We represent Virginia employees in non-compete agreement issues. Non-compete agreements and clauses are important for employees to consider in joining or leaving an employer. Northern Virginia, given its proximity to Washington, DC, has numerous businesses engaged in government contracting. Given this fact, and the fact that these types of businesses tend to be very competitive, there has been a significant rise in the number of employees that are required to sign non-competition or “non-compete” agreements as part of their employment requirements. Over the past 10 years or so, we have noticed that businesses in Virginia are using “non-compete” agreements in their hiring processes far more than before. The rise in non-compete agreements in Virginia has not been limited to just government contractor positions, but also includes many types of other businesses as well ranging in size from small to large. At the same time, the laws regarding non-compete rules are evolving in Virginia and elsewhere.
What is a Non-Compete Agreement?
A non-compete agreement is merely a written agreement where an employee agrees not to leave an employer and then compete for the same business when they leave that employment. Typically, non-compete clauses are inserted in employment agreements by an employer during the hiring process and have become somewhat commonplace. Common characteristics of non-compete agreements include duration of the non-competition period, limits as to competition for certain customers and the geographic boundaries of the non-competition area. If you work in Virginia and have signed a non-compete agreement with your employer, former employees can face legal issues if they violate them. That is why it is important to get legal help in negotiating these agreements and attempting to resolve issues that later arise from alleged violations by an employer.
Types of Issues That Arise in Virginia Non-Compete Agreements
There are any number of issues that can arise because of a non-compete agreement or clause in Virginia. An employer may accuse a former employee of violating the prior agreement. In such cases, hiring a Virginia employment attorney is critical to resolve the issues before they get into court. Non-compete agreements in the Commonwealth of Virginia tend to be viewed as somewhat disfavored and have been viewed somewhat negatively as a type of restraint on business. As a result, in Virginia, non-compete agreements have a better chance of success, if enforcement is attempted, the more narrowly tailored they are. Courts in Virginia will enforce reasonable non-compete agreements. Non-compete agreements, in this narrow sense, must be prepared to: (1) protect a bona fide employer’s interest; (2) must be reasonable; and (3) must not be against public policy. There are a number of specific features that come into play in Virginia with respect to these 3 variables. Typically, a valid business interest is considered the extent to which a non-compete agreement protects the employer from poaching existing customers, trade secrets, or other confidential information.
Non-Compete Agreements Should be Narrow
Keeping in mind that these types of non-compete agreements must be drafted narrowly, courts in Virginia will not enforce agreements that are overbroad or unreasonable. Some pitfalls in non-compete agreements include the following: (1) agreements that impose overbroad geographical limitations (i.e. a prohibition on competing in the United States where the service area is only a portion of Virginia); (2) unreasonable time constraints (i.e. a 20-year restriction; although each determination is based on the individual facts of a case); (3) agreements prohibiting an employee from working in any capacity for a competitor; (4) agreements whose terms and not clear or discernible; (5) agreements for licensed professionals (physicians, lawyers, etc.) which may be barred on public policy grounds; and (6) agreements that unfairly burden an employee’s ability to obtain alternative employment. The bottom line is that employers should be reasonable in drafting non-compete agreements for employees.
Other potential issues with non-compete agreements exist and it is important for an employer to structure a clear and fair non-compete agreement in order for it to be upheld by the Virginia courts. It is important for an employee to understand their obligations as well. Since July 1, 2020, with a change in law, Virginia has prohibited employers from entering into, enforcing or threatening to enforce non-compete agreements with low wage employees. The definition of low-wage employee changes based on the Commonwealth’s average weekly wage. A good case to review by the Virginia Supreme Court on these issues can be found at this link. Additionally, the federal government may or may not be successful in attempting to further reduce the ability of some employers to use non-compete agreements for employees in the future. As mentioned above, this area of law is in the process of evolving.
Obtain Legal Advice from Virginia Non-Compete Lawyers About Non-Compete Agreements
When negotiating a non-compete agreement or clause or when questions arise as a result of a non-compete agreement it is very important to seek an experienced Virginia employment lawyer. This is best accomplished prior to signing an agreement or when potential violations arise. Our law firm represents employees and businesses with respect to non-compete agreements. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com for legal advice and consultation in such matters.
One of the more frequent issues that arises in the context of security clearance investigations involves alcohol abuse or over-consumption of alcohol by federal employees, military employees and government contractors. This is regulated by Adjudicative Guideline G for those holding or seeking a security clearance. This article discusses the issues that many individuals face with respect to alcohol and their security clearance.
