This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Northern Virginia that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement and private sector employee matters.

By John V. Berry, Esq.

We thought that an article on whistleblowing would be timely given the recent news involving the whistleblower complaint involving Ukraine. A whistleblower is simply an individual who learns of illegal or unethical activity (or waste, fraud and abuse) and reports it.

Most whistleblowers do not end up famous, but they often play a critical role in holding employers and the government accountable for engaging in illegal activities. Too often illegal activities are ignored by an employee for fear of retaliation. Some employees, however, take a stand at great risk to themselves. As a result, many whistleblower laws have developed over the years to protect these individuals.

Whistleblower Laws in the United States and Virginia

The United States has had whistleblower laws in effect since 1863 during the time of President Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to encourage individuals to report rampant fraud against the federal government in response to purchases during the Civil War. As a result, the False Claims Act (FCA) became law and encouraged private citizens to bring lawsuits against individuals and companies who were defrauding the government.

As an incentive, the whistleblower could receive a percentage of whatever the government recovered from the disclosure. The FCA is still in effect today, though numerous other federal and state laws cover different types of whistleblowers.

In 1989, the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) was enacted to protect federal employees who disclosed illegal actions by the federal government and waste, fraud and abuse. The WPA sought to protect federal employee whistleblowers who suffered retaliation for reporting these illegal activities. There are numerous other whistleblower laws at the federal and state levels that protect individuals who disclose different types of illegal activities, such as the Clean Air Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).

These are just some of the existing whistleblower laws that can protect individuals that make disclosures. Additionally, many states allow employees, either by statute or common law, the ability to challenge retaliation related to whistleblowing activities.

In Virginia, because the state has not yet enacted general state whistleblower protections for employees, the courts have allowed employees to bring whistleblower claims through common law. These are known as Bowman claims, after the case of Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 331 S.E.2d 797 (Va. 1985).

General Test to Qualify for Whistleblower Protection

The importance of being a whistleblower is that certain protections can then come into play after the disclosures are made. Generally, once a disclosure is made, an employer finds out who disclosed the illegal activity and are very unhappy with the employee. This often causes employer retaliation against the whistleblower.

Whistleblower protection laws usually follow the same 3-part test to determine if an employee can prevail on a retaliation claim. In general, this requires:

1. That the individual had a good faith belief that their employer was engaging in illegal activities or waste, fraud and abuse and they reported it
2. That the individual’s employer knew that the individual made such disclosures
3. That the whistleblower suffered retaliation due to the disclosures

Depending on the statute involved, a whistleblower can receive legal protection from retaliation (the most common retaliatory action involves termination from employment), damages, back pay and attorney fees. Each statute is different so individuals should consult with an attorney if they believe that they may need whistleblower protection.

Conclusion

If you need assistance with whistleblower representation or other employment issues, please contact our office at (703) 668-0070 or at www.berrylegal.com to schedule a consultation. Please also visit and like us on Facebook.

This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Northern Virginia that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement and private sector employee matters.

By John V. Berry, Esq.

An amendment approved by the Governor of Virginia in Virginia Code.

Requirements of the New Virginia Employment Law

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam approved an amendment and re-enactment of Virginia Code § 8.01-413.1. The new amendment requires Virginia employers to produce certain employment documents when they receive a written request from a current/former employee or employee’s attorney.

If the employer doesn’t comply, the Virginia statute awards potential damages to the employee if the employer fails to do so within the allotted timeframe. Since the amendment became effective on July 1, 2019, a number of Virginia employers are seeing an increase in requests for the applicable documents.

The Virginia amendment requires a Virginia employer to furnish employment records reflecting (1) dates of employment, (2) wages or salary, (2) job description and job title, and (4) any injuries sustained during the course of employment within 30 days of the receipt of a written request. An employer is not required to be a party to a suit for the statute to apply. That statute provides that:

Every employer shall, upon receipt of a written request from a current or former employee or employee’s attorney, furnish a copy of all records or papers retained by the employer in any format, reflecting (i) the employee’s dates of employment with the employer; (ii) the employee’s wages or salary during the employment; (iii) the employee’s job description and job title during the employment; and (iv) any injuries sustained by the employee during the course of the employment with the employer. Such records or papers shall be provided within 30 days of receipt of such a written request.

