Teacher Found to Have Been Terminated in 2011 Without Just Cause.

Prior to returning to practice in Massachusetts as a partner with Pyle Rome Ehrenberg, PC, Attorney Patrick Bryant was a partner at McKanna Bishop Joffe, LLP, a union-side law firm in Portland Oregon, representing Oregon Education Association, United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 555, and several other private and public sector unions. One of Bryant’s final Oregon-based cases involved a challenge to the termination of a beloved rural agriculture/vocational teacher. An arbitrator, after nearly six days of hearing in December 2012 and February 2013, reinstated the teacher for being terminated in violation of the collective bargaining and Oregon law. The arbitrator found many of the teacher’s alleged deficiencies were corrected, minor and/or unfairly overstated by the District. This case represents one of the first times in nearly a decade that performance-based teacher termination in Oregon has been overruled for insufficient evidence.

In Oregon, teachers obtain “Contract” status – akin to Professional Teacher Status in Massachusetts – after three consecutive years on the job. Teachers are subject to two-year contracts that are reviewed every year. Contract teachers can be terminated (or have their contract non-renewed) if the school district establishes that they committed one of several offenses outlined by state law, such as inadequate performance or insubordination. (Oregon law enables districts and teachers unions to bargain higher standards, such as just cause, before a teacher can be terminated.) In cases involving allegations of poor performance, districts are expected to place teachers on a Program of Assistance (POA). The POA is supposed to document significant deficiencies in performance, provide assistance to enable the teacher to improve, and conduct regular evaluations to gauge improvements. A teacher should be terminated only if the District can establish that the teacher failed the POA(s).

In this case, the District terminated the teacher who allegedly failed his POA’s. The District’s reasons included the teacher failed to: insure that students followed safety rules at all times; communicate adequately with parents about student academic progress; submit documents in a timely manner; and have respectful communications with administrators. In challenging the termination, Attorney Bryant and the OEA local introduced evidence that the teacher was regarded by administrators, students, and parents for the bulk of his career as a capable, competent, and dedicated; that he held students to a higher safety standard; that he regularly communicated with parents; that no parent or student ever complained about lack of communication; that the District created or enforced standards solely against him; that any documents turned in late were trivial makework created by the District unrelated to teaching; and that District consistently acted in bad faith throughout the POA process, including by applying made up standards, misapplying criteria, and ignoring the teacher’s successful completion of multiple alleged deficiencies.

The Arbitrator heard six days of hearing, saw testimony from about a dozen witnesses, reviewed nearly 200 exhibits and reviewed about 200 pages of written argument. He ultimately concluded that the District lacked appropriate basis to terminate the teacher, and that only one of the reasons relied upon by the District – untimely delivery of documents - was in any way legitimate. All other reasons should have been excluded by the District as having been addressed by the Teacher. He further found that termination was too severe a discipline for the untimely production of certain administrative materials. The Arbitrator ordered the teacher to be reinstated and made whole, minus a minor 20-day suspension.