Alcohol Abuse or Overconsumption by Cleared Employees or Applicants
Alcohol over-consumption and abuse can be a major factor in maintaining or obtain a security clearance. Security concerns regarding this issue arise under Adjudicative Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption of Security Executive Agency Directive (SEAD) 4. Adjudicative Guideline G is the section of the Guidelines which involve a clearance holder or applicant’s use of alcohol and it’s impact on an individual’s ability to obtain or maintain a security clearance.
Guideline G issues usually come into play when a federal employee, military employee or government contractor have issues regarding the use of alcohol. The most obvious issue that begins this type of review is a recent alcohol-related traffic concern such as a DUI or other intoxication charge. If recent, these charges tend to require more investigation prior to the issuance of a security clearance or may require a clearance review. The clear concern for federal agencies that evaluate security clearances is that excessive alcohol consumption can lead to the use of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, both of which are not considered acceptable for purposes of access to classified information.
Security Concerns Raised by Alcohol Abuse or Consumption
When issues arise involving alcohol abuse or over-consumption, in the scope of a security clearance investigation or review, it is very important to take them seriously and to obtain legal representation experienced with these types of issues in order to minimize the potential damage to a security clearance or otherwise mitigate the security concerns. When alcohol issues are reviewed in regards to security clearances cases, they fall under Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption, SEAD 4, which reads as follows:
Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption under SEAD 4
The Concern. Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(a) alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(b) alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition, drinking on the job, or jeopardizing the welfare and safety of others, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(c) habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(d) diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of alcohol use disorder;
(e) the failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed;
(f) alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder; and
(g) failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment, or abstinence.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
Under Paragraph 23 of SEAD 4, there are 4 mitigating factors provided to mitigate security concerns involving alcohol abuse. These are:
23. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) the individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a treatment program; and
(d) the individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
While many of the same principles have applied to alcohol usage cases under Guideline G in the past adjudicative guidelines, SEAD 4 recently changed some of the concerns and factors slightly as of June 8, 2017, so it is important to be familiar with them. The following case is a sample of the types of decisions made by security clearance adjudicators involving alcohol from March, 2023. Sample DOHA Case (Applicant was denied a clearance where he had not acknowledged that he had an alcohol problem, and continued to consume alcohol with regularity despite being advised during his treatment in 2013 to abstain. He was also not participating in treatment or attending AA).
Case Examples Involving Guideline G Cases where Clearance Was Denied
The following are 3 examples where individuals clearances were denied and 3 examples where the individual’s clearance was granted under Guideline G.
Example A: Security clearance applicant was convicted 3 times of Driving under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) between a period of 8 years. The last alcohol-related DUI was 2 years prior to the Statement of Reasons being issued with response to Guideline G. He had recently began to abstain from consuming alcohol, but not enough time has passed to conclude alcohol is no longer a problem. Applicant’s security clearance was denied.
Example B: Security clearance applicant had a long history of alcohol abuse from 1991 to 2012 and was diagnosed with alcohol dependence. The applicant had participated several times in both inpatient and outpatient treatment programs, but had relapsed. He was alcohol free for 14 months prior to the hearing. The Administrative Judge found that his current period of sobriety was not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline G, alcohol consumption. Applicant’s security clearance was denied.
Example C: While security clearance applicant had no alcohol-related incidents since 2014 (and the hearing was held in May of 2016) and had remained sober for more than a year still resulted in a denial of the security clearance by the Administrative Judge. On appeal, the DOHA Appeal Board found that the recency factor alone does not compel an Administrative Judge to make a favorable clearance decision. The Appeal Board held that it has never established a “bright line” rule as to the recency of conduct raising security concerns. The extent to which security concerns have become mitigated through the passage of time or recency is instead a question that must be resolved based on the evidence as a whole. As a result of these findings, the Applicant’s security clearance was denied.
Case Examples Involving Guideline G Cases where Clearance Was Granted
Example A: Security clearance applicant was 34 years old and had a history of alcohol-related incidents before being diagnosed with alcohol dependence in 2006. Following alcohol treatment in 2006, he abstained from alcohol consumption for 5 years before resuming infrequent use. The applicant was found to have recommitted himself to total abstinence, was found to attend Alcoholics Anonymous, and had a sponsor to help him work on alcohol issues. Applicant was found to have mitigated the security concerns under Guideline G, alcohol consumption and his security clearance was granted.