Before the new Virginia statute, employers were not required to produce such documents without a subpoena. If the Virginia employer cannot process the employee’s request within 30 days, the employer must notify them in writing. The Virginia employer will then have an additional 30 days to produce the records.

Pursuant to the Virginia statute, the employer can charge a reasonable fee for the copying of paper records and/or the retrieval of electronic records. Failure to comply with a written request can result in a subpoena and the award of damages against the employer, including the employee’s expenses for obtaining the copies, court costs and attorneys’ fees.

The bottom line is that the new statute in Virginia will help employees obtain copies of their employment records. If the employer does not comply, they will likely be responsible for significant fees.

Conclusion

If you need assistance with Virginia employment law issues, please contact our office at (703) 668-0070 or at www.berrylegal.com to schedule a consultation. Please also visit and like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BerryBerryPllc.

This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Northern Virginia that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement and private sector employee matters.

By John V. Berry, Esq.

The elections in 2020 are quickly approaching. Our law firm often represents and defends federal employees for potential Hatch Act violations in the federal workplace.

The Hatch Act was meant to limit the partisan political involvement of federal employees. Hatch Act political activity restrictions apply during the entire period of an employee’s federal service. There are certain rules that prohibit both on-duty and off-duty political conduct. As the 2020 elections start to come closer, this article is meant to help federal employees avoid the pitfalls of committing potential Hatch Act violations.

What is the Hatch Act?

The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits certain types of political participation by federal employees. For example, federal employees may not seek public office in partisan elections, use their official titles or authority when engaging in political activity, solicit or receive contributions for partisan political candidates or groups, and/or engage in political activity while on duty.

Even though the word “partisan” is used other types of non-partisan elections where the candidate is backed by a particular party can also cause a federal employee potential Hatch Act violations.

Enforcement of Hatch Act Violations

For most federal employees, the Hatch Act is enforced by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The OSC has the ability to seek disciplinary action against federal employees if violations are found. Federal employees can potentially be disciplined or terminated for violations of the Hatch Act.

Generally, the OSC will first conduct an investigation and then if violations are found may then seek to negotiate a resolution. In other cases, the OSC may file a disciplinary action with the Merit Systems Protection Board against the employee and ask an administrative judge to take action against the federal employee for a violation.

Hatch Act Tips for Federal Employees

Here are some quick tips for avoiding Hatch Act violations in the federal workplace:

• Avoid discussion of partisan politics using government email
• To the extent possible, avoid partisan political discussions while at work or while performing work
• Don’t try to raise money for partisan political candidates in the workplace (even passing along links for partisan candidates to co-workers)
• Don’t post political discussions during work hours on social media
• Don’t donate to a political campaign during work hours
• Don’t bring political campaign signs or buttons into the federal workplace
• Don’t run for office in a partisan political election

Federal employees can often still participate in political activities, but doing so at work can be a violation of the Hatch Act.

For further information on potential Hatch Act violations, please see the information offered by the OSC. While it is doubtful that brief discussions about politics in the federal workplace would trigger an OSC investigation, the potential risk is there. The safest course for federal employees is to simply avoid partisan politics in the workplace and save them for off-duty.

Conclusion

If you need assistance with federal employment law issues, please contact our office at (703) 668-0070 or at www.berrylegal.com to schedule a consultation. Please also visit and like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BerryBerryPllc.

This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Northern Virginia that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement and private sector employee matters.

By John V. Berry, Esq.

Some states are beginning to offer victims of domestic violence employment law rights.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has not done so yet, but this article focuses on the jurisdictions that have enacted such legislation. The most major legislation in this area has come from New York and California. It is hoped that more states (and Virginia) will begin to enact these types of employment law protections for victims of domestic violence.

