Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas A],ril 22, 1986 JIM MATTOX
Attorney General Honorable Carl A. P.arker Opinion No. JM-481
Supreme Court Building Chairman P. 0. Box 12548 Education Committee Ret Scope of section 13.909 of the Austin, TX. 76711- 2548 512i475~2501 Texas State Senate Education Code, which grants public TAX 9lo/a74.l387 P. 0. Box 12068, Capitol Station school teachers the right to a 30- Telecopier 51214750266 Austin, Texas 78711 tinute lunch period free of all
duties and responsibilities 714 Jackson. Suite 700 Dallas. TX. 75202-4506 Dear Senator Parker: 214/742-a944
You request our interpretation of section 13.909 of the Education Code, which provides: 4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 El Paso, TX. 75905.2793
915/5333464 (a) E:ncept as provided by Subsection cc) of this section, each teacher actively engaged in the r instructi~m and supervision of students in public ,l Texas, Suite 700 schools is entitled to at least a 30-minute lunch Houston. TX. 770023111 period free from all duties and responsibilities 713/223-5888 connected with the instruction and supervision of students. Each school district may set flexible 606 Broadway, Suite 312 or rotat,ing schedules for each classroom teacher Lubbock, TX. 794013479 in the tiistrict for the implementation of the 8061747.5238 duty-free lunch period.
4309 N. Tenth. Suite B (b) The implementation of this section may not McAllen, TX. 78501-1585 result in a lengthened school day. 5~682.4547
(c) If necessary because of a personnel short- 200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 age, ext,reme economic conditions, or an unavoid- San Antonio, TX. 782052797 able or unforeseen circumstance, a school district 512n25-4191 may requlire a teacher entitled to a duty-free
lunch to superrrise students during lunch. A teacher may not be required to supervise students An Equal OppOrtunityI under this subsection more than one day in any Affirmative Action Employer
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 cir- cumstance for purposes of this subsection.
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). - *3 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 JIM MATTOX MATTOX Attorney General of Texas 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