Example B: Security clearance applicant was 54 years old and had 3 alcohol-related incidents from 1984 to 2000. Following that time period, he had abstained from alcohol use from 2001 to 2009, a period of about 8 years. Subsequently, he had resumed responsible alcohol use without any problems, consisting of 1-2 beers after work, but not daily. Further, there was no evidence of any alcohol-related incident for the past 15 years. The Administrative Judge found that the individual had provided sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline G and granted the security clearance.
Example C: Security clearance applicant was 45 years old and had issues with alcohol dependence over his life. Applicant was found to have taken seriously the fact that he was an alcoholic and had to completely abstain from alcohol. The individual also presented evidence that he regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous and also that he had a strong support network. The Administrative Judge found that the applicant was earnest in his efforts at recovery and had mitigated the security concerns under Guideline G, alcohol consumption and granted the individual’s security clearance.
Things to Consider for Alcohol Cases Under Guideline G
In security clearance cases involving Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption, it is very important to understand just how important it is to demonstrate that the individual understands and acknowledges (where appropriate) their alcohol issues and concerns. Denying a known alcohol problem only makes mitigation more problematic. It cannot be overstated that security clearance adjudicators take alcohol concerns seriously. Absent significant evidence of rehabilitation or other efforts, it can be hard to keep or obtain a security clearance.
14 Considerations in Alcohol Cases
Here are 14 items (not a full list, which is too long to list here) that we often consider when handling Guideline G cases:
- How long ago was the last problem with alcohol use?
- How many incidents of alcohol abuse or alcohol-related traffic incidents are there?
- Has there been medical intervention?
- Has there been any alcohol treatment given or taken? Was such treatment voluntary or mandatory (i.e. part of a court resolution).
- Is it important to get an independent review by a physician regarding the likelihood of recurrence of alcohol issues? An expert physician may be needed.
- Has their been abstinence from alcohol (and for how long)?
- Has their been a change in alcohol usage?
- Who could potentially testify positively about the applicant’s alcohol usage and changed behavior?
- What kind of documentation can be used for exhibits to show abstinence from alcohol?
- What kind of documentation can be used to show a change in behavior and more limited alcohol usage?
- What types of organizations (Alcoholics Anonymous, Church, Treatment Programs, Physicians, other groups) can be used to support the applicant’s case?
- What types of evidence can be used to show how serious the applicant takes the alcohol use issues? i.e. letters of support, character letters, etc.
- Is a letter of proposed revocation of a security clearance appropriate to add as an exhibit should the alcohol issues recur.
- Is there medical or treatment documentation available to potentially use as exhibits during the clearance proceedings?
Alcohol consumption security clearance cases under Guideline G can involve many differing types of variables and a number of mitigating factors specific to each case so hiring experienced counsel to represent and advise the individual involved is critical because each case is different. The key for such security clearance proceedings in this type of case is to be prepared.
Contact Us
When facing alcohol-related or other security clearance issues, it is very important to have an experienced security clearance lawyer. If you need assistance with a security clearance case, please call us at (703) 668-0070 or contact us at www.berrylegal.com.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum (PM) directing federal agencies to, as soon as practicable, take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis, provided that the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary. On January 22, 2025, more detailed guidance was provided on the Return to Office through the Office of Personnel Management. The OPM guidance instructs agencies to revise their telework policies to require employees to work full time at their respective duty stations, unless excused from this requirement based on disability, qualifying medical condition, or other compelling reason certified by the agency head and the employee’s supervisor. OPM’s guidance recommends that agencies be in full compliance with the PM within 30 days.
Things to Keep in Mind
Communicate with Leadership
One of the first key things to keep in mind with the Return to Office order is to maintain open lines of communication with your supervisors and leadership. Every employee’s circumstances will be different and making sure to keep your supervisor and leadership informed of your specific situation and any barriers you may have for a Return to Office may help down the road in trying to obtain an exception to the requirement. Such exceptions will need to be based on compelling reasons and be approved by the employee’s supervisor and agency head. It is not yet clear what will qualify as compelling reasons, but one example that has been discussed pertains to military spouses who work remotely. It is likely that there will be other exceptions as well.
