From elementary school to George Mason University to the play pens of their entertainment businesses, Gary and Diane Reedy have been together. Instead of what was supposed to be a long awaited retirement ahead of the 41st anniversary, the couple decided to opt for something different: running a brunch and breakfast spot in RTC West (12100 Sunset Hills Road).

Famous Toastery had its first official opening on Monday (April 15), after a soft opening this weekend. All sales over the weekend were donated to Cornerstones, a nonprofit organization that the couple said embodies their mission of serving the community. Diane brings a heightened awareness of socio-economic struggle after years of traveling Africa and Asia for the World Bank, while her husband, Gary, reflects on previous experiences as a high school teacher and coach. Their partnership roots back to years in high school when Gary, who calls himself a former jock, dated Diane, who was a straight-A student.

Before opening the 3,300-square-foot restaurant at the mixed use center, the couple built several businesses, including Planet Play in Plaza America, some of the first laser tags in the area, a carousel in Springfield Mall for 12 years, and other entertainment businesses. Since then, they’ve sold off their ventures and opted for Famous Toastery, which is open for breakfast and lunch.

“The problem is that we can’t ever stop. I can’t play golf every single day,” Gary said, chuckling. “We’ve had our careers and retirements and a couple of kids. Sometimes I wonder how we did it all, but we’re young at heart and we want to stay involved.”

Although he lives in Loudoun County, Gary says Reston is a special community because it combines what he says are the best elements of work and family life. His wife agrees.

“Simon’s vision for Reston was to include people from all different kinds of backgrounds, ” Diane said. “It was really meant to be an integrated community and its benefited from a lot of public involvement and will continue to benefit from a lot of public involvement.”

As the Famous Toastery kicks off, they hope to continue partnering with the community after spending most of their lives in Fairfax County. “We’ve gotten out of the night business,” Gary said. “Reston is still really growing and we look forward to growing with it.”

Famous Toastery has two other Virginia locations. It was started in 2005 in Huntersville, NC in a small house. The owners turned the concept into a franchise in 2013.

Photo via Carlos Banos

This is a sponsored post from Eve Thompson of Reston Real Estate. For a more complete picture of home sales in your neighborhood, contact her on Reston Real Estate.

I admit I’m partial to Lake Anne neighborhoods — they are beautiful and convenient to all the amenities Reston has to offer.

Lake Side Cluster is a great Reston neighborhood that does not get as much attention as its famous neighbor, Waterview Cluster. And frankly, the community likes it that way. This is a friendly, quiet, unassuming neighborhood.

Lake Side Cluster has everything all of the neighborhoods that border Reston’s Lake Anne share — access to the lake, a quick walk to Lake Anne Village Center, well-designed homes (many of which are direct lakefront).

Lake Side Cluster was built between 1965 and 1969, and comprises 90 lovely two and three level townhouses and patio homes with two to four bedrooms — and garages (which makes them different than most of their Lake Anne neighbors). All homes have lake access via a trail to the cluster dock, even if they are not direct lakefront property.

The Cluster couldn’t be positioned better. It is located on Greenbriar Road and Orchard Lane off Fairway Drive, which is the south shore of Lake Anne. Fairway Drive provides easy access to both North Shore Drive and Wiehle Avenue.

For families with children, the cluster is an easy walk to Lake Anne Elementary.

Children also attend Langston Hughes Middle and South Lakes High School. For the parents, Lake Side Cluster is only 1.5 miles to the Reston Station Metro, and a short hop to Reston Town Center and the Toll Road. And, of course, a five minute walk to Lake Anne Village Center — home of the Reston Farmer’s Market, the Brew House and of course the Coffee House & Wine Bar.

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. and Melissa L. Watkins, Esq.

Federal employees, whether part-time or full-time, with a qualifying disability are entitled to reasonable accommodations.

Reasonable accommodations are changes in the work environment or in the way things are done in the workplace to assist disabled individuals in participating fully in the employment environment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has a nice article on the subject here.

Examples of potential reasonable accommodations:

• Making existing facilities accessible
• Job restructuring
• Part-time or modified work schedules
• Use of leave
• Acquiring or modifying equipment
• Changing tests, training materials or policies
• Providing qualified readers or interpreters
• Reassignment to a vacant position
• Accommodations to access benefits and privileges of employment. Examples of benefits and privileges of employment include training, services, credit unions, cafeterias, lounges, gymnasiums, auditoriums, transportation and parties or other social functions.

