Can a Mississippi county provide group health insurance to part-time employees or non-salaried employees, and can it pick which employees to cover?
Plain-English summary
Quitman County had a health insurance plan in place. The Board of Supervisors President asked two questions:
1. Can the County provide healthcare benefits to part-time or non-salaried employees?
2. Can the County provide benefits to some employees and not others?
The AG's answers:
1. No, only full-time directly-paid employees qualify. Section 25-15-101 lets counties secure group insurance "for all or specified groups of employees." But the term "employee" is not defined in that statute. The Mississippi Supreme Court in Warren County v. Culkin (1986) imported the definition from Section 25-15-3(a): an employee is someone who works full-time and receives direct compensation. The Court treated PERS (state retirement plan) participation as the marker of full-time status. Multiple AG opinions over the years (Doty 1994, McAlpin 2008, Mayfield 2002, Bryant 1992) have applied this rule.
So the operative test for county group health insurance eligibility:
- Full-time employee (as evidenced by PERS participation)
- Direct payment from the county
Part-time workers, contract workers paid through other channels, and elected officials who are not on payroll typically do not qualify.
2. Yes, the County can pick groups. Sections 25-15-101 and 25-15-103 explicitly say "all or specified groups" of employees. So the County can decide to cover, say, just sheriff's deputies, or just full-time courthouse employees, and not others. The Culkin court's footnote 1 recognized that "there should be no further doubt that the insurance coverage may, at the supervisors' discretion, be obtained at county expense for less than all county employees."
The opinion also corrected two earlier AG opinions. The 2004 Stringer opinion and 2011 Nowak opinion had said that the Section 25-15-3(a) "employee" definition does not govern Sections 25-15-101 through 25-15-105. That assertion was inconsistent with Culkin's actual holding (which DID apply the Section 25-15-3(a) definition to Section 25-15-101). The 2021 opinion modified Stringer and Nowak to conform with Culkin.
The opinion declines to opine on federal law (ACA, HIPAA) under Section 7-5-25. Counties evaluating health insurance arrangements should consult separately on federal compliance.
What this means for you
For Mississippi county boards of supervisors
When deciding who gets health insurance, apply the test:
- Full-time employees only
- Receiving direct compensation from the county
- Participating in PERS (the state retirement system) is strong evidence of qualifying status
You can pick which groups get coverage:
- All eligible employees, OR
- Specified groups (department, position, function)
Document the decision on the Board's minutes. Be ready to explain the rationale (cost, parity with similar counties, recruitment needs).
What you cannot do:
- Cover part-time workers
- Cover contractors or workers paid by other entities
- Cover elected officials who are not regular full-time county employees (unless they meet the test)
For Mississippi county human resources directors
When enrolling employees in group health insurance:
- Confirm full-time status
- Confirm direct payment by the county
- Confirm PERS participation
- Document the eligibility on personnel records
If the County's policy is to cover only certain groups, maintain clear written eligibility criteria. Apply consistently. Do not deviate based on individual relationships.
For Mississippi county employees
If you work for a Mississippi county and want health insurance through the county:
- You generally need to be full-time
- You need to be on direct county payroll (not paid through a contract or grant)
- You need to be in PERS
Part-time county workers should not expect group health benefits unless their county has specific arrangements outside the Section 25-15-101 framework (e.g., a federal-funded program that has different rules).
For elected officials in Mississippi counties
Eligibility depends on your specific arrangement:
- If you draw a salary as a full-time elected official with PERS participation: likely eligible
- If you serve part-time without regular salary: likely not eligible
- If you are a "duly elected" official with the formal status of full-time: depends on facts
Ask your county's HR or attorney about your specific status.
For Mississippi attorneys advising counties
The 2021 opinion brings clarity. The earlier Stringer and Nowak opinions had created confusion by suggesting Section 25-15-3(a)'s definition was not applicable. Culkin actually applied that definition. The 2021 opinion aligns AG guidance with Mississippi Supreme Court precedent.
When advising on county health insurance:
- Apply Culkin's test
- Apply Section 25-15-3(a)'s definition
- Distinguish between "specified groups" (permissible) and "individual selection" (not permissible)
- Document the Board's eligibility criteria
For PERS administrators
PERS participation is the operating marker for "full-time" status. Counties that report employees to PERS as making contributions are treating those employees as full-time for compensation purposes. The same employees should be eligible for group health insurance under Section 25-15-101.
