ORS 342.835¹
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

Failure to follow notice and hearing pro­ce­dure does not constitute lack of good faith. Jinkerson v. Lane County Sch. Dist. No. 19, 20 Or App 174, 531 P2d 289 (1975)

General rights defined in this sec­tion did not limit specific collective bargaining rights of employes de­lineated in ORS 243.672 (Unfair labor practices) and ORS 243.662 (Rights of public employees to join labor organizations), and fact that peti­tioner was proba­tionary teacher did not preclude Employ­ment Rela­tions Board from finding that his nonrenewal constituted unfair labor practice. Harrison v. Central Linn School District, 34 Or App 221, 578 P2d 460 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

School board was not re­quired to submit its dismissal of proba­tionary teacher to arbitra­tion where collective bargaining agree­ment did not expressly provide for this. Ostrer v. Pine-Eagle School Dist., 40 Or App 265, 594 P2d 1296 (1979)

Legislature intended that nonrenewed proba­tionary teacher have opportunity to contest reasons for nonrenewal, that school board consider evidence in good faith before decision and that limited ap­peal to courts be provided. Henthorn v. Grand Prairie School Dist., 287 Or 683, 601 P2d 1234 (1979)

Proba­tionary teacher could not bring cause of ac­tion for breach of contract in at­tempt to review school district’s substantive basis for his termina­tion, as proper remedy in such case is by writ of review. Maddox v. Clackamas County School Dist. No. 25, 51 Or App 639, 626 P2d 924 (1981), aff’d as modified 293 Or 27, 643 P2d 1253 (1982)

Where peti­tioner received notice of renewal for fourth year by April 1 of third year, such notice did not immediately confer permanent status; teacher remains proba­tionary after fourth-year renewal until comple­tion of third year. Wesockes v. Powers Sch. Dist. No. 31, 57 Or App 652, 646 P2d 68 (1982). But see Smith v. Salem-Keizer School District, 188 Or App 237, 71 P3d 139 (2003), Sup Ct review denied

Viola­tions of evalua­tion pro­ce­dure under ORS 342.850 (Teacher evaluation), and public meeting law, ORS 192.640 (Public notice required), are not “pro­ce­dures at hearing” for purposes of ap­peal. Smith v. School Dist. No. 45, 63 Or App 685, 666 P2d 1345 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

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)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 342—Teachers and Other School Personnel, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors342.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 342, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano342.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.
Currency Information