Did employees of a South Carolina city housing authority qualify for state military leave in 1996?

Plain-English summary

The North Charleston Housing Authority asked whether city housing authorities counted as subdivisions of South Carolina under a statute granting military leave to public officers and employees. In 1996, the AG said yes. Earlier AG opinions had treated city housing authorities as political subdivisions for other purposes, and the AG saw no reason to reach a different conclusion for this leave statute.

The opinion addressed the status of city housing authorities under the particular military-leave provision. It did not examine any employee’s individual duty orders or leave request.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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.

Common questions

Were city housing authority workers covered by the cited military-leave statute?

The AG concluded that the statute applied because a city housing authority was a political subdivision for that purpose.

What kind of leave did the opinion discuss?

It discussed the statute’s leave for specified National Guard training and state active duty, as the law stood in 1996.

Did the AG decide an individual employee’s eligibility?

No. It resolved the classification of a city housing authority, rather than the facts of a particular leave request.

Background and legal framework

The opinion interpreted §25-1-2250, which addressed military leave for officers and employees of the state and its departments and subdivisions. It noted that city housing authorities were established under §31-3-310 and relied on several earlier AG opinions classifying them as political subdivisions.

Citations

• §25-1-2250; §31-3-310.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-5-1996/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96feb5bradford.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Februaty 5, 1996

I
I

Sandra S. Bradford, Executive Director
North Charleston Housing Authority
Post Office Box 70987
North Charleston, South Carolina 29415-0987
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Ms. Bradford:

l

~1lJ;

By your letter of Januaty 25, 1996, to the Office of Attorney General Condon, you had sought an opinion as to whether a South Carolina Housing Authority, specifically a city housing authority, would be considered a subdivision of the State of South Carolina as it relates to S.C. Code Ann. §25-1-2250. Section 25-1-2250 provides for leaves of absence for militaty duty for certain officers and employees, as fo1lows: Officers and employees of the State of South Carolina, and departments and subdivisions thereof, shall be entitled to militaty leave without loss of pay, seniority or efficiency rating, when attending National Guard encampments or schools for training, under proper authority, and on all other occasions when ordered to active duty, in the service of the State of South Carolina. If a city housing authority should be considered a subdivision of the State of South Carolina, the employees of such housing authority would be entitled to the benefits of
§25-1-2250.
City housing authorities are established pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §31-3-310 et seq. (I 976). This Office has concluded on a number of occasions that a city housing RI !Ill Rf c. DI'\'[\ Br llDl'\I;

•

PO'>T 01-FICE Bo'\ 115-19

•

Coli \ffllA. S.C. 29211-15-19

•

TELEPHONE:

803-73-l-3970

•

f\C,f\llLE: 803-25~-6283

Sandra S. Bradford, Executive Director
Page 2
February 5, 1996
authority would be considered a political subdivision of the State of South Carolina for a variety of purposes. Enclosed are copies of opinions dated September 11, 1984; March 5, 1982; August 13, 1975; October 11, 1973; and September 27, 1966, as examples; I have highlighted the conclusions therein. I see no reason to reach a different conclusion as to city housing authorities being political subdivisions of the State for purposes of application of §25-1-2250. In conclusion, I am of the opinion that a city housing authority would be a political subdivision of the State of South Carolina for purposes of application of §25-1-2250.

This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely,

Patricia D. Petway
Senior Assistant Attorney General

Enclosures