If a county is offering health insurance to non-PERS-participating workers, that is a flag. The non-PERS workers may not qualify under Section 25-15-101.
Common questions
Q: What if the County wants to extend coverage to part-time workers?
A: Section 25-15-101 does not authorize that. The County would need a different statutory basis or a legislative amendment.
Q: Are temporary or seasonal full-time employees covered?
A: The Mayfield (2002) opinion suggests yes, as long as they meet the full-time and direct-pay test while employed. When their employment ends and they stop receiving compensation, eligibility ends.
Q: What about employees paid partly by federal grants?
A: If the employee receives compensation directly from the county (even if reimbursed by a grant), they likely qualify. If the employee is paid through a separate grant administrator, it depends on whether the county is the actual employer.
Q: What about volunteer firefighters?
A: Volunteer fire department members raise a separate question. Some statutes treat them as employees for tort claims purposes (MTCA), but health insurance eligibility under Section 25-15-101 still requires direct compensation from the county.
Q: Can the County subsidize part of the premium for some groups but pay 100% for others?
A: Yes. Section 25-15-103(4)(b) lets the County "pay the total of the cost of all benefits" or pay less. The decision can vary by group.
Q: What is the difference between Section 25-15-3(a) and Section 25-15-101?
A: Section 25-15-3(a) is in Article 1 of Chapter 15 (state employees). Section 25-15-101 is in Article 3 (local government employees). The 2021 opinion confirms that the Article 1 employee definition applies to Article 3 too, per Culkin.
Q: Can the County retroactively start covering a group?
A: Section 25-15-103(4)(b) says yes: "A county may make such provision, as specified under this paragraph, retroactively for any existing group coverage plan previously adopted by the county."
Q: What about elected officials' dependents?
A: If the elected official is a qualifying employee, dependents can be covered too. Section 25-15-101 addresses "employees and their dependents."
Q: Does this affect the Affordable Care Act analysis?
A: The ACA has its own employee definitions and employer mandates. The 2021 opinion declines to address ACA. Counties should consult ACA counsel separately.
Q: What about the new Insurance Trust for Mississippi Government Officials? (asked in 2026)
A: Programs and trusts evolve over time. The 2021 opinion's framework remains the baseline (Culkin definition; eligibility limited to full-time directly-paid employees). Specific programs may have their own rules.
Background and statutory framework
Mississippi's group insurance framework for local government employees is in Article 3 of Chapter 15 of Title 25 (Sections 25-15-101 through 25-15-105). The framework:
Section 25-15-101: Authorizes counties, municipalities, schools, and other local government entities to "negotiate for and secure for all or specified groups of employees and their dependents...a policy or policies of group insurance covering...life, salary protection, health, accident and hospitalization."
Section 25-15-103: Implementation provisions, including subsection (4)(b) authorizing counties to provide group life insurance and group hospitalization benefits, "all or specified groups," and to pay the full cost or part of the cost.
Section 25-15-3(a): Defines "employee" for Article 1 (state employees). The 2021 opinion confirms this definition is also imported into Article 3 (local employees) via Culkin:
"[A] person who works full time for the State of Mississippi and receives his compensation in a direct payment from a department, agency or institution of the state government… For the purposes of this article, any 'employee' making contributions to the State of Mississippi retirement plan shall be considered a full-time employee."
Warren County v. Culkin, 497 So. 2d 433 (Miss. 1986): The leading case. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that the Section 25-15-3(a) definition of employee, even though technically codified in Article 1, applies to Article 3 (county/local insurance). The Court reasoned: "the Section 25–15–3(a) definition exerts an electromagnetic force which may be resisted only by an apparent rationale why the definition of 'employee' should be different in the case of county and local employees. When we consider that the authority vested in the supervisors by Section 25–15–101 is discretionary, not mandatory, no such rationale appears."
The Court's holding is the operating rule:
- An "employee" eligible for county group insurance is someone who:
- Works full-time
- Receives direct compensation from the county
- (As proxy: makes contributions to the state retirement plan)
Subsequent AG opinions had inconsistent application:
- Doty (1994): Applied Culkin's test correctly.
- Bryant (1992): Same.
- Mayfield (2002): Same.
- McAlpin (2008): Same.
