236.350
Definitions for ORS 236.350 to 236.370. As used in ORS 236.350 to 236.370:
(1) “Disciplinary
action” means action taken against a public safety officer by an employer to
punish the officer, including dismissal, demotion, suspension without pay,
reduction in salary, written reprimand and transfer.
(2) “Just cause”
means a cause reasonably related to the public safety officer’s ability to
perform required work. The term includes a willful violation of reasonable work
rules, regulations or written policies.
(3) “Public
safety officer” means:
(a) A member of a
law enforcement unit who is employed full-time as a peace officer commissioned
by a city, university that has established a police department under ORS
352.121 or 353.125, port, school district, mass transit district, county,
Indian reservation, the Criminal Justice Division of the Department of Justice,
the Oregon State Lottery Commission or the Governor and who is responsible for
enforcing the criminal laws of this state or laws or ordinances relating to
airport security.
(b) A corrections
officer, a parole and probation officer or a youth correction officer as those
terms are defined in ORS 181A.355. [1979 c.618 §2; 1991 c.742 §14; 1993 c.594 §6;
1993 c.623 §3; 2007 c.71 §74; 2009 c.716 §1; 2011 c.506 §31; 2013 c.180 §35]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2021 · leading case:
State v. Kurtz, 249 P.3d 1271 (Or. 2011).
State v. Kurtz, 249 P.3d 1271 (Or. 2011).
· cites it 2× “360 provides, in part: “(1) Employers of public safety officers shall adopt written procedures to implement the provisions of ORS 236.350 to 236.370. “(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, the following safeguards apply when a public safety officer is under…”
City of Portland v. Rice, 775 P.2d 1371 (Or. 1989).
“360, which in pertinent part provides: “(1) No disciplinary action shall be taken against a police officer without just cause.”
State v. Kurtz, 228 P.3d 583 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“360 requires “just cause” and procedural protections in the discipline of a “police officer,” defined by ORS 236.350(3) to include “an officer or member of a law enforcement unit who is employed full time as a peace officer commissioned by a city, port, school district, mass…”
Patnode v. Sunriver Police Dep't (D. Or. 2021).
“§§ 236.350–.370 (2021). Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that, because he was not under a collective bargaining agreement, he was entitled to the statutory protections of the POBOR even if he was a “supervisory employee.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 236.350(2) — 1 case
City of Portland v. Rice, 775 P.2d 1371 (Or. 1989).
“360, which in pertinent part provides: “(1) No disciplinary action shall be taken against a police officer without just cause.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 236.350(3) — 1 case
State v. Kurtz, 228 P.3d 583 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“360 requires “just cause” and procedural protections in the discipline of a “police officer,” defined by ORS 236.350(3) to include “an officer or member of a law enforcement unit who is employed full time as a peace officer commissioned by a city, port, school district, mass…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 236.350(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Kurtz, 249 P.3d 1271 (Or. 2011).
“360 provides, in part: “(1) Employers of public safety officers shall adopt written procedures to implement the provisions of ORS 236.350 to 236.370. “(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, the following safeguards apply when a public safety officer is under…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.