New York and California Laws Offer Employment Law Protections

The State of New York recently enacted Bill A5618/S1040, which offers employment law protections to victims of domestic violence. The new law enhanced previous New York protections which prohibited discrimination against victims of domestic violence within the workplace. The new law adds the following:

Reasonable Accommodation: The law requires employers to reasonably accommodate victims of domestic violence who must be absent from work for a reasonable amount of time to seek medical attention, therapy or legal services in connection with domestic violence.

Anti-Discrimination: The new law further ensures that domestic violence victims are considered a protected class and that employment discrimination against them is considered another form of illegal discrimination.

The State of California has enacted similar protections for victims of domestic violence. In some ways, the protections given to employees in California are slightly stronger than those in New York. California Labor Code §§ 230 and 230.1 provides employment law protections to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.

Like in New York, California requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to domestic victims. California also makes it illegal to discriminate or retaliate against a victim of domestic violence for taking time off of work to seek help.

Virginia Lags Behind in Protections

Virginia lags far behind in the protection of domestic violence victims in the workplace. The legislature should move to adopt a law similar to those enacted by California and New York to ensure that employees suffering from domestic violence are not terminated or discriminated against for taking time off to get medical or mental assistance needed in order to get better.

Currently, Virginia only protects victims of domestic violence (and other crimes) for the time taken to respond to a summons or subpoena related to the criminal proceedings. Va. Code § 18.2-465.1. Virginia also requires an employer to permit a victim of a crime to be present at all criminal proceedings related to a crime against the employee. Va. Code 40.1-28.7:2.

Virginia also offers suggested (not binding) guidance to employers asking them to consider allowing victims of all crimes (including domestic violence) to be able to attend court without loss of pay. Va. Code § 19.2-11.01(A)(3)(a). Virginia should follow the lead of New York and California and protect domestic violence victims in the workplace.

Conclusion

If you need assistance with employment law issues, please contact our office at (703) 668-0070 or at www.berrylegal.com to schedule a consultation. Please also visit and like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BerryBerryPllc.

This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Northern Virginia that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement and private sector employee matters.

By John V. Berry, Esq.

Virginia couples seeking to marry in the Commonwealth of Virginia must still list their racial identity to obtain a marriage license.

In a recent federal lawsuit three couples were denied marriage licenses after refusing to specify their race. The lawsuit was recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the requirement. It is about time that Virginia put an end to this requirement.

The Virginia Code, Va. Code Ann. §32.1-267(A), requires that individuals seeking a license to marry must identify themselves according to race. In the lawsuit, these couples have argued that Virginians should not be required to list their race under the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As a practical matter, this requirement is also a problem because Virginia counties have inconsistent and different definitions of race.

For example, in Arlington, where two of the couples tried to obtain their marriage license, the race options were listed as follows: American Indian/Alaskan Native; African American/Black; Asian; Caucasian; Hispanic/Latino; Pacific Islander or Other. Contrast this with Rockbridge County, where the 230 possible race categories include: “White American,” “Aryan,” “Octoroon,” “Quadroon” and “Mulatto.” These types of categories are horribly offensive to many.

The Commonwealth is not alone in this marriage requirement. There are 8 other states that require individuals to identify their race prior to obtaining a marriage license, including Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota and New Hampshire.

Furthermore, in Virginia, not only do you have to list your racial identity in obtaining a marriage license but if you list it falsely, a person can be guilty of a felony. It is time for Virginia to rescind this archaic law.

Conclusion

If you need assistance with employment law issues, please contact our office at (703) 668-0070 or at www.berrylegal.com to schedule a consultation. Please also visit and like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BerryBerryPllc.

This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Northern Virginia that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement and private sector employee matters.

By John V. Berry, Esq.

One of our major practice areas involves representing individuals in security clearance law matters.

