Thomas E. Walsh v. Virginia Commonwealth University

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Petty, Chafin and Senior Judge Annunziata
UNPUBLISHED
THOMAS E. WALSH
MEMORANDUM OPINION*
v. Record No. 0261-13-2 PER CURIAM
JUNE 25, 2013
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Beverly W. Snukals, Judge
(Thomas E. Walsh, pro se, on briefs).
(Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; Wesley G. Russell, Jr.,
Deputy Attorney General; Ronald R. Regnery, Senior Assistant
Attorney General; Guy W. Horsley, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee.
Thomas E. Walsh (Walsh) appeals the decision by the circuit court affirming a decision
of a hearing officer with the Department of Employment Dispute Resolution under the statutory
grievance procedure for state employees pursuant to Code § 2.2-3000 et seq. The circuit court
affirmed the hearing officer’s decision sustaining Walsh’s termination as an employee with
Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). On appeal to this Court, Walsh argues that the
circuit court erred (1) “in not finding that VCU’s actions were a violation of the Fourth
Amendment,” (2) “in abdicating its role in the tripartite inquiry for grievance appeals,” (3) “in
not finding that VCU’s actions were a violation of Virginia’s 8VAC90-10-60(3)(4),” (4) “in
failing to address [his] argument that [the hearing officer] was required to make the legal
analysis of ‘intent to defraud,’” (5) “in failing to address [that the hearing officer] should have
*
Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
found that VCU violated law in Walsh’s termination,” and (6) “by wrongfully stating in its order
why the parties appeared before it.”
Pursuant to Code § 2.2-3006(B), a party may appeal to the circuit court from the decision
of a hearing officer under the state grievance procedure. Code § 17.1-405(1) authorizes a further
appeal to this Court. However, our Supreme Court has described our standard of review for
decisions of this kind as “very narrow . . . .” Va. Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ. v. Quesenberry,
277 Va. 420, 429, 674 S.E.2d 854, 858 (2009). “[B]ecause the General Assembly granted to the
circuit courts only the authority to consider whether the final determination of the hearing officer
is ‘contrary to law,’ we are likewise limited to such review in considering whether the trial court
erred in its determination.” Pound v. Dep’t of Game and Inland Fisheries, 40 Va. App. 59, 64,
577 S.E.2d 533, 535 (2003). In such a review, an appealing party must “‘identify [a]
constitutional provision, statute, regulation or judicial decision which the [hearing officer’s]
decision contradicted.’” Tatum v. Va. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs., 41 Va. App. 110,
122, 582 S.E.2d 452, 458 (2003) (quoting Virginia Dep’t of State Police v. Barton, 39 Va. App.
439, 446, 573 S.E.2d 319, 323 (2002)).
We have reviewed the record, the circuit court’s order, and the hearing officer’s decision
and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
hearing officer in his final report, In re: Case No: 9847 (Aug. 2, 2012), as affirmed by the circuit
court, Walsh v. Virginia Commonwealth University, Case No. CL12-49059-5 (Jan. 3, 2013).
We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the
decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.
Affirmed.
-2-