A federal agency does not have to eliminate a fundamental duty of the position or lower production standards in the reasonable accommodation process, but the agency may have to provide an accommodation to enable a disabled employee to satisfy the duty or meet the standard if it is reasonable.

Reasonable accommodations must not be unduly burdensome (feasible or plausible), effective in meeting the needs of the disabled individual and they cannot cause undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense) for the agency.

Agencies are not required to provide the exact accommodation that is requested but the accommodation provided must be effective in meeting the needs of the federal employee.

Example of Reasonable Accommodation — A federal employee has an eye disability that makes it difficult for the employee to read small font on a standard computer. The employee requests a computer software tool that magnifies font sizes to make documents easier to read.

This accommodation is reasonable because it is a common-sense solution to remove a workplace barrier when the job can be effectively performed with a larger font size. This accommodation is effective because it addresses the employee’s eyesight disability and enables him/her to perform the job duties. The accommodation does not cause undue hardship because the software is easy to obtain and the cost is minimal to the agency.

Requesting a Reasonable Accommodation

In order to obtain a reasonable accommodation a disabled employee must inform the agency that an accommodation is needed. The request for an accommodation can be made at any time during employment. The process for requesting a reasonable accommodation is very informal and usually occurs through conversations between the employee and the agency.

The request does not have to be in writing, but it is recommended that something in writing be provided for the purposes of record keeping. Agencies may also have a designated form that is provided to federal employees making a reasonable accommodation request. An agency may not cause unnecessary delay in responding to a request for accommodation.

An agency’s failure to participate in a dialogue (otherwise known as the “interactive process”) about accommodation after a request is made or the causing of undue delay could result in liability for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Generally, a federal employee requesting a reasonable accommodation is not required to submit medical evidence. However, in certain instances, an agency may require reasonable documentation to verify the disability and the type of accommodation that is necessary.

The agency is not allowed to require any more documentation than what is necessary to establish a disability and that the disability necessitates a reasonable accommodation. Agencies may not demand documentation when the disability and the need for reasonable accommodation are obvious.

It is very important for federal employees in need of a reasonable accommodation that they seek the advice of an attorney regarding their request in order to ensure compliance with agency-specific procedures.

Legal representation can also be beneficial in addressing reasonable accommodations as they relate to adverse employment actions or termination.

Our law firm represents federal employees seeking reasonable accommodations and in other federal retirement matters.

Conclusion

If you are in need of federal employee retirement 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 Kimberly H. Berry, Esq.

The Federal workforce is presently undergoing significant changes in size and scope.

In some instances, this has led to the Federal government providing incentives for Federal employees to retire early. Federal agencies that are undergoing substantial organizational changes such as reorganization, reduction in force, reshaping or downsizing can be given the option to offer federal employees voluntary early retirement based on the Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA). OPM provides guidance on VERA here.

The purpose of VERA is to help agencies complete the necessary organizational change with minimal disruption to the workforce and make it possible for federal employees to receive an immediate annuity payment years before they would be eligible.

The voluntary early retirement provisions are the same under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS).

Requirements for Early Retirement

In order to be eligible to retire under VERA, a federal employee must usually meet the following requirements:

•  Meet the VERA minimum age and service requirements set by statutes in the U.S. Code for CSRS and FERS employees (i.e., the employee has completed at least 20 years of creditable service and is at least 50 years of age or has completed at least 25 years of creditable service regardless of age).
• Have been continuously employed by the agency for at least 31 days before the date that the agency initially requested the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approval of VERA.
• Hold a position that is not a time-limited appointment.
• Have not received a final removal decision based upon misconduct or unacceptable performance.
• Hold a position covered by the agency’s VERA authority or program.
• Retire under the VERA option during the agency’s VERA acceptance period.

It is very important for federal employees considering a VERA offer or whether one is available to seek the advice of an attorney regarding their retirement issues prior to initiating the VERA process.

Our law firm represents federal employees that are considering early retirement and in other federal retirement matters.

Conclusion

If you are in need of federal employee retirement 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.

We represent security clearance holders and applicants so every few years, we look back on the trends of what security concerns most often lead to the loss (or potential loss) of a security clearance. This year we thought we would do the same. Overall, not much has changed.