We frequently speak to individuals who have issues or concerns relating to their security clearances and are seeking a new position elsewhere. We decided to put together some tips for employees that are changing positions in the context of holding a security clearance.

Tips for employees leaving one cleared position for another:

Leave Your Existing Employer on Good Terms

It is very important to leave your employer on good terms when taking a new position elsewhere. The better the departure, the less likely that you will have issues relating to your security clearance. Keep in mind that a former employer can still report security concerns about a former employee even when they have left.

I recommend the cordial departure approach with supervisors and the company and that the individual take every step possible to keep their former employer happy while you leave.

Know the Status of One’s Clearance Before You Go

It is important to know the status of your clearance before you leave. Too often we have seen a person accept a new position but not realize that their security clearance was out of scope or pending re-investigation, possibly leaving them without an active clearance when they leave.

There is also the possibility that a negative incident report is pending which is unknown at the time of departure. This is a major potential problem where an employee has left their position thinking that all is okay, but then later find out (usually after 2 weeks at the new job) that there is a problem with their security clearance which often leads to a termination.

Have the New Employer Check Your Status Before Leaving the Former Employer 

The individual leaving employment should confirm and re-confirm with the new employer’s security office the status of their security clearance.

This is especially the case where an individual maintains a security clearance in one system, i.e. the Department of Defense JPAS database and attempts to move to a position with an Intelligence Community agency (i.e. NSA, CIA) which is covered by a different database known as Scattered Castles. Sometimes these two databases do not sync well which can cause issues and delays.

Individuals Having Security Incidents Should Take it Slow Before they Leave

One of the most common problems that we come across is when an individual knows that they have an incident report but they still attempt to move to the new employer before their security issue is adjudicated and cleared.

If an individual knows that they have an incident report pending they are typically much better off by staying with their existing employer who will likely keep them employed while the matter is adjudicated. The new employer is far more likely to tell an individual, only after they have left their prior employment, that their clearance has an issue and that they can no longer hire them.

Special Transition Notes

When there is a difficult transition like when the employer is upset with an individual leaving their position for another job it is important to be very careful what the employee takes when with them when they leave the office. We have had numerous cases where an employee leaves one employer under less than favorable circumstances and then the employer claims loss of confidential information and reports the employee to clearance authorities.

In particular, an individual should be very careful in what they take from their computer or printed files from the office. If there is any question, get permission from the employer. Some clients have been reported for taking company emails, files or other information, even if not classified which results in significant security clearance issues.

Conclusion

If you need assistance with a security clearance issue, please contact our office at (703) 668-0070 or at www.berrylegal.com or securityclearancelawyer.com to schedule a consultation. Please also visit and like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BerryBerryPllc.

This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Northern Virginia that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement and private sector employee matters.

By Kimberly H. Berry, Esq.

A new Virginia employment law has gone into effect that restricts what employees and employers can agree to in non-disclosure agreements as a condition of the employee’s employment.

On February 22, 2019, the Virginia Governor signed off on House Bill 1820, affecting all Virginia employers. HB 1820 was unanimously passed by both the Virginia House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate during the Virginia General Assembly 2019 Regular Session.

The new law specifically limits the scope of non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements between employees and employers regarding the disclosure or concealment of sexual assault claims.

The new law, at Va. Code § 40.1-28.01, prohibits a Virginia employer from requiring an employee or prospective employee from agreeing to a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement that attempts to conceal the details relating to a claim of sexual assault as a condition of employment. Under the new Virginia law, claims of sexual assault include claims of rape, forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual battery and sexual battery.

Va. Code § 40.1-28.01 provides that these types of settlement provisions are contrary to public policy, void and unenforceable in the courts. Va. Code § 40.1-28.01 further provides that the new prohibition on non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements will in no way limit other grounds that exist in law or equity for the unenforceability of any such agreement or any provision of such agreement.

The new law can affect new and existing non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements that attempt to hide claims of sexual assaults related to employment.