- Stringer (2004): Suggested Section 25-15-3(a) does NOT apply to Section 25-15-101. Inconsistent with Culkin.
- Nowak (2011): Same as Stringer. Inconsistent with Culkin.
The 2021 Killebrew opinion modifies Stringer and Nowak to align with Culkin. The operating rule going forward: Section 25-15-3(a)'s definition controls; full-time directly-paid employees only.
PERS participation under regulations promulgated by the PERS Board of Trustees is the practical marker of full-time status. The PERS regulations specify hours required to participate. Workers who meet PERS thresholds are considered full-time for these purposes.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- Miss. Code Ann. § 7-5-25, AG opinions limited to prospective state law
- Miss. Code Ann. § 25-15-3(a), employee definition
- Miss. Code Ann. § 25-15-101, county/local group insurance authority
- Miss. Code Ann. § 25-15-103(4)(b), county may pay full or partial cost; retroactive provision
Cases:
- Warren Cnty. v. Culkin, 497 So. 2d 433 (Miss. 1986), employee definition for Section 25-15-101 from Section 25-15-3(a)
Prior AG opinions:
- MS AG Op., Doty (Aug. 17, 1994), Culkin test applied
- MS AG Op., Bryant (Apr. 1, 1992), full-time and direct pay test
- MS AG Op., Mayfield (Sept. 13, 2002), PERS participation marker
- MS AG Op., McAlpin (May 2, 2008), full-time and direct pay
- MS AG Op., Stringer (Apr. 2, 2004), modified to conform to Culkin
- MS AG Op., Nowak (Sept. 26, 2011), modified to conform to Culkin
Source
- Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/M.Killebrew-September-30-2021-Group-Health-Insurance-for-Part-Time-and-Non-Salary-Employees.pdf
Original opinion text
September 30, 2021
The Honorable Manuel Killebrew
President, Quitman County Board of Supervisors
220 Chestnut Street, Suite 2
Marks, Mississippi 38646
Re: Group Health Insurance for Part-Time and Non-Salary Employees
Dear Mr. Killebrew:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.
Questions Presented
- May Quitman County (the "County") provide healthcare benefits to employees who work part-time or do not receive a salary?
- May the County provide healthcare benefits to certain employees and not to others?
Brief Response
- A county may provide healthcare benefits to full time employees who are paid directly by the county.
- A county may elect to provide group health insurance only for specified groups of employees.
Applicable Law and Discussion
As an initial matter, we understand that the County currently has a health insurance coverage plan in place. Pursuant to Section 7-5-25 of the Mississippi Code, this office can only issue official opinions on matters involving prospective questions of state law. An official opinion cannot validate or invalidate past actions. Accordingly, this opinion relates only to prospective actions taken by the board of supervisors. Furthermore, this office cannot, by official opinion, analyze the impact of any federal law on your facts, including the Affordable Care Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or any other federal law.
Section 25-15-101 provides, in part:
The governing board of any county . . . and the governing board or head of any institution, department or agency of any county or municipality may negotiate for and secure for all or specified groups of employees and their dependents of such county or municipality, or institution, department or agency of such county or municipality, or municipal separate school district, other school district or community/junior college district, a policy or policies of group insurance covering the life, except as hereinafter provided, salary protection, health, accident and hospitalization . . . .
Miss. Code Ann. § 25-15-101. Section 25-15-103(4)(b) provides:
A county may provide group life insurance coverage for all or specified groups of its public employees and group hospitalization benefits for such public employees and their dependents, and the county may pay the total of the cost of all benefits under this section. A county may make such provision, as specified under this paragraph, retroactively for any existing group coverage plan previously adopted by the county.
Section 25-15-101 does not define the term "employee." However, the Mississippi Supreme Court has applied the definition of "employee" found in Section 25-15-3(a) when analyzing insurance benefits for county employees:
Section 25–15–101 is codified in Art. 3, Ch. 15 of our Code under the title "Group Insurance For Employees of Local Government and Their Institutions and Agencies." Article 1 provided such insurance for state employees and in that connection we note that the term "employee" has been defined as
any 'employee' making contributions to the State of Mississippi retirement plan shall be considered a full time employee.