2018 Grounds for Loss of Security Clearance

There are 13 security concerns that can lead to the loss of a security clearance, which is listed in Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4). These concerns range from foreign influence to financial issues and numerous other issues in between. A review of publicly available security clearance cases was conducted by Marko Hakamaa of ClearanceJobs.com, which provided the breakdown of issues that resulted in initial security clearance denials.

Financial Issues Remain the Number 1 Concern

From the report, it is fairly clear that the number 1 issue of concern for security clearance holders remains Financial Considerations under Guideline F. While this Guideline can cover many areas related to financial responsibility, we see that it most often comes up in the context of a credit report which shows major unresolved debts or when an individual’s tax payments or filings are not timely.

Often for major debts the government is concerned that this could leave an individual subject to potential coercion. For issues related to taxes, the issue is the non-compliance of the individual with tax laws.

General Misconduct Comes in Second

The second most significant security concern from this report shows that Guideline E, Personal Conduct is the next most common clearance issue. Guideline E is a general security concern which can practically cover any type of bad conduct. Most typically, however, it often comes up in the context of illegal drug use, an arrest, a record of bad employment or lying on security clearance forms.

Foreign Influence is Ranked Third

The third most common basis for losing a security clearance was foreign influence, under Guideline B. This issue most commonly comes up when an individual with a security clearance (or who is seeking one) has relatives or property in another country.

The major concern of the government is that an individual may have relatives in another country that work for that government or who could be used as pawns to gather information from the clearance holder or applicant. The United States also treats clearance holders and seekers whose relatives are from allied countries (e.g., the United Kingdom, France, etc.) much better than those from less cooperative countries, like China or Russia.

The rest of the 2018 breakdown of security concerns is included in this report. We represent individuals with these types of security clearance appeals and there are often mitigating factors which can result in a favorable adjudication of these types of security clearance issues. The key is to involve counsel experienced in this area of law as soon as possible.

Conclusion

If you are in need of security clearance advice or 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.

We represent employees in Virginia who have been terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing. Whistleblower cases are unique and present their own unique challenges.

Employees are advised to seek counsel as early in the process as possible if they believe that they have been terminated (or will be terminated) in retaliation for whistleblower activities.

Whistleblower Law in Virginia

In Virginia, if a whistleblower reports alleged wrongdoing or states that they intend to report it, this can subject the employer to a civil lawsuit for retaliation if it falls under certain criteria. While Virginia is an at-will state, and employees may be fired for any reason or no reason at all, exceptions can apply.

In the past 30 years, exceptions to this general rule have started to emerge in Virginia. One such exception involves employee termination in retaliation for whistleblowing.

The Virginia courts carved out this exception to the at-will doctrine in the 1985 case of Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville. Other rules on whistleblowing can apply to federal employees and state or local employees. This article focuses on private company employees in Virginia.

What Kind of Retaliation is Covered?

An employer may not terminate an employee for reporting an issue that relates to the public policy of Virginia. An employee has a potential claim for wrongful discharge when the basis for the discharge violates public policy.

In order to determine what constitutes public policy, Virginia courts have pointed to statutes to determine if an issue has been endorsed by the state (e.g., the right to collect unemployment compensation benefits if eligible) or prohibited (e.g., criminal laws prohibiting perjury).

Example: Employer is sued for a personal injury by a shopper in their department store. Employee Jim Smith is a witness to the injury. The employer asks the employee to lie in court so that they won’t be liable. Mr. Smith refuses to lie in court. Employee A testifies truthfully and is then fired.

Statutory Whistleblower Retaliation in Virginia

In addition to the exceptions carved out by the Virginia courts, the Virginia General Assembly has passed specific statutory protections for certain activities. Employees who engage in protected activities under laws in certain areas are also protected from retaliation. These include asbestos, lead, and home inspection contractors; occupational safety and health issues; and workers’ compensation.

However, because the Virginia assembly has not passed a general whistleblower protection statute, most workers have to rely on the exceptions carved out by the courts to pursue a whistleblower claim. The courts in Virginia have seen an increase in the number of these types of cases in recent years.

I believe that more cases will expand this doctrine as Northern Virginia grows and exerts influence in Richmond for these types of employment protections.

The most usual remedies for Bowman Whistleblower claims can include:

• Reinstatement
• Damages
• Lost Benefits
• Attorneys fees

Conclusion

If you are in need of employment law advice 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.

We practice employment law. A new trend that the Federal Reserve and others have picked up on recently is the concept of “ghosting.” Ghosting occurs when a job applicant does not show up for their scheduled interview or where an employee does not show up for scheduled work and never returns.

