Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.835
Probationary teacher
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
342.835 Probationary teacher. (1) The district board of any fair dismissal district may discharge or remove any probationary teacher in the employ of the district at any time during a probationary period for any cause considered in good faith sufficient by the board. The probationary teacher shall be given a written copy of the reasons for the dismissal, and upon request shall be provided a hearing thereon by the board, at which time the probationary teacher shall have the opportunity to be heard either in person or by a representative of the teacher’s choice.
(2) For any cause it may deem in good faith sufficient, the district board may refuse to renew the contract of any probationary teacher. However, the teacher shall be entitled to notice of the intended action by March 15, and upon request shall be provided a hearing before the district board. Upon request of the probationary teacher the board shall provide the probationary teacher a written copy of the reasons for the nonrenewal, which shall provide the basis for the hearing.
(3) If an appeal is taken from any hearing, the appeal shall be to the circuit court for the county in which the headquarters of the school district is located and shall be limited to the following:
(a) The procedures at the hearing;
(b) Whether the written copy of reasons for dismissal required by this section was supplied; and
(c) In the case of nonrenewal, whether notice of nonrenewal was timely given. [1965 c.608 §4; 1971 c.570 §4; 1975 c.727 §1; 1979 c.714 §2; 1981 c.323 §1; 2007 c.251 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Henthorn v. Grand Prairie School District No. 14
Henthorn v. Grand Prairie School District No. 14 (1979)
“’ ” ( 39 Or App at 355 ) After reviewing the provisions and legislative history of ORS 342.835, however, the Court of Appeals held that: "* * * the conclusion is inescapable that the only ultimate duty imposed on the district board is that it *688 listen.”
Maddox v. Clackamas County School District No. 25 (1982)
“There are two issues: The first is whether a probationary teacher whose contract is expressly subject to ORS 342.835 has a claim for breach of contract to challenge a termination under that statute during the term of his contract.”
McDowell v. Employment Department (2010)
“In particular, the board pointed to ORS 342.835 and stated that “Oregon law provided claimant with recourse, including the right to be given a copy of the reasons for dismissal, the right to representation and to be heard by the board, and the right to appeal a dismissal…”
Maddox v. Clackamas County School District No. 25 (1981)
“Count II of the first cause of action is also for breach of contract, but the plaintiff alleges that his termination was "without good cause" and that he was not afforded the procedural protections normally associated with due process, all of which he contends were in violation…”
Ostrer v. Pine-Eagle School District No. 61 (1979)
“Ostrer demanded and, on January 26, 1978, received, an evidentiary hearing before the school board in accordance with ORS 342.835(1). [1] After hearing the evidence, the board affirmed its earlier dismissal action; no appeal was taken.”
Smith v. School District No. 45 (1983)
“In so holding, the court reviewed the purpose of the statute: “[W]e conclude that the Oregon Legislature intended to provide to ‘nonrenewed’ probationary teachers a procedure from which, although somewhat ‘informal’ and different from procedures for dismissal of ‘permanent’…”
Cole v. Chemeketa Community College (1982)
“835(2) and (3), provisions of the Fair Dismissal Law, evidenced the intention of the legislature that “nonrenewed” probationary teachers be provided “rudimentary fair procedures by notice and hearing,” 287 Or at 691 , by which to challenge a nonrenewal decision.”
Central Point School District No. 6 v. Employment Relations Board (1976)
“In support of this argument, the district relies solely on ORS 342.835, which gives school boards the authority to dismiss or not renew probationary teachers.”
Papadopoulos v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education (1973)
“, ORS 342.835 (1). It is not completely clear what the extent of a teacher’s job security is during the term of his contracts while in this probationary period.”
Wesockes v. Powers School District No. 31 (1982)
“A probationary teacher may be discharged or removed “at any time during a probationary period for any cause considered in good faith sufficient * * *,” ORS 342.835(1), and may also be refused contract renewal for the upcoming year “for any cause [the school board] may deem in…”
Edwards v. Riverdale School District (2008)
“Compare ORS 342.835 (describing process applicable to dismissal of probationary teachers) with ORS 342.”
