Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, inserting himself into a local controversy, told city officials Monday that they could not mandate paid sick time for private-sector employees even if they wanted to.

In a letter to Mayor Ron Nirenberg and the City Council, Paxton said state law gives municipalities no authority to impose such a requirement.

“We write to inform you that no matter the council’s decision or the result of any ballot initiative, Texas law pre-empts a municipal paid sick leave ordinance,” the Republican attorney general wrote.

City Attorney Andrew Segovia said through a spokesman that Paxton’s letter “will, of course, be analyzed and considered, but it does not legally bind the city.”

The proposed ordinance would require that employees of any business, both for- and not-for-profit, earn an hour of sick leave for every 30 hours of work. Those working for businesses with 15 or fewer employees could accrue a minimum of 48 hours, while those working for larger businesses could accrue 60 hours. If approved, the ordinance would take effect for businesses with more than five employees Aug. 1, 2019, and Aug. 1, 2021, for “micro-businesses” of five or fewer employees. Not affected are government employers, who cannot be regulated by local policies, and unpaid interns or independent contractors working here.

Michelle Tremillo, executive director of the Texas Organizing Project-San Antonio and one of the driving forces behind the paid-sick-leave movement, Working Texans for Paid Sick Time, lambasted Paxton for trying to stand in the way of the ordinance.

“We are trying to ensure that all people working within San Antonio can take care of themselves or a family member when they get sick. Why would he stand in the way of that?” Tremillo said.

Paxton’s letter comes just a few days after the San Antonio Express-News reported that the city clerk had determined that petitions submitted by Working Texans for Paid Sick Time, an alliance of grass-roots, community and labor groups, and labor unions, contained more than enough valid signatures for the proposed ordinance to proceed to the council.

In a news release, Paxton notes that the state has intervened in a lawsuit against Austin, whose City Council earlier this year enacted a similar ordinance that goes into effect Oct. 1. In a late-June hearing, he and the plaintiffs in the suit — the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation and several business groups — lost their bid in state District Court to put the ordinance on hold until the conclusion of litigation, something that could take years and eventually appear before the Texas Supreme Court.

Earlier this year, Gov. Greg Abbott, a former state attorney general, told the Express-News that he planned to target municipal sick-leave ordinances through legislation, which implies that he believes that they’re allowed under current state law and contradicts Paxton’s view that such an ordinance is a violation of the Texas Minimum Wage Act.

The Texas Labor Code’s chapter on minimum wages includes a single line that appears to refer to municipalities.

Photo: San Antonio Express-News File Photo

“Except as otherwise provided by this section, the minimum wage provided by this chapter supersedes a wage established in an ordinance, order or charter provision governing wages in private employment, other than wages under a public contract,” the code states.

In his news release, Paxton argues that the law prevents cities from mandating things such as paid sick leave.

“Because the proposed ordinance would increase wages for the workweek beyond those permitted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act, the state law pre-empts such a measure,” the release states. “When the Legislature enacted the Minimum Wage Act, it intended to set a single, uniform policy for all of Texas.

“The policy it set made no mention of requiring employers to provide paid time off from work,” the release states. “The law expressly pre-empts cities like San Antonio from passing a different law simply because they disagree with the judgment of the state’s elected representatives.”

In San Antonio, the proposed ordinance would mandate paid sick time to 350,000 workers who currently don’t have it.

Councilman Rey Saldaña, a proponent of the ordinance, said Monday that the attorney general is trying to “strong-arm us the same way he did the city of Austin.

“It flies in the face of the ability of voters to make a decision for themselves.”

Councilman Greg Brockhouse, who has called for the matter to go to voters in November, said the council should publicly discuss in early August the legal issues facing the ordinance.

“This is a discussion that should be open to the public because of the far-reaching implications to the residents and the business community. The AG’s statement must be respected,” he said. “We must also respect our duties under the charter with regards to petitions. This is a tough spot for the council to be in, but we can make the right decisions with sound legal analysis and total public transparency.”

The council is expected to receive a report on the petitions from the city clerk at its Aug. 2 meeting, and Saldaña has insisted that the council take action on the matter at one of the first three August meetings, as the state’s deadline for calling an election for November is Aug. 20.

Nirenberg is caught between a progressive push for sick leave and a concern that if he backs the idea, the business community will withdraw its support for his battle against the local fire union’s charter amendments, which will also be on the November ballot. City officials and their allies have said those amendments would weaken city government.

The business community has the ability to give significant financial support to Nirenberg’s campaign against the amendments. And business isn’t keen on the sick leave ordinance.

“We need to weigh all of the factors carefully. We will talk to the city attorney and council members,” Nirenberg said in a statement. “Austin’s paid sick leave ordinance is being contested in court, and now Attorney General Paxton has asked us to reject the proposed ordinance. We have a lot to consider.”