Virginia Department of State Police v. Barton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that policy established by a state agency is not “law” and that “[t]he General Assembly has clearly vested review of policy issues involved in employee grievances in the [DHRM], and not in the courts”
• explaining that the only ground of appeal for reviewing grievance panel decision is that the decision is contradictory to law
• stating that, even when reviewing whether a termination decision is “contradictory to law” under Code § 2.2-3006(B), courts must defer to DHRM with respect to “whether the hearing officer’s decision is consistent with policy” and that determination is not “subject to judicial review”
• “These statutes clearly provide the hearing officer is to act as fact finder____”
• “the first and only appearance . . . as a standard of appellate review”
• “As the provision of a state grievance procedure for state employees is a matter of legislative grace, the General Assembly has wide latitude in how it chooses to structure that process, including any right of appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).