Joseph Education Ass'n v. Joseph School District No. 6 (2002)
“A probationary teacher who is nonrenewed or dismissed shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in ORS 342.835 and any appeal by the teacher is limited to the procedures set forth in that statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.835(1) — 10 cases
McDowell v. Employment Department (2010)
“In particular, the board pointed to ORS 342.835 and stated that “Oregon law provided claimant with recourse, including the right to be given a copy of the reasons for dismissal, the right to representation and to be heard by the board, and the right to appeal a dismissal…”
Maddox v. Clackamas County School District No. 25 (1981)
“Count II of the first cause of action is also for breach of contract, but the plaintiff alleges that his termination was "without good cause" and that he was not afforded the procedural protections normally associated with due process, all of which he contends were in violation…”
Ostrer v. Pine-Eagle School District No. 61 (1979)
“Ostrer demanded and, on January 26, 1978, received, an evidentiary hearing before the school board in accordance with ORS 342.835(1). [1] After hearing the evidence, the board affirmed its earlier dismissal action; no appeal was taken.”
Maddox v. Clackamas County School District No. 25 (1982)
“There are two issues: The first is whether a probationary teacher whose contract is expressly subject to ORS 342.835 has a claim for breach of contract to challenge a termination under that statute during the term of his contract.”
Wesockes v. Powers School District No. 31 (1982)
“A probationary teacher may be discharged or removed “at any time during a probationary period for any cause considered in good faith sufficient * * *,” ORS 342.835(1), and may also be refused contract renewal for the upcoming year “for any cause [the school board] may deem in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.835(2) — 11 cases
Henthorn v. Grand Prairie School District No. 14 (1979)
“’ ” ( 39 Or App at 355 ) After reviewing the provisions and legislative history of ORS 342.835, however, the Court of Appeals held that: "* * * the conclusion is inescapable that the only ultimate duty imposed on the district board is that it *688 listen.”
Smith v. School District No. 45 (1983)
“In so holding, the court reviewed the purpose of the statute: “[W]e conclude that the Oregon Legislature intended to provide to ‘nonrenewed’ probationary teachers a procedure from which, although somewhat ‘informal’ and different from procedures for dismissal of ‘permanent’…”
Central Point School District No. 6 v. Employment Relations Board (1976)
“In support of this argument, the district relies solely on ORS 342.835, which gives school boards the authority to dismiss or not renew probationary teachers.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.835(3) — 11 cases
Maddox v. Clackamas County School District No. 25 (1981)
“Count II of the first cause of action is also for breach of contract, but the plaintiff alleges that his termination was "without good cause" and that he was not afforded the procedural protections normally associated with due process, all of which he contends were in violation…”
Maddox v. Clackamas County School District No. 25 (1982)
“There are two issues: The first is whether a probationary teacher whose contract is expressly subject to ORS 342.835 has a claim for breach of contract to challenge a termination under that statute during the term of his contract.”
Henthorn v. Grand Prairie School District No. 14 (1979)
“’ ” ( 39 Or App at 355 ) After reviewing the provisions and legislative history of ORS 342.835, however, the Court of Appeals held that: "* * * the conclusion is inescapable that the only ultimate duty imposed on the district board is that it *688 listen.”
Smith v. School District No. 45 (1983)
“In so holding, the court reviewed the purpose of the statute: “[W]e conclude that the Oregon Legislature intended to provide to ‘nonrenewed’ probationary teachers a procedure from which, although somewhat ‘informal’ and different from procedures for dismissal of ‘permanent’…”
Ostrer v. Pine-Eagle School District No. 61 (1979)
“Ostrer demanded and, on January 26, 1978, received, an evidentiary hearing before the school board in accordance with ORS 342.835(1). [1] After hearing the evidence, the board affirmed its earlier dismissal action; no appeal was taken.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.835(3)(b) — 1 case
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.