What is Ghosting?

In areas which range from food services to banking, employers have indicated that a tighter job market and labor shortages have led to applicants deciding not to show up for scheduled interviews without notice or in accepting positions and then not showing up for their first day of work.

In other cases, ghosting has meant that an employee just decides to leave their employment without giving notice (or telling anyone) and just never shows up again. Other reasons for ghosting include the fact that because the employment rate is very low, it is easier than ever to find new employment. One report indicated that 20-50% of employers were facing ghosting in one form or another.

Why is Ghosting Bad for Employees and Applicants?

Ghosting is very bad for applicants and employees on a number of levels.

For starters, it isn’t a good long-term career strategy. If an employee doesn’t provide notice to an employer that they are leaving, supervisors may call the police for a wellness check, leading to a host of issues.

Additionally, by leaving in this manner, employees will most likely be deemed by the employer to have abandoned their employment and then classified as having been terminated. As a result, the employee that “ghosts” away from their employment will be left with a negative mark on their employment records, which they may have to disclose in future employment applications elsewhere and/or if they choose to ever seek a security clearance. This also applies to new employees that are hired but do not show up for their first day of work.

For applicants that don’t show up for interviews, doing so can hurt them in other ways. If a recruiter is involved, that recruiter could list the non-appearance in a shared database with other recruiters, essentially blacklisting the person.

With the digital future upon us, it is only a matter of time before such things also end up in background investigations or reports. The point is that “ghosting” is a recipe for hurting one’s own career.

It is important to take the time to give notice to an employer and make a phone call or at least send an email to an employer if an individual they plan to quit or cannot make a scheduled interview. Furthermore, if an applicant “ghosts” a scheduled interview with an employer, that individual’s name may get around to others in the same field, causing them to lose or not get an interview with other employers.

It may be easier to ignore interviews or leave for better employment, but it is far better to do so with professionalism. Ghosting is simply to big a risk for an employee or applicant to their long term career.

Conclusion

If you are in need of employment law advice or assistance, 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 V. Berry and Kimberly H. Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Plaza America in Reston that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement and private sector employee matters.

By John V. Berry, Esq.

Billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, Elon Musk, was recently videotaped smoking marijuana on the Joe Rogan talk show. According to reports, Mr. Musk holds a security clearance as part of his CEO role at SpaceX, a major government space contractor.

As a result, news reports first indicated that the U.S. Air Force has started an investigation into Mr. Musk’s alleged drug usage due to his holding of a security clearance.

Later, news reports indicated that there was not necessarily an investigation but that the U.S. Air Force was attempting to evaluate what to do about the issue. The question is whether or not the same rules governing every other clearance holder involving drug usage will apply to Mr. Musk if he did smoke marijuana.

My suspicion is that the answer will be no.

We often represent and defend individuals who have engaged in one-time or other minor illegal drug use (yes, the federal government still considers marijuana an illegal drug no matter where it is consumed).

Many individuals who engage in minor drug use may still lose their security clearance over even one usage, depending on the circumstances. The ultimate result will likely highlight the distinction between high level individuals and other clearance holders (the other 99%).

This sort of double standard was recently seen at the White House where the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, apparently had so many foreign contacts that he had to amend his clearance submission (SF-86) multiple times (something that isn’t usually permitted for others).

The type of contacts that Mr. Kushner admitted to having, if they had involved just about anyone else, would have barred them from obtaining a security clearance.

We often represent individuals from Pakistan, Egypt, India or Taiwan, where having just a few relatives from their home country, or owning small amounts of property in that country can disqualify them from holding a security clearance.

It seems that there are now two sets of rules for security clearance holders and applicants. Those that are important or well-connected and then the rules for the rest of us. I find this to be troubling and very wrong.

In a case like Mr. Musk, it might usually take a year or perhaps over a year, for a person to be able to mitigate having engaged in even a one-time drug use issue. The point of having a system for adjudicating security clearances is to have ensure that everyone, a billionaire, the son-in-law of the President of the United States and Jim Jones (a GS-13 civilian employee for the Department of the Army) all live by the same rules.

Hopefully, the next President will see fit to take action in order to make the security clearance rules apply equally to all of us regardless of wealth or position.

We represent federal employees and government contractors in security clearance cases. We can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at 703-668-0070. Please also visit and like us on our Facebook and Twitter pages.