Teachers and Other School Personnel

ORS 342.865
Grounds for dismissal or contract nonextension of contract teacher


(1)

No contract teacher shall be dismissed or the teacher’s contract nonextended except for:

(a)

Inefficiency;

(b)

Immorality;

(c)

Insubordination;

(d)

Neglect of duty, including duties specified by written rule;

(e)

Physical or mental incapacity;

(f)

Conviction of a felony or of a crime according to the provisions of ORS 342.143 (Issuance of licenses and registrations);

(g)

Inadequate performance;

(h)

Failure to comply with such reasonable requirements as the board may prescribe to show normal improvement and evidence of professional training and growth; or

(i)

Any cause which constitutes grounds for the revocation of such contract teacher’s teaching license.

(2)

In determining whether the professional performance of a contract teacher is adequate, consideration shall be given to regular and special evaluation reports prepared in accordance with the policy of the employing school district and to any written standards of performance which shall have been adopted by the board.

(3)

Suspension or dismissal on the grounds contained in subsection (1)(e) of this section shall not disqualify the teacher involved for any of the disability benefits provided in ORS chapter 238, or any of the benefits provided in ORS 332.507 (Sick leave for school employees).

(4)

Dismissal under subsection (1)(f) of this section shall remove the individual from any school district policies, collective bargaining provisions regarding dismissal procedures and appeals and the provisions of ORS 342.805 (Short title) to 342.937 (Reimbursement for teacher dismissal costs). [1965 c.608 §§9,19; 1973 c.298 §4; 1977 c.860 §4; 1981 c.569 §1; 1995 c.446 §10; 1997 c.249 §104; 1997 c.864 §10; 1999 c.130 §8]

See also annotations under ORS 342.530 in permanent edition.

Notes of Decisions

Reinstatement is not an available remedy under this section for a teacher wrongfully discharged. George v. Sch. Dist. 8R, 7 Or App 183, 490 P2d 1009 (1971)

Statute requiring the district school board to dismiss teachers for "immorality" held unconstitutional. Burton v. Cascade Sch. Dist., 353 F Supp 254 (1973)

Where school district had adopted written "performance standards," which were in evidence at Fair Dismissal Appeals Board's proceeding, it was not error for FDAB to fail to articulate performance standards in its order affirming school's dismissal of permanent teacher on grounds of "inadequate performance." Vorm v. School Dist. No. 40, 45 Or App 225, 608 P2d 193 (1980)

It was not impermissible, as matter of law, for school district, at time it was working out staffing needs, to insist that teacher on leave of absence advise whether he intended to return to job at end of leave, and school board could reasonably consider refusal to respond as insubordination or neglect of duty under this section. Keene v. Creswell School Dist. No. 40, 56 Or App 801, 643 P2d 407 (1982)

It was error for Fair Dismissal Appeals Board to affirm dismissal of teacher on basis of "gross unfitness" where Teacher Standards and Practices Commission determined that facts underlying charge of "gross unfitness" did not constitute grounds for revocation of teaching certificate under ORS 342.175. Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 294 Or 357, 657 P2d 188 (1982)

Where school district had not attempted to define "immorality" through rules, policies or standards, order affirming dismissal of permanent teacher was inadequate and it was remanded to Fair Dismissal Appeals Board for determination as to whether facts as to "immorality" were adequate to justify statutory grounds. Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 294 Or 357, 657 P2d 188 (1982)

Fair Dismissal Appeals Board was responsible without looking to community opinion for deciding criteria making conduct immoral within meaning of this section. Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 300 Or 507, 716 P2d 724 (1986)

Fair Dismissal Appeals Board misconstrued statutory term "duty" under this section by reasoning that teacher's family options rather than her responsibilities to school district and students were determinative. Jefferson County School Dist. No. 509-J v. FDAB, 102 Or App 83, 793 P2d 888 (1990), aff'd 311 Or 389, 812 P2d 1384 (1991)

Fair Dismissal Appeals Board could consider personal circumstance in determining whether objectively defined duty had been neglected. Kari v. Jefferson County School Dist. No. 509-J, 120 Or App 99, 852 P2d 235 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Past incidents for which teacher has already been disciplined and that do not individually constitute neglect of duty may be cumulatively considered to establish neglect of duty. Bellairs v. Beaverton School District, 206 Or App 186, 136 P3d 93 (2006)

Law Review Citations

70 OLR 895 (1991)

§§ 342.805 to 342.955

Notes of Decisions

Under these sections a nontenured teacher may be entitled to a fair hearing. Vanderzanden v. Lowell Sch. Dist. 71, 369 F Supp 67 (1973)

The procedural requirements contained in these sections apply to all, or substantially all, nonpersonal discharges of instructors and administrators and to the transfer of administrators. Schaaf v. Sch. Dist. No. 4J, 19 Or App 838, 529 P2d 943 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

Where senior high school principals were transferred to positions as junior high school principals, allegedly in violation of Fair Dismissal Law, appeal must first be made to Fair Dismissal Appeals Board and issuance of writ of mandamus by circuit court was improper. Zollinger v. Warner, 286 Or 19, 593 P2d 1107 (1979)

Law Review Citations

16 WLR 409 (1979)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021