Miss. Code Ann. § 25–15–3(a) (Supp.1985). This definition, if it applied in the case at bar, would answer the question in favor of affirmance. All deputy clerks participate in and make contributions to the state retirement plan. Strictly speaking, however, the definition applies only to Article 1 and the matter of health and life insurance for state employees. No such definition appears in Article 3 regarding such insurance for county and local employees. Still the Section 25–15–3(a) definition exerts an electromagnetic force which may be resisted only by an apparent rationale why the definition of "employee" should be different in the case of county and local employees. When we consider that the authority vested in the supervisors by Section 25–15–101 is discretionary, not mandatory, no such rationale appears.
Warren Cnty. v. Culkin, 497 So. 2d 433, 437 (Miss. 1986) (emphasis in original); MS AG Op., Doty at 1 (Aug. 17, 1994) ("The term 'employee' is not defined in this article of the statute. But the Supreme Court has stated that the definitions in § 25-15-3(a) can be used for construction of the term since there is no reason why the definition should be different in the case of local employees, see Warren County v. Culkin, 497 So. 2d 433 (Miss. 1986). Under this definition an employee is a person who works full time for the city and receives compensation in a direct payment from the city."); MS AG Op., McAlpin at 1 (May 2, 2008) (citing Culkin and Doty and stating that "[w]e have previously opined that an employee, as contemplated in Section 25-15-101, is 'a person who works full time for the city and receives compensation in a direct payment from the city."); MS AG Op., Mayfield at 1 (Sept. 13, 2002) ("It is the opinion of this office that for the purposes of Sections 25-15-3 of the Mississippi Code . . . an employee is considered full time so long as he is receiving compensation from his employer, a portion of which is being distributed into the State retirement plan . . . If the employee is not receiving compensation . . . and is not making contributions to the State of Mississippi retirement plan, then the [county school] district would have no authority to continue to pay the health insurance premiums for the employee."); MS AG Op., Bryant at 2 (Apr. 1, 1992) ("Section 25-15-101 of the Mississippi Code gives counties and cities authority to provide for their employees disability and other insurance . . . The definition of employee for purposes of this statute is 'a persons who works full time for the State of Mississippi and receives his compensation in a direct payment from a department, agency, or institution of the state covenant' or works full time for a political subdivision of the state and receives his compensation in a direct payment from such a political subdivision.").[^1]
In relevant part, Section 25-15-3(a) defines "employee" as:
a person who works full time for the State of Mississippi and receives his compensation in a direct payment from a department, agency or institution of the state government … For the purposes of this article, any 'employee' making contributions to the State of Mississippi retirement plan shall be considered a full-time employee.[^2]
Accordingly, a county may provide healthcare benefits to full time employees who are paid directly by the county.
In response to your second question, Sections 25-15-101 and 25-15-103 both authorize counties to secure and provide, respectively, insurance for "all or specified groups" of employees. This clearly authorizes a county to provide coverage to certain groups of employees and not to others. See Culkin, 497 So. 2d at 438 n.1 (discussing legislative amendment to Section 25-15-101 and concluding that "there should be no further doubt that the insurance coverage may, at the supervisors' discretion, be obtained at county expense for less than all county employees").
If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Phil Carter
Phil Carter
Special Assistant Attorney General
[^1]: In MS AG Op., Stringer at 3 (Apr. 2, 2004), this office broadly opined that "Sections 25-15-101 through 25-15-105 are not governed by the definition of 'employee' as found in Section 25-15-3(a)," citing the Mississippi Supreme Court's opinion in Culkin. In MS AG Op., Nowak (Sept. 26, 2011), we found that a county was "within its discretion in offering [health insurance] only to those employees defined by the county as full-time employees." We stated further: "As we noted in MS AG Op., Stringer (April 02, 2004), local governing authorities in offering insurance to its employees under 25-15-101 et seq., are not restricted by the definition of 'employee' found in Section 25-15-3 concerning insurance for state employees." Nowak at 2. However, the Culkin court's plain language is contrary to our assertion in Stringer and Nowak: the court specifically applied Section 25-15-3(a)'s definition of "employee" to find that certain employees of the circuit and chancery clerks could be afforded health coverage under Section 25-15-101. To the extent our Nowak and Stringer opinions are inconsistent with the Mississippi Supreme Court's opinion in Culkin, we hereby modify those opinions.
[^2]: Notably, regulations promulgated by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi's ("PERS") Board of Trustees address eligibility to participate in PERS, including the number of hours that must be worked to be eligible.