Medical Conditions, Disability, and Reasonable Accommodation
The OPM guidance instructs that employees can be excused from the Return to Work order based on disability or qualifying medical condition. For employees who already have such conditions on file with their agency and are working with Reasonable Accommodations in place, employees should make sure that these accommodations address telework or remote work to ensure that they remain in place as the Return to Office process unfolds. For those employees who have a disability or qualifying medical condition, but do not have a reasonable accommodation in place yet, the employees should work quickly to initiate those requests to seek accommodations that will address their specific conditions and needs. The Rehabilitation Act still protects reasonable accommodations that can include telework.
Union-Related Issues
Some employees who are members of bargaining units within federal agencies may be covered by previously negotiated collective bargaining agreements that address remote work and telework. Currently, it appears that OPM will not interfere with those agreements. However, it is likely that efforts may be taken to change those agreements. Such efforts will take time to unfold but employees should remain aware of their Union’s activities in this regard. Furthermore, the likelihood of litigation over many of these return to work orders by national unions remains high.
Avoidance of Discipline
Once deadlines are established for Return to Office, employees who fail to do so and are not on approved reasonable accommodations or who do not have an exemption based on compelling reason could run into disciplinary issues for failure to follow directives. In the event that such discipline is issued, employees should be cognizant of their rights to respond to such disciplinary actions and challenge those actions through established procedures.
Deferred Resignation
Federal employees were recently notified, on January 28, 2025, of an option for a deferred resignation. The deferred resignation instructs employees to make an election by February 6, 2025, and will theoretically provide employees with leave pay until September 30, 2025. For those employees who cannot physically return to the office, this may seem like a reasonable alternative. However, federal employees should be cautious of this program and seek legal advice before making any such election. The legal basis for the program is not clearly established which may subject the program to legal challenge. There is also the potential that the deadline could be extended or curtailed. It is just too soon to tell.
The program’s email also fails to provide much-needed clarity around how the program would be implemented, whether administrative leave would be utilized, who would be required to continue working, and how an election may impact an employee’s ability to transfer to a different position. Due to these various unknowns, employees should speak with experienced legal counsel before electing to participate.
Contact Us
It is important for a federal employee with telework issues or considering the deferred resignation issues to speak with counsel. Berry & Berry, PLLC represents federal employees in these types of federal employment issues and can be contacted at (703) 668-0070 or www.berrylegal.com to arrange for an initial consultation regarding these or other federal employment issues.
Security Clearance Representation Nationwide
Welcome to the law firm of Berry and Berry, PLLC in the Metropolitan, Washington D.C. area. We specialize in the nationwide legal representation of individuals in security clearance matters. We have represented thousands of clients across the country in their security clearance matters for over 25 years. Our goal is to work hard for our clients in attempting to help them keep or obtain their security clearances. Our firm represents security clearance holders or applicants in different areas of the country, or even internationally, to defend them. We represent security clearance applicants at all levels, including Secret, Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), Special Access Programs (SAP), Yankee White and others. We also defend these individuals in suitability or public trust appeals which are slightly different but involve many of the same principles.
Security Clearance Assistance Available
We provide legal advice and representation to federal employees, military personnel and government contractors regarding their security clearances. We represent clearance applicants and holders at all steps of the security clearance process, from legal advice prior to completing their initial clearance questionnaires (SF-86) to the final steps of the security clearance appeals process. Our lawyers represent clearance holders and applicants before all federal agencies. We also specialize in representing security clearance clients before Intelligence Community agencies. Our goal is to represent individuals vigorously before security clearance authorities. At the same time, we understand that many security clearance cases involve sensitive issues. Discussions with attorneys in the firm are privileged and confidential.
Additionally, we realize that security clearance issues can happen to anyone and treat our clients with respect no matter what the issues involve. Given the changes in technology, it is easier than ever, to represent individuals nationwide. In the past, we might have had to fly to a location across the country to represent an individual in a security clearance hearing, the Government has incorporated Microsoft Teams and Zoom for many security clearance proceedings. This has made it easier than ever to represent clients no matter where they live and work.
Types of Nationwide Security Clearance Defense Available
There are many different types of issues where we can represent security clearance clients nationwide. Some of the areas where our security clearance attorneys assist individuals include:
- Pre-application Guidance (SF-86 or electronic forms);
- Investigative Interview Guidance;
- Polygraph Considerations;
- Responses to Security Clearance Interrogatories;
- Responses to Statement of Reasons or Notices of Intent to Revoke;
- Representation in Security Clearance Written Responses; and
- Representation in Security Clearance Personal Appearances before Administrative Judges and Adjudicators.
