Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Commission
822 P.2d 1171, 312 Or. 402 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While hearsay evidence alone can constitute substantial evidence to support an administrative agency's findings, it may be deemed insubstantial if the hearsay declarants were readily available to testify, their testimony was crucial to the outcome, significant countervailing evidence exists, and the consequences of the decision are severe.
Facts:
- Reguero was a sixth-grade teacher in the Salem-Keizer School District during the 1985-87 school years.
- A student, Michelle, alleged that Reguero had touched her breast on one occasion and her buttocks on another.
- Another student, Leasa, alleged that Reguero kept her after school, locked her in the classroom, touched her breast and vaginal area, and lowered his trousers.
- Reguero admitted touching Michelle's breast but claimed it was inadvertent and denied Leasa's allegations entirely.
- Reguero contended Leasa fabricated her story to retaliate against him for reporting her friend, Michelle, to a counselor for suspected involvement in prostitution and drugs.
- A school employee testified that she overheard Michelle say, "I'm gonna get [petitioner]."
- Two teachers testified that the classroom doors could not be locked from the inside.
- After the allegations, Reguero spoke with another student, Stacey, for nearly two hours about the personal hardships the allegations caused him and encouraged her to get other students on his side; he also called Leasa and urged her to withdraw her allegations.
Procedural Posture:
- Reguero's teaching license expired, and he applied to the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC) for reinstatement.
- TSPC, a state administrative agency, held a contested case hearing to determine if Reguero possessed 'good moral character' sufficient for licensure.
- TSPC issued a modified order finding that Reguero lacked good moral character and denied his application.
- Reguero sought judicial review of TSPC's order in the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed TSPC's order.
- Reguero, as petitioner, sought review from the Oregon Supreme Court (highest court), which granted limited review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an administrative agency's decision to deny a professional license, based solely on hearsay evidence regarding alleged misconduct, meet the 'substantial evidence' standard when the original declarants were available to testify but did not, and when significant countervailing evidence was presented?
Opinions:
Majority - Unis, J.
No, the agency's decision is not supported by substantial evidence under these circumstances. While the court formally rejects the rigid 'residuum rule' which would categorically prohibit findings based solely on hearsay, it holds that the substantiality of such evidence must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In this case, TSPC's findings rested entirely on hearsay and multiple hearsay statements from the two students, Michelle and Leasa, who were readily available to testify but were never called. The court found this unreasonable given the existence of significant countervailing evidence—including testimony that the classroom door could not be locked from the inside, a motive for fabrication, and the petitioner's own testimony. Given the profound impact of the decision on the petitioner's ability to pursue his profession, relying solely on untested hearsay when direct testimony was available failed to meet the substantial evidence standard.
Dissenting - Peterson, J.
This opinion concurs in the judgment but proposes a different legal rule. The majority's multi-factor test for assessing the substantiality of evidence is too elastic and will lead to uncertain results. A clearer rule should be adopted: where an administrative finding involves conduct that would constitute a crime, hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to establish that conduct.
Concurring - Van Hoomissen, J.
This opinion agrees with the majority's analysis and conclusion. It is written separately to express concern over a due process issue not reviewed by the court: the potential conflict of interest where the Attorney General's office acts as both the prosecutor against the petitioner and the legal advisor to the agency making the final decision. The court should address whether this dual role maintains the required separation of functions in a future case.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Graber, J.
This opinion concurs with the majority's rejection of the residuum rule but dissents from the final disposition. The majority improperly re-weighed the evidence and substituted its own judgment for the agency's, which is not the role of a reviewing court. TSPC provided a reasoned explanation for finding Leasa's statements credible despite inconsistencies. Furthermore, the majority ignored an independent basis for TSPC's decision: Reguero's own admissions to unprofessional conduct, such as discussing 'french kissing' with students and tapping a student on the buttocks with a yardstick, which alone constituted gross unfitness and supported the denial of his license.
Analysis:
This case is significant for Oregon administrative law as it rejects the outdated 'residuum rule' in favor of a more flexible, modern approach to evaluating hearsay. However, it simultaneously establishes a high bar for agencies relying solely on hearsay in high-stakes adjudications like professional licensing. The decision forces agencies to either produce direct testimony from key witnesses when available or provide a compelling justification for relying on their hearsay statements. This precedent balances administrative efficiency with the principles of fairness and reliability, ensuring that decisions with severe consequences are based on evidence that is reasonably trustworthy under the totality of the circumstances.
Unlock the full brief for Reguero v. Teacher Standards & Practices Commission