2017 ORS 342.865¹
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 (Issuance of licenses and registrations);

(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 (Sick leave for school employees).

(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 (Short title) to 342.937 (Reimbursement for teacher dismissal costs). [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]

See also annota­tions under ORS 342.530 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Reinstate­ment is not an available remedy under this sec­tion for a teacher wrongfully discharged. George v. Sch. Dist. 8R, 7 Or App 183, 490 P2d 1009 (1971)

Statute requiring the district school board to dismiss teachers for “immorality” held unconstitu­tional. Burton v. Cascade Sch. Dist., 353 F Supp 254 (1973)

Where school district had adopted written “performance standards,” which were in evidence at Fair Dismissal Appeals Board’s pro­ceed­ing, it was not error for FDAB to fail to articulate performance standards in its order affirming school’s dismissal of permanent teacher on grounds of “inadequate performance.” Vorm v. School Dist. No. 40, 45 Or App 225, 608 P2d 193 (1980)

It was not impermissible, as matter of law, for school district, at time it was working out staffing needs, to insist that teacher on leave of absence advise whether he intended to return to job at end of leave, and school board could reasonably consider refusal to respond as insubordina­tion or neglect of duty under this sec­tion. Keene v. Creswell School Dist. No. 40, 56 Or App 801, 643 P2d 407 (1982)

It was error for Fair Dismissal Appeals Board to affirm dismissal of teacher on basis of “gross unfitness” where Teacher Standards and Practices Commission determined that facts underlying charge of “gross unfitness” did not constitute grounds for revoca­tion of teaching certificate under ORS 342.175 (Grounds for discipline). Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 294 Or 357, 657 P2d 188 (1982)

Where school district had not at­tempted to define “immorality” through rules, policies or standards, order affirming dismissal of permanent teacher was inadequate and it was remanded to Fair Dismissal Appeals Board for determina­tion as to whether facts as to “immorality” were adequate to justify statutory grounds. Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 294 Or 357, 657 P2d 188 (1982)

Fair Dismissal Appeals Board was responsible without looking to community opinion for deciding criteria making con­duct immoral within meaning of this sec­tion. Ross v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19, 300 Or 507, 716 P2d 724 (1986)

Fair Dismissal Appeals Board misconstrued statutory term “duty” under this sec­tion by reasoning that teacher’s family op­­tions rather than her responsibilities to school district and students were determinative. Jefferson County School Dist. No. 509-J v. FDAB, 102 Or App 83, 793 P2d 888 (1990), aff’d 311 Or 389, 812 P2d 1384 (1991)

Fair Dismissal Appeals Board could consider per­sonal circumstance in determining whether objectively defined duty had been neglected. Kari v. Jefferson County School Dist. No. 509-J, 120 Or App 99, 852 P2d 235 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Past incidents for which teacher has already been discip­lined and that do not individually constitute neglect of duty may be cumulatively considered to es­tab­lish neglect of duty. Bellairs v. Beaverton School District, 206 Or App 186, 136 P3d 93 (2006)

Law Review Cita­tions

70 OLR 895 (1991)

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 (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 342, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano342.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
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.