City of Hampton v. Williamson, Record No. 210988 (Va. June 8, 2023)
This opinion and dissent delve into several canons of statutory construction to determine the discovery obligations of a locality in a grievance proceeding.
Facts. Reese Williamson was a City of Hampton firefighter who was fired for making an allegedly offensive and racist comment. Believing his firing was the result of a letter-writing smear campaign, Williamson filed a grievance with the City, eventually reaching a grievance panel hearing. Pursuant to the relevant discovery statute, Williamson requested all correspondence from any city employee complaining about his statement that formed the basis for his firing. That statute requires that a “grievant and his attorney…shall be allowed access to and copies of all relevant files intended to be used in the grievance proceeding.”
The City refused to provide the requested documents, stating that it did “not intend” to use those documents at the hearing, and therefore was not required to provide them under the statute. Williamson countered that he “intended” to use the documents, so he was entitled to them. He filed a writ of mandamus, asking the circuit court to compel production of the documents. The circuit court did so, and the City appealed.
Issue. Whether a locality must provide documents to a grievant if it does not intend to use the documents in the grievance proceeding.
Holding. No.
Notes. There is no common law or general constitutional right to discovery, thus whether discovery is required in a case is established by statute or Rule. In a grievance proceeding, the discovery statute is one-sided. That is, while the locality must provide certain documents pursuant to the statute, the grievant does not. Without a reciprocal discovery obligation on the grievant, the phrase “intended to be used” must only apply to the locality, not the grievant.
This interpretation is supported by comparing the locality grievance discovery statute to the state grievance discovery statute. The state statute uses very different language that imposes a reciprocal discovery obligation on all parties. Thus, had the legislature intended the same for the locality discovery statute, it knew how to impose that reciprocal requirement.
Finally, an intent to use a document “presupposes a knowledge of both its existence and its content.” If the grievant does not know the content of the requested documents, they cannot know which of the documents they intend to use at the proceeding.
Notably, the Court recognized that this statute “may, at times, lead to unfair practices,” but found that this problem is at least partially balanced by the locality’s burden to support its decision.
Justice Kelsey pens a dissent twice the length of the majority opinion, in which Justice Chafin joins. They believe that the majority’s view requires the statute be rewritten to say that the grievant must be given access to copies of all relevant files “intended to be used *by the City, but not by the grievant,* in the grievance proceeding,” and they would therefore uphold the circuit court’s judgment granting the writ.