Court Opinion

ID: 4131130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-18 01:12:18.625625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:37.440626
License: Public Domain

.         \

      -            .

                                         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