Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865 (2026)

Grounds for dismissal or contract nonextension of contract teacher

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      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;

      (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.

      (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 to 342.937. [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]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases, 1967–2017 · leading case: Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982). · cites it 29× “[1] This appeal presents for our consideration the two interrelated issues of the authority delegated by the legislature to local school boards and the FDAB to interpret and apply the statutory grounds for dismissal of a permanent teacher set forth in ORS 342.865, [2] and the…”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 716 P.2d 724 (Or. 1986). · cites it 18× “"In summary, immorality under ORS 342.865 may be shown by a violation of the moral standards of the people of the State of Oregon generally or the moral standards of the school community where the teacher is employed.”
Davis v. Wasco Intermediate Educ. Dist., 593 P.2d 1152 (Or. 1979). · cites it 6× “630(3) that a transferred employe for whom no position exists "shall have priority to appointment" over other eligible persons for a future position is inconsistent with ORS 342.865(1)(j), enacted in 1973 (Oregon Laws 1973, ch.”
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 144 P.3d 918 (Or. 2006). · cites it 3× “]” ORS 342.865(1). “Authority to dismiss * * * a contract teacher is vested in the district school board subject to” the FDAB appeal process.”
Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 509-J v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Bd., 812 P.2d 1384 (Or. 1991). · cites it 6× “ORS 342.865(1). 3 The neglect of duty allegations were based on Kari’s awareness of and acquiescence in her husband’s illegal drug activities and her inaction in response to those activities.”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 641 P.2d 600 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 8× “If the panel finds these facts true and substantiated, it shall then consider whether such facts, in light of all the circumstances and additional facts developed at the hearing that are relevant to the statutory standards in subsection (1) of ORS 342.865, are adequate to…”
Cooper v. Eugene Sch. Dist. No. 4J, 723 P.2d 298 (Or. 1986). · cites it 2× “ORS 342.865,342.875. Violation of ORS 342.”
Lincoln Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Mayer, 591 P.2d 755 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 6× “" The reference is clearly to the "statutory grounds" for dismissal such as "Inefficiency" or "Immorality" which are listed in ORS 342.865. The function of the FDAB is simply to determine whether the facts establish the existence of any of those grounds.”
Keene v. Creswell Sch. Dist. No. 40, 643 P.2d 407 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 16× “If the panel finds these facts true and substantiated, it shall then consider whether such facts, in light of all the circumstances and additional facts developed at the hearing that are relevant to the statutory standards in subsection (1) of ORS 342.865, are adequate to…”
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 95 P.3d 215 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “1 ORS 342.865 provides, in part: “(1) No contract teacher shall be dismissed or the teacher’s contract nonextended except for: "***** “(b) Immorality; "****** ‘‘(d) Neglect of duty, including duties specified by written rule[.”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 691 P.2d 509 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “In brief, police officers conducting an undercover investigation of an adult bookstore in Eugene observed petitioner engaging in homosexual activity in an arcade booth in the store.”
Shandy v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1, 634 P.2d 1377 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 6× “The FDAB’s interpretation and application of ORS 342.865(D(j) was correct. Finally, petitioner challenges the FDAB’s determination that the District was not obliged to appoint him to a classified, non-teaching position.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(1) — 23 cases
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982). “[1] This appeal presents for our consideration the two interrelated issues of the authority delegated by the legislature to local school boards and the FDAB to interpret and apply the statutory grounds for dismissal of a permanent teacher set forth in ORS 342.865, [2] and the…”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 716 P.2d 724 (Or. 1986). “"In summary, immorality under ORS 342.865 may be shown by a violation of the moral standards of the people of the State of Oregon generally or the moral standards of the school community where the teacher is employed.”
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 144 P.3d 918 (Or. 2006). “]” ORS 342.865(1). “Authority to dismiss * * * a contract teacher is vested in the district school board subject to” the FDAB appeal process.”
Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 509-J v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Bd., 812 P.2d 1384 (Or. 1991). “ORS 342.865(1). 3 The neglect of duty allegations were based on Kari’s awareness of and acquiescence in her husband’s illegal drug activities and her inaction in response to those activities.”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 641 P.2d 600 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “If the panel finds these facts true and substantiated, it shall then consider whether such facts, in light of all the circumstances and additional facts developed at the hearing that are relevant to the statutory standards in subsection (1) of ORS 342.865, are adequate to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(1)(a) — 3 cases
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982). “[1] This appeal presents for our consideration the two interrelated issues of the authority delegated by the legislature to local school boards and the FDAB to interpret and apply the statutory grounds for dismissal of a permanent teacher set forth in ORS 342.865, [2] and the…”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 641 P.2d 600 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “If the panel finds these facts true and substantiated, it shall then consider whether such facts, in light of all the circumstances and additional facts developed at the hearing that are relevant to the statutory standards in subsection (1) of ORS 342.865, are adequate to…”
Keene v. Creswell Sch. Dist. No. 40, 643 P.2d 407 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “If the panel finds these facts true and substantiated, it shall then consider whether such facts, in light of all the circumstances and additional facts developed at the hearing that are relevant to the statutory standards in subsection (1) of ORS 342.865, are adequate to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(1)(b) — 5 cases
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982). “[1] This appeal presents for our consideration the two interrelated issues of the authority delegated by the legislature to local school boards and the FDAB to interpret and apply the statutory grounds for dismissal of a permanent teacher set forth in ORS 342.865, [2] and the…”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 691 P.2d 509 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “In brief, police officers conducting an undercover investigation of an adult bookstore in Eugene observed petitioner engaging in homosexual activity in an arcade booth in the store.”
Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 509-J v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Bd., 793 P.2d 888 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 641 P.2d 600 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “If the panel finds these facts true and substantiated, it shall then consider whether such facts, in light of all the circumstances and additional facts developed at the hearing that are relevant to the statutory standards in subsection (1) of ORS 342.865, are adequate to…”
Waisanen v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J, 215 P.3d 882 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(1)(c) — 1 case
Keene v. Creswell Sch. Dist. No. 40, 643 P.2d 407 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “If the panel finds these facts true and substantiated, it shall then consider whether such facts, in light of all the circumstances and additional facts developed at the hearing that are relevant to the statutory standards in subsection (1) of ORS 342.865, are adequate to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(1)(d) — 2 cases
Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 509-J v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Bd., 812 P.2d 1384 (Or. 1991). “ORS 342.865(1). 3 The neglect of duty allegations were based on Kari’s awareness of and acquiescence in her husband’s illegal drug activities and her inaction in response to those activities.”
Waisanen v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J, 215 P.3d 882 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(1)(g) — 3 cases
Keene v. Creswell Sch. Dist. No. 40, 643 P.2d 407 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “If the panel finds these facts true and substantiated, it shall then consider whether such facts, in light of all the circumstances and additional facts developed at the hearing that are relevant to the statutory standards in subsection (1) of ORS 342.865, are adequate to…”
Whitaker v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Bd., 550 P.2d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
Vorm v. David Douglas Sch. Dist. No. 40, 608 P.2d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(1)(i) — 2 cases
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982). “[1] This appeal presents for our consideration the two interrelated issues of the authority delegated by the legislature to local school boards and the FDAB to interpret and apply the statutory grounds for dismissal of a permanent teacher set forth in ORS 342.865, [2] and the…”
Wagenblast v. Crook Cnty. Sch. Dist., 707 P.2d 69 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(1)(j) — 4 cases
Davis v. Wasco Intermediate Educ. Dist., 593 P.2d 1152 (Or. 1979). “630(3) that a transferred employe for whom no position exists "shall have priority to appointment" over other eligible persons for a future position is inconsistent with ORS 342.865(1)(j), enacted in 1973 (Oregon Laws 1973, ch.”
Shandy v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1, 634 P.2d 1377 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “The FDAB’s interpretation and application of ORS 342.865(D(j) was correct. Finally, petitioner challenges the FDAB’s determination that the District was not obliged to appoint him to a classified, non-teaching position.”
Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 52 v. Humphreys, 680 P.2d 14 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
Humphreys v. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 52, 732 P.2d 84 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(2) — 3 cases
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982). “[1] This appeal presents for our consideration the two interrelated issues of the authority delegated by the legislature to local school boards and the FDAB to interpret and apply the statutory grounds for dismissal of a permanent teacher set forth in ORS 342.865, [2] and the…”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 716 P.2d 724 (Or. 1986). “"In summary, immorality under ORS 342.865 may be shown by a violation of the moral standards of the people of the State of Oregon generally or the moral standards of the school community where the teacher is employed.”
Vorm v. David Douglas Sch. Dist. No. 40, 608 P.2d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(l)(a) — 2 cases
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982). “[1] This appeal presents for our consideration the two interrelated issues of the authority delegated by the legislature to local school boards and the FDAB to interpret and apply the statutory grounds for dismissal of a permanent teacher set forth in ORS 342.865, [2] and the…”
Keene v. Creswell Sch. Dist. No. 40, 643 P.2d 407 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “If the panel finds these facts true and substantiated, it shall then consider whether such facts, in light of all the circumstances and additional facts developed at the hearing that are relevant to the statutory standards in subsection (1) of ORS 342.865, are adequate to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(l)(b) — 7 cases
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 144 P.3d 918 (Or. 2006). “]” ORS 342.865(1). “Authority to dismiss * * * a contract teacher is vested in the district school board subject to” the FDAB appeal process.”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 657 P.2d 188 (Or. 1982). “[1] This appeal presents for our consideration the two interrelated issues of the authority delegated by the legislature to local school boards and the FDAB to interpret and apply the statutory grounds for dismissal of a permanent teacher set forth in ORS 342.865, [2] and the…”
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 60 P.3d 1126 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer Sch. Dist., 95 P.3d 215 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “1 ORS 342.865 provides, in part: “(1) No contract teacher shall be dismissed or the teacher’s contract nonextended except for: "***** “(b) Immorality; "****** ‘‘(d) Neglect of duty, including duties specified by written rule[.”
Ross v. Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 19, 691 P.2d 509 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “In brief, police officers conducting an undercover investigation of an adult bookstore in Eugene observed petitioner engaging in homosexual activity in an arcade booth in the store.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(l)(c) — 1 case
North Clackamas Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Bd., 567 P.2d 1091 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(l)(d) — 2 cases
Kari v. Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 509-J, 852 P.2d 235 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
Waisanen v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J, 215 P.3d 882 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(l)(g) — 1 case
Reynolds Sch. Dist. No. 7 v. Martin, 566 P.2d 196 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.865(l)(j) — 9 cases
Davis v. Wasco Intermediate Educ. Dist., 593 P.2d 1152 (Or. 1979). “630(3) that a transferred employe for whom no position exists "shall have priority to appointment" over other eligible persons for a future position is inconsistent with ORS 342.865(1)(j), enacted in 1973 (Oregon Laws 1973, ch.”
Shandy v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1, 634 P.2d 1377 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “The FDAB’s interpretation and application of ORS 342.865(D(j) was correct. Finally, petitioner challenges the FDAB’s determination that the District was not obliged to appoint him to a classified, non-teaching position.”
Cooper v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Bd., 570 P.2d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
Hood River Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Fogle, 567 P.2d 1063 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
Humphreys v. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 52, 636 P.2d 463 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
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.