Did Kentucky's teacher sick-leave definition include a son-in-law or daughter-in-law?

Plain-English summary

In 1993, Kentucky's Attorney General said sons-in-law and daughters-in-law were not included in the teacher sick-leave statute's definition of "immediate family." The statute listed a teacher's spouse, children including stepchildren, parents and a spouse's parents, and grandparents and a spouse's grandparents. The AG read that list as excluding the two in-law relationships the Owensboro Education Association asked about.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Teachers and school administrators

The opinion treated the listed family relationships in KRS 161.155(1)(c) as controlling. It concluded that a son-in-law or daughter-in-law was outside that definition, even though other in-law relationships were expressly named.

Education associations

The AG contrasted the sick-leave definition with KRS 160.180(1), where the legislature had expressly included sons-in-law and daughters-in-law in a different definition of "relative." That contrast supported the office's reading of the narrower sick-leave text.

Common questions

Was a son-in-law part of a teacher's "immediate family" under this 1993 statute?

No. The AG said the sick-leave definition did not include sons-in-law.

What about a daughter-in-law?

The AG gave the same answer: daughters-in-law were outside the definition it reviewed.

Why did the opinion mention a different statute's definition of "relative"?

KRS 160.180(1) expressly named sons-in-law and daughters-in-law. The AG used it to show that the legislature could name those relationships when it intended to include them.

Background and statutory framework

Judy Hughes, president of the Owensboro Education Association, asked how the immediate-family definition in KRS 161.155(1)(c) applied to teachers' children-in-law. The AG applied the common-usage instruction in KRS 446.080(4) and compared the separate definition in KRS 160.180(1). It answered only whether those relationships appeared within the 1993 sick-leave definition.

Citations and references

• KRS 161.155(1)(c): teacher sick-leave immediate-family definition.
• KRS 446.080(4): common-usage rule cited by the AG.
• KRS 160.180(1): contrasting definition of "relative."

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG93-039.htm

Original opinion text

OAG 93-39

April 22, 1993

Judy Hughes, President

Owensboro Education Association

1100 Walnut Street

Owensboro, KY 42301

Dear Ms. Hughes:

You have written our office on behalf of the Owensboro Education Association regarding the definition of immediate family.

KRS 161.155(1)(c) deals with sick leave policies and defines immediate family as "the teacher's spouse, children including stepchildren, parents and spouse's parents, and grandparents and spouse's grandparents."

You question whether son-in-law and daughter-in-law may be included within this list of immediate family members.

The answer to your question is in the negative. All words in a statute should be construed according to their common and approved usage. KRS 446.080(4). We must assume that the legislature knew the relationship of a son-in-law and daughter-in-law to a teacher and could have included the terms in the definition of immediate family if they so intended. For example, in KRS 160.180(1) the definition of "relative" includes the terms son-in-law and daughter-in-law.

Therefore, we believe that a son-in-law and daughter-in-law are not included in the definition of immediate relative in KRS 161.155(1)(c).

Sincerely yours,

CHRIS GORMAN

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Lynne Schroering

Assistant Attorney General

(502) 564-7600

VLS:v