Conclusion

If you need assistance with a federal retirement or an employment issue, please contact our office at (703) 668-0070 or at www.berrylegal.com to schedule a consultation. Please also visit and like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BerryBerryPllc.

This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Northern Virginia that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement and private sector employee matters.

By John V. Berry, Esq.

In April of 2016, we earlier wrote on the efforts of the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team and their efforts to receive equal pay as compared to the U.S. Men’s National Soccer Team.

Much has happened in the past three years to warrant an update. For one, the women’s team has won another World Cup, recently with a 2-0 victory over the Netherlands. For another, national sponsors of soccer (e.g., Procter and Gamble) have begun to join the fight for equal pay on the side of the women’s team. Lastly, the equal pay movement has become stronger over the past three years. Attached is a copy of the original equal pay complaint.

Equal Pay Cases Take a Long Time

It is an unfortunate fact that the EEOC has taken so long with this case. As mentioned earlier, the case started in early 2016 and originally involved the five team captains of the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team, such as Hope Solo and Carli Lloyd, who filed a wage discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of all members of the women’s team against the U.S. Soccer Federation.

Since the 3-year delay at the EEOC, all 28 women’s team players have withdrawn their EEOC case and filed suit in the federal district court in Los Angeles, alleging that the U.S. Soccer Federation has engaged in several years of institutional gender discrimination. A copy of that complaint is linked.

Equal Pay Complaint

In the latest filing by plaintiffs Alex Morgan, Megan Rapinoe and other women’s team members, they allege the serious pay discrepancies that continue to exist between the men’s and women’s teams.

Specifically, members of the women’s team can potentially earn a maximum of $99,000 a year, while members of the men’s team earn an average of $263,320 per year. Other disparities include the U.S. Soccer Federation only providing charter air flights to the men’s team in 2017, but requiring the women’s team to take commercial air flights.

The reason why this case is so newsworthy is the fact that the women’s team has been out performing the men’s team in rankings and World Cup wins for a long time. The women’s team has been ranked number one in the world for 10 of the past 11 years.

Also, in more recent years, the women’s team has been outperforming the men’s team in revenue and profits as well, and in viewership. For instance, the 2019 Women’s Cup Final viewership was 22% higher than the 2018 Men’s Cup Final.

While the Soccer Federation has claimed market considerations as the reason for paying the men’s team more, the women’s team, according to the complaint, has started to outperform the men’s soccer team in revenue and profit in the most recent accounts.

Additionally, according to the complaint, the women’s team had even proposed a revenue-sharing agreement where women’s player compensation would be less if their revenue decreased. It seems as if the U.S. Soccer Federation needs a reality check.

Conclusion

It is time that the U.S. Soccer Federation recognize and pay the women’s team at least the same as their male counterparts on the two national teams and provide them the same benefits. We represent employees in employment matters.

If you need assistance with a federal retirement or an employment issue, please contact our office at (703) 668-0070 or at www.berrylegal.com to schedule a consultation. Please also visit and like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BerryBerryPllc.

This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Northern Virginia that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement and private sector employee matters.

By Kimberly H. Berry, Esq.

In Virginia (and in many other jurisdictions) severance agreements are contracts that compensate an employee in exchange for them agreeing to leave their employment and waiving all claims against an employer.

Most employees in Virginia are considered “at will,” which means they can resign or be fired at any time by an employer. When employment ends, an employer may offer (or an employee may request) a severance package in exchange for the employee’s waiver of all rights to sue for discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblower retaliation or other alleged violations of law by the employer.

Employers, in the absence of an employment contract which requires severance, generally have no obligation to provide employees severance pay. If severance pay is offered, an employer will offer the employee a Severance Agreement along with the proposed compensation.

Employer Severance Agreements

A Severance Agreement is just a contract between an employee and an employer that resolves all outstanding employment matters between them. A Severance Agreement may be offered to an employee who resigns or is terminated. Additionally, Severance Agreements can also be offered to employees who are laid off or who are facing retirement.

