Court Opinion

ID: 9577529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:35:47.854826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:44.831106
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, J.,
dissenting.
The majority acknowledges the general rule that “employment rights conferred by the legislature on government employees can be modified or repealed lawfully by subsequent legislation.” Nevertheless, the majority proceeds to find that a “substantive” right was conferred upon Kohler under the facts of this case and then determines that the decision is “controlled” by Code § 1-16. I disagree.
*347In my view, no “substantive” right in the terms and conditions of employment accrued to this government worker. She was not hired under any written agreement, but under the provisions of existing law. When she became a City employee under applicable legislation, she was subject in all respects to that legislation and likewise was subject to any alterations in her employment thereafter made by the legislature. Kohler had no “substantive” right, or due process right (as alluded to in footnote 2 of the majority opinion), to insist that a procedure for discharge be continued in force as to her for the duration of her employment.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and enter final judgment here in favor of the city.
CARRICO, C.J., and THOMAS, J., join in dissent.