Virginia Department of Corrections v. Tammy Estep, 0485162

Background

Tammy Estep was reinstated by a 2007 hearing officer order to a comparable superintendent/assistant-warden position or her original job; that order became final. The Supreme Court affirmed a 2008 circuit-court finding that an earlier placement was not comparable in Virginia Dep’t of Corr. v. Estep (Estep I).
In April 2015 VDOC transferred Estep to a different facility (CWDDC) while retaining her title; Estep sued in circuit court seeking implementation under Va. Code § 2.2-3006(D), arguing the transfer was an involuntary demotion.
The circuit court ordered on Sept. 1, 2015 (and reiterated Dec. 15, 2015) that VDOC return Estep to a "comparable position" (same pay band) or to her original position, and to provide similar housing or a housing supplement. The orders did not adjudicate whether specific jobs offered were "comparable."
VDOC offered several positions and upgraded Estep’s pay band/title; Estep rejected some offers and chose to remain at CWDDC. The circuit court later found VDOC in contempt for noncompliance and assessed daily fines, later suspending most and ordering payment of $18,000.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the contempt and monetary sanctions because the Sept. and Dec. orders were not sufficiently definite: the court had not made the factual comparability determinations required to create a clearly defined duty that VDOC could be held to have violated.

Issues

Issue	Estep's Argument	VDOC's Argument	Held
Whether sovereign immunity bars contempt fines against a state agency	Court’s contempt power enforces orders; sovereign immunity shouldn’t prevent coercive fines to insure compliance	Absent explicit statutory waiver, Commonwealth immune from monetary contempt sanctions	Not decided — appellate court resolved case on non-constitutional grounds and declined to reach sovereign immunity question
Whether VDOC was properly held in civil contempt for failing to comply with Sept. 1 and Dec. 15 orders	VDOC failed to return Estep to a comparable position or original job and thus disobeyed clear court orders	VDOC made good-faith efforts, offered comparable positions, and adjusted pay/title; orders were ambiguous	Reversed: contempt finding unsupported because orders were not definite as to which positions were comparable and court never made the necessary factual findings
Whether the circuit court had authority under § 2.2‑3006(D) to decide comparability of offered positions	Estep: court may and should enforce hearing officer’s decision; court’s contempt was a permissible enforcement tool	VDOC argued (below) that agency’s determinations have a role; appellate contends court misread its authority	Held that circuit court does have authority under § 2.2‑3006(D) to make factual findings on comparability and to implement the hearing officer’s decision
Whether monetary sanction ($18,000 balance) was appropriate given VDOC’s conduct	Sanctions enforce compliance and were justified by noncompliance	Sanction inappropriate because VDOC made good-faith attempts to comply	Not addressed on merits — sanction vacated with contempt reversal because duty to comply was not sufficiently defined

Key Cases Cited

Virginia Dep’t of Corr. v. Estep, 281 Va. 660, 710 S.E.2d 95 (2011) (Supreme Court affirmed circuit court’s finding that initial placement was not comparable)
Glanz v. Mendelson, 34 Va. App. 141, 538 S.E.2d 348 (2000) (contempt requires order definite as to duties imposed)
DHRI, Inc. v. Hanbeck, 288 Va. 249, 765 S.E.2d 9 (2014) (contempt requires express command or prohibition)
Petrosinelli v. PETA, 272 Va. 700, 643 S.E.2d 151 (2007) (reiterating requirement of express command for contempt)
Oxenham v. Johnson, 241 Va. 281, 402 S.E.2d 1 (1991) (appellate review of legal issues receives less deference than findings of fact)