Barnes v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board

548 P.2d 988, 25 Or. App. 177, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1949
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedApril 19, 1976
DocketCA 5400
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 548 P.2d 988 (Barnes v. Fair Dismissal Appeals Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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.

1

ORS 342.815(5) provides:

" 'Permanent teacher’ means any teacher who has been regularly employed by a fair dismissal district for a period of not less than three successive years, whether or not the district was such a district during all of such period and who has been reelected by such district after the completion of such three-year period for the next succeeding school year.”
2

ORS 342.865(1) provides:

"No permanent teacher shall be dismissed except for:
"(a) Inefficiency;
"(b) Immorality;
"(c) Insubordination ;
"(d) Neglect of duty;
"(e) Physical or mental incapacity;
"(f) Conviction of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude;
"(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;
"(i) Any cause which constitutes grounds for the revocation of such permanent teacher’s teaching certificate; or
"(j) Reduction in permanent teacher staff resulting from the district’s inability to levy a tax sufficient to provide funds to continue its educational program at its anticipated level or resulting from the district’s elimination of classes due to decreased student enrollment or reduction of courses due to administrative decision. School districts shall make every effort to transfer teachers of courses scheduled for discontinuation to other positions for which they are qualified. Merit and seniority shall be considered in determination of a teacher for such transfer.” (Emphasis supplied.)
3

ORS 183.482(8) provides:

"The court may affirm, reverse or remand the order. The court shall reverse or remand the order only if it finds:
"(a) The order to be unlawful in substance or procedure, but error in procedure shall not be cause for reversal or remand unless the court *181 shall find that substantial rights of the petitioner were prejudiced thereby; or

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
548 P.2d 988, 25 Or. App. 177, 1976 Ore. App. LEXIS 1949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-fair-dismissal-appeals-board-orctapp-1976.