Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.895

Contract teachers; procedure for dismissal or contract nonextension; appeal

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      342.895 Contract teachers; procedure for dismissal or contract nonextension; appeal. (1) Contract teachers shall be employed by a school district pursuant to two-year employment contracts.

      (2) Authority to dismiss or not extend a contract teacher is vested in the district school board subject to the provisions of the fair dismissal and contract extension procedures of ORS 342.805 to 342.937 and only after recommendation of the dismissal or nonextension of contract is given to the district school board by the superintendent.

      (3)(a) At least 20 days before recommending to a board the dismissal of the contract teacher, the district superintendent shall give written notice to the contract teacher by certified mail or delivered in person of the intention to make a recommendation to dismiss the teacher. The notice shall set forth the statutory grounds upon which the superintendent believes such dismissal is justified, and shall contain a plain and concise statement of the facts relied on to support the statutory grounds for dismissal. If the statutory grounds specified are those specified in ORS 342.865 (1)(a), (c), (d), (g) or (h), then evidence shall be limited to those allegations supported by statements in the personnel file of the teacher on the date of the notice to recommend dismissal, maintained as required in ORS 342.850. Notice shall also be sent to the district school board and to the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board. A copy of ORS 342.805 to 342.937 shall also be sent to the contract teacher.

      (b) If, after the 20-day notice required by paragraph (a) of this subsection, the district school board takes action to approve the recommendation for dismissal from the superintendent, the dismissal takes effect on or after the date of the district school board’s action, as specified by the board. Notice of the board’s action shall be given to the contract teacher as soon as practicable by certified mail, return receipt requested or in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons in a civil action.

      (4)(a) Upon recommendation of the district superintendent, the district school board may extend a contract teacher’s employment for a new two-year term by providing written notice to the teacher no later than March 15 of the first year of the contract. Any new contract that extends the teacher’s employment for a new term shall replace any prior contracts.

      (b) If the district school board does not extend a contract teacher’s contract by March 15 of the first year of the contract, the district superintendent, or the superintendent’s designee, shall place the teacher on a program of assistance for improvement. The district superintendent or the superintendent’s designee may, in addition, place any other teacher on a program of assistance for improvement if in the judgment of the district superintendent or designee a program of assistance for improvement is needed.

      (c) Provided that the district school board has not extended the teacher’s contract for a new two-year term, the district board, upon recommendation of the superintendent, may elect by written notice to the teacher no later than March 15 of the second year of the teacher’s contract not to extend the teacher’s contract based on any ground specified in ORS 342.865. A contract teacher whose contract is not extended may appeal the nonextension to the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board.

      (5) Notwithstanding ORS 243.650 to 243.809 or the provisions of any collective bargaining agreement entered into after August 15, 1997, no grievance or other claim of violation of applicable evaluation procedures, or fundamental unfairness in a program of assistance for improvement, shall be filed while a teacher is on a program of assistance. All statutes of limitation and grievance timelines shall be tolled while the subject claims are held in abeyance under this moratorium provision. Except as provided in this subsection, the moratorium and tolling period ends on the date the program of assistance for improvement is completed, not to exceed one year, after which any claims subject to this provision may be pursued as otherwise provided by law or contract. In the case of a contract teacher who does not receive contract extension by March 15 of the first year of the teacher’s contract, the moratorium period shall last until the teacher receives notice of contract extension or nonextension and no later than March 15 of the following school year, or until the teacher receives notice of dismissal. A contract teacher who is dismissed or receives notice of contract nonextension, and who appeals to the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board, may raise any claims subject to this moratorium provision before the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board, which shall have jurisdiction to decide such claims. If the teacher does raise claims covered by this moratorium provision in an appeal to the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board, such appeal shall be the teacher’s sole and exclusive remedy. If a contract teacher does not appeal a contract nonextension or dismissal to the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board but instead pursues contract grievances to arbitration alleging a violation of evaluation procedures or fundamental unfairness in a program of assistance for improvement, the arbitrator shall not have authority to award reinstatement of the contract teacher, but may award other remedies including but not limited to back pay, front pay, compensatory damages and such further relief as the arbitrator deems appropriate. A program of assistance for improvement shall not be technically construed, and no alleged error or unfairness in a program of assistance shall cause the overturning of a dismissal, nonextension of contract, nonrenewal of contract or other disciplinary actions unless the contract teacher suffered a substantial and prejudicial impairment in the teacher’s ability to comply with school district standards.