Security Clearance Background of Firm
Our lawyers are extremely experienced in security clearance law. The law firm’s founder, John V. Berry, Esq. teaches other attorneys about the security clearance process through lawyer continuing legal education courses in multiple states. Our firm has multiple attorneys who are very experienced in representing individuals in security clearance matters. We are also members of the Security Clearance Lawyers Association. You can also visit our security clearance blog where we cover and review legal issues for clearance holders and applicants. Furthermore, please review our website resources for helpful information about the security clearance process.
Contact Us
Our security clearance lawyers represent individuals throughout the United States. We would be happy to meet and try to assist you with your security clearance matter. Please contact Berry & Berry, PLLC to schedule a consultation with a security clearance attorney. You should feel free to contact us at (703) 668-0070 or through our contact page should you wish to schedule a time to discuss your individual security clearance issues. We would be honored to go over your security clearance issues and attempt to find a solution for you.
Our Virginia Employment Lawyers defend Virginia employees in employment investigations involving employee alleged misconduct. This article talks about the issues involved when an employer conducts an investigation in the workplace. Virginia employers (and employers in other states) usually conduct workplace investigations into employee complaints because they can face legal consequences (or more severe consequences) if they do not do so. As an example, if an individual alleges sex harassment / discrimination in the workplace and the claims are not investigated, an employer can be more readily held liable by employees affected by the conduct. The same type of investigation is necessary when dealing with claims of whistleblowing or other alleged inappropriate conduct at work.
The Steps in a Workplace Investigation
The beginning of the process starts with an employee complaint about misconduct in the workplace. This can happen where the employee reports it through a supervisor or other management personnel. Once reported, the misconduct complaint can lead to an investigation. Almost always, in most employment investigations, the employer will hire an outside law firm (or occasionally use internal attorneys) to conduct an employment investigation and will act as the investigator. Once the investigator is appointed, they will start their investigation. Keep in mind that the employer’s goal in these investigations is to minimize liability for the employer. The complaining employee may also be represented by legal counsel.
While an investigator may find an individual employee at fault, the investigator usually wants to conclude and document that there was no fault on the part of an employer. The following steps usually take place in an employer investigation:
- An employees files a workplace complaint;
- An investigator is usually hired or appointed to investigate the complaint;
- The investigator will review the complaint and plan for a thorough investigation;
- The investigator will review any documentation or emails or other evidence available to prepare for interviews;
- The investigator will interview the complainant or complainants about the conduct complained of;
- The investigator will interview the employees with knowledge of the issues in the complaint;
- The investigator interviews the accused employee or employees for their side of the story;
- The investigator conducts follow-up interviews of any witnesses as needed and ties up lose ends;
- The investigator issues a final report with recommendations to an employer; and
- The employer will take action based on the findings in the report, usually referred to as a Report of Investigation or ROI.
Results of Workplace Investigation
Once the employer’s investigation is over, the results and actions taken by the employer can vary. A formal report is usually prepared, along with recommendations on actions to be potentially taken. The investigation can result in the termination or other discipline for an accused employee. The investigation can also vindicate the accused employee. In either event, an employer must be careful in avoiding retaliation against a complaining employee, even when their complaint is found to not be justified. Each investigation is different, and different employers vary in how they handle workplace investigations. The proper handling of an employment investigation can protect employees in the workplace from potential disciplinary action.
Importance of Having Legal Counsel
When facing an employment investigation in Virginia it is important to have legal counsel advising you. Otherwise, the employer’s attorney will essentially run the show with respect to a likely predetermined outcome. Often, this type of outcome can lead to termination so it is important to be represented.
Contact Us
If an employee needs assistance with an employment investigation or other issue, please contact our office at 703-668-0070 or at www.berrylegal.com to schedule a consultation.
We are often asked about reasonable accommodations by employees in Virginia when they develop a medical condition that requires a change in
their duties or other adjustments. We advise private, federal, state and county sector employees in Virginia this regard. The reasonable accommodation process applies to both employees and job applicants in all states including the Commonwealth of Virginia.
What is a Reasonable Accommodation?
