But he contends that Sheriff Weatherholtz's adoption of the Employees Handbook gave rise to a constitutionally protectible interest. And he further contends that the Virginia Supreme Court in Angle v. Overton, 235 Va. 103, 365 S.E.2d 758 (1988), acknowledged limitations on the discretion of county sheriffs consistent with the recognition of such an interest. After reviewing the relevant statutory provisions and case law, we address each of these contentions.
The City argues that because the constitutional claim fell, the personnel grievance board decision necessarily becomes binding and non-justiciable. However, we have no record on appeal of any such ruling and are now presented with not only the issue of the application of Zicca [v. City of Hampton, 240 Va. 468, 397 S.E.2d 882 (Va. 1990)] and Angle [v. Overton, 365 S.E.2d 758 (Va. 1988)] to this case, but also — for the first time — the validity of the state law claim where the accompanying constitutional claim has failed. We believe the more appropriate course of action is to allow the district court the initial opportunity to address these issues, now presented for the first time because of our ruling.
The hearing officer's "recommendation," while included within his written opinion, was not a "decision" within the meaning of § 2.1-116.07 (D) allowing implementation "of the hearing officer's decision." [10-11] This Court's ruling in Angle v. Overton, 235 Va. 103, 365 S.E.2d 758 (1988), heavily relied upon by the employee, is not controlling. Angle was "decided substantially in [the employee's] favor" by a grievance panel. Id. at 104, 365 S.E.2d at 758.
Furthermore, a circuit court may not consider a grievance de novo , because the grievance panel's decision is binding on the circuit court. Id. ; seeAngle v. Overton , 235 Va. 103, 106-07, 365 S.E.2d 758 (1988) ("[I]f [the City] w[as] free either to accept or to reject the panel's decision, the decision would not be binding and the grievance procedure mandated by the General Assembly would be rendered impotent."); see alsoZicca v. City of Hampton , 240 Va. 468, 471, 397 S.E.2d 882 (1990) (reversing a circuit court's decision after determining the circuit court failed to implement the panel's binding decision to reinstate an employee to the employee's previous position).
Neither case addressed the issue of appellate jurisdiction. See also Angle v. Overton, 235 Va. 103, 365 S.E.2d 758 (1988). Code Sec. 2.1-114.5:1(D) (4) (d) provides, in pertinent part:
The additional element which plaintiff argues has worked a change in the traditional approach to this type of case was the Virginia Supreme Court's decision in Angle v. Overton, 235 Va. 103, 365 S.E.2d 758 (1988). In Angle, a sheriff's deputy had been demoted and brought a grievance under the Franklin County employee grievance procedures.
Code Sec. 15.1-7.2 requires each governing body to establish procedures which are consistent with the provisions of the state grievance procedure. The grievance panel's decision is binding on the City. Angle v. Overton, 235 Va. 103, 106, 365 S.E.2d 758, 759-60 (1988). The City stipulated that Zicca never performed the duties of a golf course superintendent when he returned to the City's employ.