One Year Later, Town Manager Orders Nett Reinstated

Legal guidance given. No decision came. One year later, Sabio
ordered the Grievance Panel’s final and binding decision implemented.

By Valerie Cury

After more than a year of political turmoil, lawsuits, criminal charges, competing legal claims, Purcellville Interim Town Manager Anthony Sabio has issued an administrative directive ordering the Town to implement the Grievance Panel’s final and binding decision restoring Carl Benjamin “Ben” Nett to Town employment.

The directive, signed Aug.1, represents the first formal administrative action taken by a Town official who had no involvement in the events that led to Nett’s termination.

Sabio concluded that the relief awarded by the independent Employee Grievance Panel—including reinstatement, back pay, restoration of employment benefits and qualifying attorney’s fees (up to $144 per hour)—is fully consistent with the Town of Purcellville’s written personnel policies and grievance procedures.

Effective 8:45 p.m. Aug. 1, Sabio ordered Nett restored to Town employment in the status required by the Grievance Panel’s decision.

A Deliberately Independent Review

Throughout the directive, Sabio repeatedly emphasizes one central point—his decision was made independently.

Unlike nearly every Town official involved in the dispute over the past year, Sabio states he had no role in the investigation, disciplinary process, grievance proceedings or evidentiary hearing that culminated in the Panel’s decision.

“I was not employed by, appointed to, or acting on behalf of the Town of Purcellville during the investigation, employment action, grievance filing, panel-selection process, evidentiary hearing, or issuance of the Panel Decision,” Sabio wrote.

Because he had “no direct or personal involvement” in the matter, Sabio concluded he was able to make the administrative determination required under Virginia law as the Town’s chief administrative officer.

A Final and Binding Decision

Virginia law provides that Grievance Panel decisions are final and binding. The chief administrative officer’s role is not to retry the case, but to determine whether the relief awarded is consistent with the locality’s written personnel policies.

Sabio made clear that his directive does exactly that, and nothing more.

The order specifically states that it does not reconsider the evidence presented to the Panel, decide the merits of pending criminal or civil proceedings, determine anyone’s personal liability or adopt every factual or legal conclusion contained in the Panel’s written decision.

Instead, Sabio concluded that reversing Nett’s termination, restoring him to employment, awarding back pay and benefits, and allowing qualifying attorney’s fees all fall within the types of relief authorized under the Town’s own grievance policies.

Detailed Orders for Implementation

The directive instructs payroll, human resources and finance personnel who had no prior involvement in the underlying dispute to begin restoring Nett’s employment records, calculating back pay, reinstating benefits and documenting service credit.

It also orders officials who previously participated in the underlying personnel matter or related legal disputes to play no discretionary role in carrying out the directive.

Sabio wrote that those individuals are to receive the directive only for purposes of notice or performing strictly ministerial functions and “shall not delay, condition, reinterpret, or modify the reinstatement.”

The directive further instructs Town litigation counsel to address the pending court enforcement action filed after the Town previously declined to implement the Grievance Panel’s order.

Separate From Criminal Proceedings

The directive repeatedly distinguishes Nett’s employment rights under the grievance process from the criminal cases that remain pending against him.

Sabio states that implementing the Grievance Panel’s decision does not determine the merits of those criminal charges, affect Nett’s status as an elected official or constitute an admission of liability by the Town.

The directive also separates Nett’s reinstatement from any future determination regarding whether he will actually perform police duties, noting that his prospective duty status will be addressed through a separate personnel directive.

Turning a Page

Although narrow in legal scope, Sabio’s directive represents a significant milestone in one of Purcellville’s most contentious personnel disputes.

For nearly a year and a half, the case has been at the center of one of the most consequential legal and administrative disputes in Purcellville’s recent history, generating multiple lawsuits, criminal proceedings and appeals.

Rather than revisiting those disputes, Sabio framed his role as one of administrative obligation.

His directive concludes that the Grievance Panel’s award is consistent with the Town’s written personnel policies and therefore must be implemented under Virginia law, while leaving all remaining legal disputes to the courts.

Why the Grievance Panel Ordered Reinstatement

Sabio’s directive follows a unanimous decision by an independent three-member Employee Grievance Panel that overturned Nett’s termination after concluding the Town failed to prove any of the allegations used to justify his dismissal. 

The Panel found that Nett did not engage in the conduct described in the termination notice, did not commit misconduct, did not violate the law and ordered his reinstatement with back pay, benefits and attorney’s fees. 

Beyond rejecting each of the Town’s allegations, the Panel concluded that Nett had been subjected to political targeting surrounding his candidacy for and subsequent election to the Purcellville Town Council. 

The decision states that multiple internal investigations, increased scrutiny, disciplinary actions and other events occurring in rapid succession “reasonably support Mr. Nett’s feeling that he was being targeted at work,” adding that his testimony on the issue was “credible and factually unchallenged by the Town.” 

The Panel went further, finding that political divisions influenced the disciplinary process itself. It concluded that “these political divides motivated the Department to terminate Mr. Nett because of his election to Town Council,” citing testimony and evidence presented during the hearing. 

In its written decision, the Panel also criticized the Town’s investigation, finding that it relied heavily on allegations that were unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence, failed to follow the Town’s own progressive discipline policies and treated Nett differently from Department supervisors. 

Sabio’s role under Virginia law was limited to determining whether the relief ordered by the Grievance Panel was consistent with the Town’s written personnel policies. He concluded that it was and ordered the Town to implement the Panel’s relief. 

Implementation Delayed Despite Legal Guidance

Sabio’s directive also brings to a close a chapter that remained unresolved nearly a year after the Grievance Panel issued its unanimous decision.

Text messages from November 2025 show that then-Interim Town Manager Diana Hays had received advice and guidance concerning the Grievance Panel’s decision from Town Attorney Robert Sproul, former Town Attorney John Cafferky and the Town’s insurance counsel. In one exchange, Sproul told Mayor Chris Bertaut that “both John and I, and now insurance counsel, have provided Diana with advice and guidance, but we cannot force her to make a decision one way or another.” 

The following day, Bertaut asked whether Hays had been explicitly told that she faced a deadline to sign off on the relief ordered by the Grievance Panel and whether she had been advised of the legal risks of failing to act. Cafferky responded that he had told Hays, “She needs to move on this by tomorrow at the latest.” 

When Bertaut checked again on Nov. 7 for an update on the Grievance Panel relief, Sproul replied that no decision had been made and that he could not say “with any degree of certainty when or if a decision will be made.” 

More than a year after the Grievance Panel unanimously ordered Nett reinstated, Sabio became the first Town Manager to formally determine that the Grievance Panel’s relief was consistent with the Town’s written personnel policies and direct implementation of its final and binding decision.