
. . .‘I (emphasis added) Prior to the 1967 amenddent the statute granted re-employment rights only to “any employee of the State of Texas. ”Attorney General Opinion WW1443 (1962) held that the language “employee ofthe State” did not extend re-
/
p. 1128 1 I- - .~ -~- -~- ___. --- .-.-,..- ,... ...,_,,,._ _ ,_. _ -.
2’kx **Hcr.orable** Tom Hanna, page 2 (H-244)
employment rights to employees ofindependent school districts or common school districts since school districts **are** not primarily agencies ofthe State, but rather are public corporations ofthe same general character as municipal corporations. However, since its amend+&slC,in 1967, the **statute** has applied both to state employees and to employees ofx political subdivisioh. county or - municipality ofthe State. School dist&ts have been classified as political subdivisions of the State, Port Arthur Independent SchoolsDistrict v. City of Groves, ,376 S.W. 2d 330 (Tex. 1964); Watts v. Double Oak Independent School District, 377 S.W. 2d 779 (Tex. Civ.App., Ft. Worth, 1964). no writ; King’s Estate v. School Trustees of Willacy County, 33 S.W. 2d 783 (Tex. Civ. App., 1930, error refused); and as quasi public corporations ofthe character of municipal corporations, University Interscholastic League v. Midwestern Universib 255 S.W. 2d 177 (Tex. 195,3); Love v, City of Dallas, 40 S.W. 2d 20 (Tex. 1931); Southwestern Broadcasting Go. v. oil Center Broadcasting Co., 210S. W. 2d 230 (Tex. Civ.App., El Paso, 1947, ref. n.r.e.). And see Article 6252-6(2a), V. T. C.S., which defines “local po.litical .subdivisions” to include “counties, cities, **towns,** schoo.1 districts, flwd control districts, : , . and the like. I’ (eniphasis’idded) Therefore, in our opinion, Artic1.e 6252~da, as amended, does extend rr-employment iights to veterans returning tofarmer positions with school districts of this State. See Attorney General Opinions M-250 (1968) and M886 (1971). SUMMARY Veterans returning topositions with school distri.cts of this State are given the right to re-employment in accordance with the provisions pfArticle 6252- 4a, V. T. C.S.

// Attorney General of Texas

p. 11,29The Honorable Tom Hanna, page 3 [H-244)

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Comrkttez

p. 1130