      (6) No teacher may be dismissed, laid off or caused to suffer nonextension or nonrenewal of a contract based upon the teacher’s salary placement or other compensation. [1965 c.608 §11; 1971 c.570 §7; 1973 c.298 §5; 1977 c.881 §5; 1979 c.668 §3; 1997 c.864 §12]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases, 1967–2009 · leading case: Lincoln County School District v. Mayer
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lincoln County School District v. Mayer (1979) orctapp · cites it 18× “Mayer, pursuant to ORS 342.895, in which petitioner assigned as statutory grounds for dismissal (ORS 342.”
Zollinger v. Warner (1979) or · cites it 5× “They urge that the most reasonable construction is that the legislature did not intend to require an administrator to appeal dismissal or demotion to the FDAB where the procedural prerequisites of ORS 342.895 3 have not been *26 met. That statute requires (1) that the…”
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer School District (2006) or · cites it 2× “ORS 342.895(2). *409 Judicial review of final orders of the FDAB is governed by the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA).”
Ross v. Springfield School District No. 19 (1982) or · cites it 2× “ORS 342.895(1) provides: "Authority to dismiss a permanent teacher is vested in the district school board subject to the provisions of the fair dismissal procedures of ORS 342.”
Jefferson County School District No. 509-J v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board (1991) or · cites it 2× “ORS 342.895(1). 1 The recommendation followed a police search, of Kari’s and her husband’s jointly owned home, that produced evidence that her husband had been using their home to grow and sell marijuana and that Kari was aware of the drug sales.”
Lane Unified Bargaining Council/SLEA/OEA/NEA v. SOUTH LANE SCH. DIST. 45J3 (2000) orctapp · cites it 21× “ORS 342.895 is part of the Accountability for Schools in the 21st Century Law, which includes, as context for its construction, ORS 342.”
Post v. Salem-Keizer School District (1999) orctapp · cites it 16× “She contended that the procedures for dismissal of permanent teachers set out in ORS 342.895 had not been followed and that there were no facts to establish any of the statutory grounds for dismissal set out in ORS 342.”
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer School District (2004) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 342.895(1). “Under ORS 342.905[(6)], FDAB must affirm ‘if it finds the facts relied upon are true and substantiated * * It follows that there must be some consequence if all or part of those facts are not proven.”
Ross v. Springfield School District No. 19 (1982) orctapp · cites it 2× “On December 14, 1979, Superintendent Lewellen, pursuant to ORS 342.895, notified petitioner that he intended to recommend petitioner’s dismissal as a permanent teacher to the Board of Directors on the grounds of “inefficiency,” “immorality” and “gross unfitness.”
Papadopoulos v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education (1973) orctapp “865 and in accordance with the procedures stated in ORS 342.895 to 342.960. As this survey of some of the statutory provisions governing public employment makes apparent, a feature common to all of the statutory schemes is that a new public employe serves an initial probationary…”
Henthorn v. Grand Prairie School District No. 14 (1979) or “835(2) was intended to refer not to an appeal to a court, but to an appeal to a Fair Employment Dismissal Board under ORS 342.895. Cf. Zollinger v. Warner, 286 Or 19 , 593 P2d 1107 (1979).”
Smith v. Salem-Keizer School District (2003) orctapp · cites it 2× “ORS 342.895 outlines the procedures that govern a contract teacher’s dismissal and provides, in part: “(1) Contract teachers shall be employed * * * pursuant to two-year employment contracts.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.895(1) — 10 cases
Lincoln County School District v. Mayer (1979) orctapp “Mayer, pursuant to ORS 342.895, in which petitioner assigned as statutory grounds for dismissal (ORS 342.”
Ross v. Springfield School District No. 19 (1982) or “ORS 342.895(1) provides: "Authority to dismiss a permanent teacher is vested in the district school board subject to the provisions of the fair dismissal procedures of ORS 342.”
Jefferson County School District No. 509-J v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board (1991) or “ORS 342.895(1). 1 The recommendation followed a police search, of Kari’s and her husband’s jointly owned home, that produced evidence that her husband had been using their home to grow and sell marijuana and that Kari was aware of the drug sales.”
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer School District (2004) orctapp “ORS 342.895(1). “Under ORS 342.905[(6)], FDAB must affirm ‘if it finds the facts relied upon are true and substantiated * * It follows that there must be some consequence if all or part of those facts are not proven.”
Smith v. Salem-Keizer School District (2003) orctapp “ORS 342.895 outlines the procedures that govern a contract teacher’s dismissal and provides, in part: “(1) Contract teachers shall be employed * * * pursuant to two-year employment contracts.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.895(2) — 11 cases
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer School District (2006) or “ORS 342.895(2). *409 Judicial review of final orders of the FDAB is governed by the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA).”
Zollinger v. Warner (1979) or “They urge that the most reasonable construction is that the legislature did not intend to require an administrator to appeal dismissal or demotion to the FDAB where the procedural prerequisites of ORS 342.895 3 have not been *26 met. That statute requires (1) that the…”
Pierce v. Douglas School District No. 4 (1982) orctapp
Post v. Salem-Keizer School District (1999) orctapp “She contended that the procedures for dismissal of permanent teachers set out in ORS 342.895 had not been followed and that there were no facts to establish any of the statutory grounds for dismissal set out in ORS 342.”
Post v. Salem-Keizer School District (2002) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.895(3) — 2 cases
Williams v. Cody (1976) orctapp
Post v. Salem-Keizer School District (2002) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.895(3)(a) — 1 case
Post v. Salem-Keizer School District (2002) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.895(4)(b) — 1 case
Lane Unified Bargaining Council/SLEA/OEA/NEA v. SOUTH LANE SCH. DIST. 45J3 (2000) orctapp “ORS 342.895 is part of the Accountability for Schools in the 21st Century Law, which includes, as context for its construction, ORS 342.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.895(5) — 2 cases
Lane Unified Bargaining Council/SLEA/OEA/NEA v. SOUTH LANE SCH. DIST. 45J3 (2000) orctapp “ORS 342.895 is part of the Accountability for Schools in the 21st Century Law, which includes, as context for its construction, ORS 342.”
Lane Unified Bargaining Council/SLEA/OEA/NEA v. South Lane School District 45J3 (2002) or
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 342.895(l)(b) — 1 case
Bergerson v. Salem-Keizer School District (2004) orctapp “ORS 342.895(1). “Under ORS 342.905[(6)], FDAB must affirm ‘if it finds the facts relied upon are true and substantiated * * It follows that there must be some consequence if all or part of those facts are not proven.”
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.