In order to be valid, a Severance Agreement must have consideration — i.e., something of value to which the employee is not already entitled. Employers are usually required to provide an employee time to consider the Severance Agreement before signing and advise them to consult with counsel before signing. An employee typically has a 21-day consideration period to accept an employer’s Severance Agreement unless the employee is over 40 years of age.

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) requires that an employer provide employees over 40 years of age with a 45-day consideration period and at least a 7-day revocation period.

Reasons for Severance Agreements

There are a number of reasons why a Severance Agreement may be proposed or agreed to by employers. These reasons can include the following examples, but many others exist:

• An employee is fired, for conduct or performance and the employer wants to avoid risk for potential claims against them by providing severance in exchange for a waiver of employee claims.
• An employer is looking to downsize their operations and seeks to avoid potential liability in the process by offering severance terms to a number of employees.
• An employee has been fired, no Severance Agreement was initially proposed by the employer but the employee approaches the employer seeking one.
• An employee wants to resign and seeks to initiate severance negotiations with the employer.

Common Severance Agreement Terms

Some of the terms to consider in a Settlement Agreement may include, but are certainly not limited to the following:

Severance Pay
Non-Disparagement
Retirement benefits
Re-employment possibilities
Tax consequences
The timing of severance payments
Confidentiality terms
Security clearance issues
Continuation of employment benefits
Rights to unemployment compensation
Waiver of Claims
Scope of non-competition
Preservation of trade secrets
References and reference letters
Recommendation letters (Positive and Neutral)
Applicable law
Consequences for violating the Severance Agreement

Severance Agreements will almost always include a General Release (Waiver) that stipulates the employee cannot sue his or her employer for wrongful termination or attempt to seek unemployment benefits.

Before an employee signs a Severance Agreement, he or she should consult with an attorney to discuss the rights that he or she may be waiving and the terms of the Severance Agreement.

Conclusion

If you are in need of employment law representation, please contact our office at 703-668-0070 or through our contact page to schedule a consultation. Please also visit and like us on Facebook or Twitter.

This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Northern Virginia that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement and private sector employee matters.

By John V. Berry, Esq.

Some states are moving to not only legalize marijuana but also bar drug screening in employment for its use.

Nevada is such a state. Beginning next year, most employers in the State of Nevada will not be able to turn down a job applicant solely for failing a marijuana drug test. This is the result of a new state law, Nevada Assembly Bill 132, that is set to become effective on January 1, 2020. There is some discussion that a similar law will also be coming to Colorado and other jurisdictions soon.

Nevada’s New Law

The new law will not stop employers from testing job applicants for marijuana usage, and it will not bar them from refusing to hire applicants that test positive for other drugs. There are some exceptions to the new law.

It will not apply to physicians, emergency medical technicians, firefighters or those that have job requirements involving driving and in positions which could adversely affect the safety of others. A copy of the new law can be found here. It is likely to be the first of many similar laws that are enacted in states that have legalized marijuana usage.

Virginia Law Still Criminalizes Marijuana Use

While Nevada and other states have moved forward with decriminalizing marijuana usage and beginning to bar employment-related drug screening, Virginia still criminalizes marijuana usage. Virginia employers remain able to terminate employees for marijuana usage. Attorney General Mark Herring recently suggested changing these laws, which could be the start of a long process in Virginia.

Federal Law Remains Unchanged

Individuals should keep in mind that even as these states legalize certain drugs, these state laws have no effect on federal drug laws barring usage. Furthermore, federal employees and security clearance applicants/holders are still barred and can be fired for marijuana usage.

I suspect that this will likely change in the next 5-10 years, but at present federal employees and security clearance holders can lose their security clearances with even one-time use in a state or jurisdiction that has legalized marijuana.

Conclusion

If you are in need of employment, retirement or security clearance law representation, please contact our office at 703-668-0070 or through our contact page to schedule a consultation. Please also visit and like us on Facebook or Twitter.