The usual first question that comes up is what is a reasonable accommodation? A reasonable accommodation is an employee’s request to modify their employment conditions, assignments, hours, etc. in order to allow them to continue working in a position despite a disability. Most employees are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which covers reasonable accommodations. Federal employees are covered under the Rehabilitation Act which is very similar to the ADA. According to these laws, employers are required to engage in the reasonable accommodation process to qualified employees unless it would create an undue hardship for them. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other civil rights governmental entities enforce reasonable accommodation matters.
In the Commonwealth of Virginia, employees are also covered under the Virginians with Disabilities Act which applies to all employers. Under both the federal and state laws, the goal of the reasonable accommodation process is to enable a qualified employee with a disability the opportunity to enjoy an equal opportunity in employment.
How Does an Individual Request a Reasonable Accommodation?
A request for reasonable accommodation can be formal or informal. Some employers have created specific forms covering reasonable accommodation requests and others simply involve verbal discussions between the employee and their immediate supervisor. The most typical reasonable accommodation involves an employee that has developed a medical condition or disability that requires some modifications or adjustments to their working arrangements. Usually, an employee will ask for a reasonable accommodation by approaching their supervisor or Human Resources department, depending on the employer and asking for one. Once requested, there is usually a discussion about the reasonable accommodation requested.
The Interactive Process
The reasonable accommodation discussion between an employer and employee is often called the “interactive process” which simply means that the employer must engage the employee in attempting to resolve the reasonable accommodation request. The interactive process does not mean that an employer has to grant every accommodation sought, or even the specific one requested. The employer is required to give a reasonable effort at resolving the reasonable accommodation at issue.
Examples of Reasonable Accommodations
The following are some examples of reasonable accommodation requests. There are far too many to list, but the following are examples.
Example A: An employee develops carpal tunnel syndrome and needs a new keyboard because their current keyboard is aggravating their condition. A request for a new keyboard is a request for a reasonable accommodation.
Example B: An employee is undergoing medical treatment in the morning for epilepsy. He informs his supervisor that he needs an adjustment in his starting time so that he can take his medication in the morning before starting work. This is a request for a reasonable accommodation.
Example C: An employee develops a heart condition and needs to take daily breaks at a certain time in order to take their medication. A request to take breaks in order to take medication is a reasonable accommodation.
Example D: An employee develops a disability that causes them to be unable to perform the duties of their position. An employee’s request for reassignment is a request for reasonable accommodation.
There are far too many examples of reasonable accommodations to list here, as they vary based on an employee’s specific medical condition and needs. Additional examples of reasonable accommodations for specific conditions can be found here.
Conclusion
When a Virginia employee is in need of a reasonable accommodation, it is important to obtain legal advice and legal representation. Our law firm stands ready to advise and represent Commonwealth of Virginia employees in the reasonable accommodation process. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070.
Our wrongful termination lawyers for Virginia employees often meet with individuals that believe that they have been wrongfully terminated from their employer. When dealing with these types of employment issues, it is important to seek out the advice of a Virginia employment lawyer knowledgeable in these areas of law. This article discusses the rights and issues associated with wrongful termination for Virginia employees.
There is nothing quite the same as being called into one’s supervisor’s office, or to an employer’s HR office (almost always on a Friday) only to be informed that their employment has been terminated. In most cases, the employee is unaware of the pending termination and there is little advance notice. As a result, it is a fairly big shock to the person being terminated. Once notice is given, the person is often quickly escorted out of the office and is faced with confusion and a sense of loss. Many employees are left bewildered, wondering about their rights.
Wrongful Termination Law in Virginia
Employee terminations in Virginia are considered “at will”, which generally leaves it to the discretion of an employer whether to terminate an employee for pretty much any reason unless illegal. However, if the employer has violated a state or federal law in terminating the employee, the termination can be considered “wrongful” and there may be potential avenues to challenge the termination. These can include, but are not limited to:
- Whistleblowing Reprisal;
- Discrimination (age, race, sex, national origin, etc.);
- Sexual Harassment;
- Hostile Work Environment: and
- Violation of Employment Contract.
Whistleblower Status
The law with respect to whistleblowing is changing, and moving towards favoring an employee when the case merits. For many years, that was not the case in Virginia. In Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, the Virginia Supreme Court first recognized an exception to the employment at-will doctrine based upon an employer’s violation of public policy in the termination of an employee. I expect this to continue to be an evolving doctrine where more exceptions are found. There has been a lot of new legislation in this area, expanding employees whistleblower rights in Virginia. In July, 2020 Virginia enacted its first dedicated whistleblower protection law. The whistleblower protection were enacted in the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law.
