Case Name: Brent McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-22
Citations: 545 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: No. 12-35609
Parties: Brent McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 545
Pages: 700–701

Head Matter:
Brent McCLAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-35609.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 5, 2013.
Filed Nov. 22, 2013.
Judy Danelle Snyder, Law Offices of Judy Snyder, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
J. Channing Bennett, Lucas W. Reese, Garrett Hemann Robertson PC, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable James C. Mahan, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Brent McClain appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of appel-lees Vernonia School District and Kenneth Cox. McClain argues that he had a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment with the school district, including: (1) the right to be transferred into the teacher on special assignment ("TOSA") position; and (2) the right to be recalled to the newly created part-time administrator position. McClain further argues that the school district deprived him of his property interest in continued employment without due process of law.
The Oregon Court of Appeals addressed the statutory rights of probationary employees in Papadopoulos v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education, 14 Or.App. 130, 511 P.2d 854 (1973). In discussing school district employees covered by sections 342.805 to 342.955 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, the court determined that "[i]t is clear that at the end of the term of the contract!] during the probationary period a teacher has no job security." Id. at 868. The court concluded that "[e]mployees who are in a probationary status, either temporarily or permanently, have no property interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." Id. at 871.
As a probationary employee whose contract expired, McClain had no protected property interest in continued employment, including any right to be transferred into the TOSA position or to be recalled to the part-time administrator position. Because McClain did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in his continued employment, the court need not decide whether he was given sufficient process.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.