Case 1:16-cv-00540-AJT-MSN Document 37 Filed 07/28/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID# 3271
that administrative agency decisions have no less preclusive, binding effect on future judicial
proceedings than court decisions. See, e.g., Brock v. Voith Siemens Hydro Power Generation,
716 S.E.2d 485, 488 (Va. Ct. App. 2011) (finding that res judicata principles apply to workers’
compensation cases); K & L Trucking Co., Inc. v. Thurber, 337 S.E.2d 299, 302 (Va. Ct. App.
1985) (“Unless otherwise proscribed by statute, the relationship of the [Industrial Commission of
Virginia] to an award is that of a court to a judgment during the term at which it is rendered.”);
Cosby v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, No. 8027, 1985 WL 306836, at *1 (Va. Cir. Ct. July 26, 1985)
(considering “[d]ecisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals” and finding that “[t]he doctrines of
res judicata, collateral estoppel and stare decisis apply to proceedings such as these”); see also
Brooks v. Arthur, 611 F. Supp. 2d 592 (W.D. Va. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 626 F.3d 194
(finding that Rule 1:6 barred the plaintiffs’ Section 1983 retaliation claim where the plaintiffs
had previously litigated a discrimination claim through a state grievance procedure). It is
therefore of no moment that Davison’s first opportunity to present his claims came in the form of
an LCSB hearing and his subsequent appeal to the Virginia state court. For all these reasons, the
Court concludes that the dismissal of his state court Petition with prejudice constituted a final
adjudication on the merits.
The next issue is the scope of the preclusion, and for that purpose, the Court must
consider the conduct, transaction, or occurrence that defines the scope of the preclusive effect on
other proceedings. “The proper approach asks ‘whether the facts are related in time, space,
origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a
unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage.’” Funny Guy, LLC
v. Lecego, LLC, 795 S.E.2d 887, 897 (Va. 2017) (citation omitted). In that regard, for the
purposes of Supreme Court of Virginia Rule 1:6, the “conduct, transaction, or occurrence” that
15