Discrimination Protections
Additionally, a Virginia employee may have rights with respect to claims that an employee has been terminated for issues related to sex harassment, hostile work environment and other workplace discrimination. Many of these claims are protected by the Civil Rights Act through the EEOC and the Virginia Human Rights Act.
Virginia Contract Protections
Depending on whether an employee has signed an employment contract with their employer in Virginia, they may also have other options. It is common for some employees to have rights through the employment contract that they signed.
Employee Should Determine their Legal Options
The first step that a Virginia employee should take if they believe that they have been wrongfully terminated is to make an appointment with a Virginia employment attorney to determine whether or not the action falls into the category of a “wrongful termination.” It is also important to consult with an attorney to see what steps may be taken to minimize the career damage that has just occurred and whether the action taken may be appealable.
It is usually the case that employees have more options following a termination than are apparent to them initially. The employer may have broken (or bent) federal or Virginia laws with respect to the termination action. If so, then it may be possible to negotiate a resolution on behalf of the employee, with the employer, resolving the matter. A resolution generally occurs more often when the employee retains an attorney to contact the employer about the inappropriate or illegal nature of an employee’s termination. An attorney may also be able to tell an employee if their termination does not meet the criteria for wrongful termination and offer other strategies.
Contact Us
When facing wrongful termination issues in Virginia it is important to obtain the advice of and representation of a Virginia employment lawyer. Our law firm advises and represents individuals in wrongful termination matters in Virginia and other jurisdictions. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070.
Whistleblower Laws in Virginia
Under existing law and caselaw in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a whistleblower is an employee who is aware of their employer’s wrongdoing and then reports it. If a whistleblower reports alleged wrongdoing/illegal conduct or communicates that they intend to report it, employer retaliation frequently does occur and can be unlawful and subject the employer to a lawsuit.
As most employees are generally aware, Virginia is considered an at-will state, which means that they may be terminated at any time for any reason because they are “at-will.” However, in the past 20 years (and even more likely so as we move forward into the future), exceptions to this general rule have started to emerge. One such exception involves severe employee discipline (usually termination) caused by whistleblowing.
Virginia Supreme Court Establishes Whistleblower Retaliation in 1985
The Virginia Supreme Court carved out the whistleblower exception to the at-will doctrine in the 1985 case of Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville. This exception, according to Bowman, typically is governed by (1) statutory law; or (2) case law (decisions by the courts). Rules on whistleblowing retaliation can also depend on whether or not an individual is a federal employee, state or local employee or an employee working for a private company.As mentioned above, however, this article focuses on private company employees in Virginia. The Bowman exception was confusing and pretty limited to termination cases.
Virginia Passes New Whistleblower Laws in 2020
In July of 2020, Virginia passed a series of laws referred to as the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law, which expanded whistleblower rights for employees in Virginia. The new whistleblower protections in Virginia went beyond what Bowman had protected and offered a number of new rights.
What Kind of Retaliation is Covered?
The Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law provides the following protections to employees, in VA Code § 40.1-27.3:
An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, discriminate against, or penalize an employee, or take other retaliatory action regarding an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment, because the employee:
1. Or a person acting on behalf of the employee in good faith reports a violation of any federal or state law or regulation to a supervisor or to any governmental body or law-enforcement official;
2. Is requested by a governmental body or law-enforcement official to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry;
3. Refuses to engage in a criminal act that would subject the employee to criminal liability;
4. Refuses an employer’s order to perform an action that violates any federal or state law or regulation and the employee informs the employer that the order is being refused for that reason; or
5. Provides information to or testifies before any governmental body or law-enforcement official conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into any alleged violation by the employer of federal or state law or regulation.
These new rights went much further than the previous Bowman case law doctrine in protecting whistleblowers.
Remedies for Bowman Whistleblower Claims
Under the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law, the following remedies for violations include a number of remedies employees such as:
(1) reinstatement of the employee to the same position held before the whistleblower retaliation;
(2) compensation for lost wages;
(3) compensation for lost benefits;
(4) interest; and
(5) reasonable attorneys fees.
Contact Us
If you are in need of representation or legal advice in regards to a whistleblower claim in Virginia, please contact our office at 703-668-0070 or through our contact page to schedule a consultation.
