Oja

MEMORANDUM *

Oja claims, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , that he was denied a property interest in his employment without due process of law. There can be a property interest in an employment context only if there is a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to employment. 1 There can be a legitimate claim of entitlement only if there is a binding contract. This property interest is further defined by state law.

Oja did not have a valid, binding contract. By statute, a professor does not have a valid employment contract until the college’s Board of Education approves it. 3 The Board never approved Oja’s contract, so Oja had no property interest in his employment, and his § 1983 claim fails. Oja’s breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, therefore, fail as well.

The promissory estoppel claim likewise fails because only the Board can make a binding promise. 4 Oja can establish a claim for promissary estoppel by showing that 1) the college made a promise; 2) the college could foresee the promise would induce him to quit his job and move; 3) he actually relied on the promise; and 4) he substantially changed his position in reliance on the promise. 5…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in the majority’s assessment of Eric Oja’s misrepresentation claim against Defendants Blue Mountain Community College and Michael Shea and Oja’s claim under Oregon Revised Statute § 659.815. See maj. dispo. at 600. I must respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that summary judgment was appropriate as to Oja’s due process and contract-based claims.

In June 2002, Eric Oja was offered a position as a physics instructor at Blue Mountain Community College., He was given a contract and assurances that his position was “as official as it gets.” Based on these assurances, Oja resigned his prior tenured teaching position and moved his family across Oregon in anticipation of his new position with the college. Because of budget shortfalls, however, the college’s new president failed to recommend that the college’s Board approve Oja’s contract. The college then claimed the contract was not binding without Board approval and denied Oja the secure position he originally had been offered.

Based on these facts, Oja brought the following six claims against the college and individual defendants Michael Shea and Travis…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s interpretation of Oregon Revised Statute § 659.815. This section makes it illegal to use any “false ... representation ... concerning the amount or character of the compensation to be paid” to persuade or engage an employee to “change from one place to another.” 1 Oja established at *604 least a genuine issue of fact as to whether the college made a false representation— that the “character” of his compensation would be a full-year tenure track position, when it was actually a one-quarter non-tenure track position — to induce his move.

Therefore, I would reverse on this issue as well.

. Or.Rev.Stat. § 659.815 (2003).