Barnes v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board

548 P.2d 988, 25 Or. App. 177, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1949
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided April 19, 1976·No. CA 5400·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

*179 LEE, J.

Petitioner appeals the order of respondent Fair Dismissal Appeals Board (Board) sustaining his termination of employment with respondent school district.

Petitioner is a "permanent teacher” as that phrase is used in ORS 342.815(5). 1

The ground for petitioner’s dismissal was "Insubordination.” ORS 342.865(1). 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 342.200 and 342.805 to 342.955 and only after recommendation of the *180 dismissal is given to the district school board by the superintendent.”

The superintendent of the respondent school district recommended that the petitioner be dismissed because he had "* * * been insubordinate by continually and repeatedly refusing to adhere to district policy and administrative directives in the use of physical discipline with students and in other actions in response to administrative procedure.” The superintendent listed four incidents which formed the basis for his recommendation. Three of these incidents involved physical contact with students and one incident involved defiant conduct.

The school board approved the recommendation of the superintendent. The respondent Board upheld the termination of petitioner’s employment by the respondent school district.

The Board is authorized to determine ”* * * whether or not the facts relied on to support the recommendations of the district superintendent are true and substantiated and if true and substantiated, whether or not they are adequate to justify the statutory grounds cited as reasons for the dismissal. * * *” ORS 342.905(5).

The Board determined that "* * * the facts relied upon to support the recommendation of the district superintendent to dismiss the teacher, contained in the letter notice to the teacher dated June 2, 1975, are true and substantiated and justify the statutory ground of insubordination cited as the reason for dismissal.”

Our scope of review is set forth in ORS 183.482(8). 3

*181 The four incidents on which the superintendent based his recommendation are set forth in his letter of June 2, 1975 to petitioner. 4

*182 The published school district policy on physical discipline was "* * * limited to the use of a paddle. 5

We find that there was "substantial evidence in the whole record” to support the Board’s order.

*183 We cannot accept petitioner’s assertion that the Board erred in considering the incidents of April 19, 1971 and April 5, 1974 because the school district had renewed the petitioner’s contract following these incidents.

Finally, we find no ambiguities in the district’s policies concerning physical discipline that would support petitioner’s claim that there was a denial of due process of law.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barnes v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board, 548 P.2d 988, 25 Or. App. 177, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1949 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).

548 P.2d 988 (Barnes v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bellairs v. Beaverton School District
136 P.3d 93 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2006)
Keene v. Creswell School District No. 40
643 P.2d 407 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1982)
Lithun v. Grand Forks Public School District No. 1
307 N.W.2d 545 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1981)
North Clackamas School District No. 12 v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board
567 P.2d 1091 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1977)