Post v. Salem-Keizer School District

Citations: 334 Or. 61; 45 P.3d 116; 2002 Ore. LEXIS 294Docket: FDA 96-3; CA A98436; SC S46780

Court: Oregon Supreme Court; April 25, 2002; Oregon; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court of Oregon reviewed the case of Lauren Post versus the Salem-Keizer School District and the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board (FDAB), reversing the Court of Appeals' prior decision and the order of FDAB. The case centered on whether the Court of Appeals appropriately affirmed FDAB’s dismissal of Post's appeal as untimely, based on the premise that actual notice was sufficient to start the appeal period. The Court found that FDAB incorrectly dismissed the appeal, concluding that the proper legal notice and procedures outlined in ORS 342.895(2) regarding teacher dismissals were not followed. Lauren Post, who was employed as a permanent part-time teacher and had accepted a temporary full-time position, was notified on March 18, 1996, that her temporary contract would not be renewed. She claimed she was entitled to dismissal protections as a permanent full-time teacher and sought review from FDAB on August 29, 1996. The Court's decision mandated that the case be sent back to FDAB for further proceedings, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory notice requirements for dismissals.

FDAB addressed four key questions related to the appeal of a permanent part-time teacher who had been temporarily assigned full-time. The main issues were whether FDAB had the authority to review the reassignment, if such a reassignment constituted a 'dismissal' for FDAB review, the grounds for reducing a teacher's assignment, and what triggers the 10-day appeal period for a teacher reduced to part-time work. FDAB resolved only the issue regarding the appeal period, determining that the petitioner had received 'actual notice' sufficient to trigger the 10-day appeal deadline under ORS 342.905(1) (1995). Consequently, her appeal was dismissed as more than six months had elapsed since she received this notice.

The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, with the majority agreeing that the receipt of 'actual notice' was enough to trigger the appeal limitation. However, a dissenting opinion argued that the statutory procedures under ORS 342.895(2) (1995) required more than mere notice and that failing to adhere to these procedures invalidated the dismissal process.

The petitioner argued that she should be considered a permanent full-time teacher under ORS 342.845(2) (1995) and claimed that her contract's non-renewal was effectively a dismissal, entitling her to the notice requirements of ORS 342.895(2) (1995). FDAB did not resolve her status as a permanent full-time teacher, focusing instead on whether actual notice triggered the appeal limit.

The review concluded that both FDAB and the Court of Appeals misinterpreted the statute. The 10-day appeal limit was triggered only by formal notice of the school board's decision under ORS 342.895(3) (1995), and the more detailed notice required by ORS 342.895(2) (1995) was essential for the school board to take dismissal action. Therefore, without proper notice under ORS 342.895(2) (1995), the school board could not dismiss the teacher, and the appeal period under ORS 342.905(1) (1995) would not commence.

An appeal involving a dismissed teacher claiming permanent full-time status and lack of required notice under ORS 342.895(2) and (3) (1995) was improperly dismissed by the Fair Dismissal Appeals Board (FDAB) due to the expiration of a 10-day appeal limitation under ORS 342.905(1) (1995). The Court of Appeals also erred in affirming this dismissal. The case is remanded to the FDAB for further proceedings to determine if the petitioner qualifies as a 'permanent full-time teacher' and is entitled to the associated statutory protections. The term 'permanent teacher' was changed to 'contract teacher' in 1997, but this does not affect the current case analysis. ORS 342.895(2) mandates that a permanent teacher must receive written notice at least 20 days prior to dismissal recommendations, detailing the statutory grounds and supporting facts. The 1997 amendments to ORS 342.895 maintain similar notice requirements. Under ORS 342.845(2) (1995), procedures specified in ORS 342.805 to 342.930 do not apply to part-time teachers' assignments. The court referenced the Zollinger v. Warner case but indicated that the FDAB should first consider any defective notice issues without being influenced by prior opinions. The FDAB retains the authority to evaluate these matters on remand, considering the Court of Appeals' analysis as appropriate.