Mr. Timothy A. Braaten Executive Director Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education 6330 U.S. Highway 290 East, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78723
Re: Whether, in light of the equal protection guarantees of the United States and Texas constitutions, the Texas Municipal Police Association, an entity credentialed by and under contract with the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education to provide continuing education to peace officers, may reduce tuition for its members (RQ-0578-GA)
Dear Mr. Braaten:
The federal and state constitutions guarantee that the state generally will treat similarly situated persons in an equal manner. See
U.S. CONST, amend.
I. Background
As you explain, every licensed peace officer must "complete at least 40 hours of continuing education programs once every 24 months" to retain his or her license. TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. § 1701.3 51 (a) (Vernon Supp. 2006); see also id. (authorizing the Commission to suspend the license of a peace officer who fails to comply with the continuing-education requirement); id. § 1701.3 54(a) (requiring deputy constables to receive training in civil process in certain circumstances); id. *Page 2 § 1701.3545(b) (requiring continuing education for constables).2 In addition, the Commission, in accordance with statutory requirements, requires the state, counties, special districts, or municipalities that appoint or employ peace officers to provide each peace officer with Commission-approved training relating to "civil rights, racial sensitivity, and cultural diversity," as well as, in certain circumstances, "child abuse or neglect, family violence, . . . sexual assault," and "sex offender characteristics." Id. § 1701.352(b)(2) (Vernon 2004); see also 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 217.11(b), (c)(1) (2007) (Commission, Legislatively Required Continuing Education for Licensees).To provide continuing education that is recognized by the Commission, a training provider must obtain a credential from the Commission.See TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. §
In addition to having obtained a credential from the Commission, you imply that the TMPA provides education and training for peace officers "under a contract with the [Commission." 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 21 l.l(a)(18) (2007) (Commission, Definitions); see Request Letter,supra note 1, at 2;3 see also 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 215.5(a) (2007) (Commission, Contractual Training) (authorizing the Commission to enter into a contract with "a law enforcement agency, a law enforcement association, or [an] alternative delivery trainer to conduct training for" licensed peace officers).
You explain that another membership organization, the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas ("CLEAT"), has noted the TMPA's practice of discounting TMPA members' fees for continuing-education programs offered by the TMPA. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2;see also TMPA, Events Calendar, available at http://www.tmpa.org/events/events.asp (last visited *Page 3 Sept. 27,2007) (listing classes and fees, some of which provide discounts for TMPA members). As you state, contractual providers other than TMPA "charge different fees for the same training based upon membership" in the provider's organization or some other characteristic, but CLEAT argues that TMPA's practice implicates equal protection concerns. Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2. You summarize CLEAT's concern:
CLEAT asserts that TMPA offers a "graduated fee scale for [Commission] training, permitting TMPA members to pay an enrollment fee lower than all other participants." . . . CLEAT complains that "[s]uch a discriminatory fee schedule contravenes the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and Texas Constitutions. Further, by sanctioning such a scheme, [the Commission] has unconstitutionally participated in the recruitment of members by a union/labor organization to the exclusion of any other union/labor organization."
Id, (quoting Letter from H.L. O'Neal, Corporate Counsel, CLEAT, to Timothy Braaten, Executive Director, Commission, at 2 (Jan. 18, 2007), attached to Request Letter). While the Commission is aware of the TMPA's practice, it does not believe the practice is unconstitutional.See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2. You also imply that the Commission disagrees with CLEAT's assertion that "membership in a union/labor organization is a quasi-protected class" for constitutional purposes. Id.
II. Constitutional Equal Protection Guarantees
Having set out the relevant facts, we proceed to consider the questions you have posed. Your primary concern is whether the TMPA's tuition policy violates constitutional equal protection guarantees.See id.The
Equal protection rights arise as the result of action by the state "or [by] one acting under the color of [state] authority." United States v.Guest,
Whether a private entity's action in a particular circumstance constitutes state action for purposes of the
This assumption does not resolve the issue because the TMPA's tuition policy violates the constitutional equal protection guarantee only if the policy bears no rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. While equal protection "demands" that the state treat "similarly situated persons . . . similarly under the law," that does not mean that the state may not adopt classifications "with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons." Sonnier v. Quarterman,
Union membership has not been named by a court as suspect class,5
nor is union membership a fundamental right.6 Rather, courts have concluded that classifications based on union membership *Page 5
"must meet only [the] relatively relaxed" standard of reasonableness to survive constitutional scrutiny. City of Charlotte v. Local 660,Int'lAss'n of Firefighters,
In this instance, a court probably would find that this particular classification rationally relates to a legitimate state purpose. The continuing-education requirements that the Legislature has adopted ensure that peace officers will be up-to-date on changes in the law and practice with respect to highly sensitive and challenging subjects — civil rights, racial sensitivity, cultural diversity, child abuse or neglect, family violence, sexual assault, and sex-offender characteristics. See TEX. OCC. CODE ANN. §
You also ask whether the Commission is obligated "to ensure that all [C]ommission[-] approved training providers offer [Commission] courses at the same across[-]the[-]board enrollment fees." Request Letter,supra note 1, at 2. We limit our answer to the TMPA's policy.
Assuming that the TMPA's policy constitutes state action, and having concluded that the TMPA's tuition policy rationally relates to a legitimate state purpose, the Commission need not require the TMPA to revise its tuition policy. *Page 6
A policy under which the Texas Municipal Police Association reduces the tuition for required continuing education charged to Association members is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. The TMPA therefore may charge its members a reduced tuition without contravening constitutional equal protection guarantees, and the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education need not require the TMPA to revise its policy.KENT C. SULLIVAN First Assistant Attorney General
NANCY S. FULLER Chair, Opinion Committee
KYMBERLY K. OLTROGGE Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee
