This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters.
U.S. Senator Jon Tester of Montana introduced the Security Clearance Accountability, Reform, and Enhancement Act of 2015 (S.434) on Feb. 10, 2015. If passed, the new bill would modify the existing security clearance process for both federal employees and government contractors.
Federal agencies would also be required to terminate or place on administrative leave any federal employee who is involved in certain types of misconduct related to security clearance investigations. The new bill would also prohibit government contractors involved in similar conduct from performing background investigations. In addition, government contractors would be required to report violations by their employees to government agencies.
There are other provisions in the new bill, but the ones listed above seem to be the most significant provisions. The new bill was recently approved this month by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and will move to the full Senate. A summary of the changes that would be enacted if S.434 is passed are provided by the Congressional Budget Office.
If such changes to the security clearance system are enacted, we will likely see an increase in the number of disciplinary actions taken against cleared federal employees. The new bill essentially enables the federal government to terminate federal employees who have been found to have been dishonest in the security clearance process.
We represent federal employees and government contracts in security clearance matters. If you need assistance with an employment law 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 Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters.
Depending on your particular profession, your employer may require you to sign a stand-alone non-competition agreement, non-solicitation agreement, or other similar restrictive covenant or your employer may include a non-competition and non-solicitation clause in your employment or severance agreement.
Non-competition agreements or clauses typically stipulate that the employee agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession that competes with the employer’s business within a geographic area after he or she terminates employment. Non-solicitation agreements or clauses typically restrict the employee’s ability to solicit, encourage, or assist other employees with leaving or seeking employment with the employee at a competitive employer.
These types of restrictive covenants are usually in effect for a specific period of time and within a limited geographic area after the employment ends.
It is important to note that restrictive covenants narrowly tailored in geographic scope, duration, and type of activities are more likely to be enforced than more broadly drafted restrictive covenants. In particular, the scope of restricted activities and geographic area involved should be related to the employee’s job duties as well as the employer’s business.
Restrictive covenants that were created several years ago may no longer be considered enforceable based on changes in the law. Therefore, it is a good idea for employers to review and consider revising restrictive covenants that were written more than five years ago.
Employers should also note that non-competition and other important employment agreements usually are not enforceable against an employee unless a fully executed copy exists. As such, employers should make sure to sign and carefully maintain their agreements.
Virginia courts will not “blue pencil” or attempt to revise or enforce a narrower restriction in the covenant. As a result, a drafting error or otherwise unenforceable restriction in a larger restrictive covenant or agreement will typically render the entire agreement unenforceable in Virginia.
Furthermore, the Virginia Supreme Court clearly disfavors non-compete covenants. In fact, the Court has not rendered a decision that clearly favors the employer in a restrictive covenant case since the 1990s.
We represent employees and employers in employment law matters. If you need assistance with an employment law 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 Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters.
Employers have occasionally attempted to gain access to the social media accounts of current and prospective employees such as during workplace investigations or background checks.
When employers request access to social media accounts of current and prospective employees, it promotes distrust in the employer-employee relationship and generally gives rise to a significant worsening of the relationship that could lead to other employment issues.
A new Virginia law that is effective July 1, 2015, prohibits Virginia employers in the private, state, and local sectors from requiring current and prospective employees to disclose their username and passwords of their social media accounts or to add an employee, supervisor, or administrator to their contacts list. The new law also prohibits an employer from accessing an employee’s social media account if the employer inadvertently obtains the employee’s login information. The new law, however, does not protect social media information that is publicly available.
Finally, the new law prohibits retaliation from an employer if an employee exercises his or her rights under the new law. Virginia is one of the latest states to enact social media protections for employees. View Virginia Code Section 40.1-28.7:5 for more information.
We represent employees and employers in employment law matters. If you need assistance with an employment law 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 Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters.
On April 3, the Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe took the first steps, at the state level, to “Ban the Box” for individuals applying for state employment positions by signing Virginia Executive Order 41. “Ban the Box” is a reference to a movement seeking to ensure fairness for individuals previously arrested or convicted of a crime from being automatically disqualified for employment.
According to the Wall Street Journal, nearly one out of every three adults in the United States has a prior arrest or conviction on file with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The “Ban the Box” movement attempts to stop employers from using initial background checks to screen out applicants before those applicants have the opportunity to show that they can perform the position.
Such checks have created significant obstacles for individuals, even with minor arrests or convictions, to obtain employment. Essentially, once an individual has checked the box on a job application indicating that he or she had previously been arrested or convicted, the applicant often finds that the application was automatically rejected.
According to the National Employment Law Project, 15 states and 100 cities or counties now have “Ban the Box”-type restrictions in place. Virginia is the latest to implement such a restriction on a statewide level. Executive Order 41 implements a “Ban the Box” policy for those individuals seeking state employment and ensures that the Department of Human Resource Management takes the following actions:
- Amend the state employment application to remove questions relating to convictions and criminal history;
- Inform all state executive hiring authorities that state employment decisions will not be based on criminal history unless clearly job-related and consistent with business necessity or where state or federal law prohibits hiring an individual with certain convictions for a particular position;
- Instruct state agencies to ensure that any criminal history check is conducted only after a candidate has been found otherwise eligible for the position and signed an appropriate release; and
- Identify sensitive state employment positions where initial disclosure of criminal history will still be required.
Executive Order 41 only applies to state employment, not positions in the private sector. However, it is likely only a matter of time before such laws are eventually enacted more broadly. At the city/county level, a number of Virginia counties have also passed “Ban the Box” rules for county employees, including, but not limited to, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Richmond, Newport News, and Norfolk.
We represent employees and employers in employment law matters. If you need assistance with an employment law 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 Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters.
The Federal Erroneous Retirement Coverage Corrections Act (FERCCA) was enacted in September 2000 and designed to provide relief to federal civilian employees who were placed in the wrong federal retirement system for at least three years of service after Dec. 31, 1986.
Typically, FERCCA errors arise when a federal employee experiences a break in service, especially during the mid-1980s when the Federal Employees Retirement Systems (FERS) plan was created. In some cases, FERCCA has provided federal employees and annuitants placed in the wrong federal retirement system with the opportunity to choose between FERS and the offset provisions contained within the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).
In order to determine if you are in the correct federal retirement plan, you need to know the type of appointment you have and your work history. Federal retirement rules governing retirement plan placement are complex and contain many exceptions that are hard to follow. If you find that you fit in any of the situations described below, you could be in the wrong federal retirement system. However, keep in mind that there are exceptions to the general rules.
If you currently have CSRS coverage, then you may be in the wrong plan if:
- You worked for the federal government before 1984, but not on a permanent basis;
- You left federal employment for more than a year at any time after 1983;
- You have a temporary appointment limited to a year or less, a term appointment, or an emergency indefinite appointment;
- You have no federal civilian employment before 1984; or
- You do not have a career or career conditional appointment and you work on an intermittent basis (see the work schedule block on your SF-50).
This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters.
Several states have recently passed laws legalizing the use of certain drugs, such as marijuana, for either recreational or medical use.
Officials in the District of Columbia recently passed a law that legalized the limited possession and cultivation of marijuana by adults 21 and older.
Virginia has been less accepting of any change to its existing drug laws as a number of similar drug legalization bills have met significant opposition.
Maryland has proposed a bill that would legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana for adults 21 and over, which remains in a state house committee.
In light of recent changes to state laws legalizing certain drug use, employees and employers alike are questioning how these changes will affect the employer’s ability to continue to require drug testing in the workplace and potentially terminate or discipline an employee for positive drug test results. However, many employers still continue to test employees for illegal drug use.
While some jurisdictions have legalized the use of certain drugs, they have not yet updated their laws to prohibit testing for legalized drugs. For instance, a D.C. employer can still test its employees for marijuana use despite laws that now legalize marijuana use in the District. Although D.C. has proposed new laws to place some limits on drug screening for marijuana use in the workplace, such proposals are still in progress. As a result, employers in D.C. are essentially permitted to continue their existing drug testing requirements without making exceptions for the recent legalization of marijuana use in the District.
The federal government has taken the position that the use of illegal drugs, even in states that have legalized the use of certain drugs, still violates federal law. As a result, drug use, even where approved by state law, can result in a security concern being raised and/or the potential denial of a security clearance for federal employees and government contractors. In addition, a security clearance holder can be penalized for associating with other individuals engaging in drug use, even if the other individuals have engaged in state-legalized drug use.
Our law firm represents and advises employees on employment-related matters. If you need legal assistance, 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 V. Berry and Kimberly H. Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters. They write biweekly on RestonNow.
When an employee has been accused of engaging in workplace misconduct, the employer will sometimes conduct an administrative or internal investigation.
Some reasons why employers investigate employees include discrimination complaints, threats against others, safety problems, and workplace theft. The purpose of the investigation is for the employer to gather relevant evidence regarding the employee’s alleged misconduct and determine whether the misconduct warrants a disciplinary or an adverse action (e.g., termination or significant suspension) within the requirements established by law, policy, or regulation.
On occasion, these types of investigations can lead to a potential criminal investigation. Depending on the federal, state, local agency, or private employer involved, a supervisor or other designated investigator may be asked to conduct an investigation regarding the facts at issue. Employees may then be asked to provide verbal or written responses to questions regarding the alleged misconduct.
Employees, depending on their particular employer, may have a duty to fully cooperate with the assigned investigator or can decline to participate in the investigation unless they are ordered to do so.
For example, federal employees may decline to participate in an administrative investigation if it is voluntary. Refusing to cooperate with an investigation or providing false statements or answers during an investigation can be grounds for disciplinary action. Providing false statements, if made to a federal or other law enforcement investigator, can also subject an employee to potential criminal penalties. Internal or administrative investigations can also involve risks for the employer.
Inadequate investigations may raise questions regarding the accuracy of the results or whether the employee was treated fairly. In addition, the employer may not like what the investigation uncovers and will have an obligation to resolve or address issues, such as a systemic problem or legal impropriety.
Prior to providing information to an employer, it is helpful for an employee to discuss with an attorney the issues associated with the information being sought by the employer and the employee’s role in the matter being investigated. An attorney familiar with administrative or internal investigations can provide legal advice to assist an employee in preparation for responding to questions about his or her actions in the matter being investigated. In addition, an attorney can often accompany the employee during any investigative interviews.
Our law firm represents and advises employees on employment-related matters. If you need legal assistance, 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 V. Berry and Kimberly H. Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters. They write biweekly on RestonNow.
Federal and state laws generally require most employers to pay overtime. Although Virginia does not have its own overtime requirement, it follows federal requirements for determining overtime pay and eligibility.
Federal laws regarding overtime eligibility and pay are covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. As such, overtime pay-related questions in Virginia are typically referred to the U.S. Department of Labor.
Larger employers, usually defined as having more than $500,000 in annual sales, are typically bound by FLSA requirements. However, smaller employers generally must pay overtime if their employees work in interstate commerce or conduct business between states, including making phones calls to or from another state, sending mail out of state, or handling goods coming from or going to other states.
Unless specifically exempted, employees who are required or permitted to work more than 40 hours during a workweek generally must receive premium pay for such overtime work at a rate of at least one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay.
This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters. They write biweekly on RestonNow.
On Jan. 15, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum ordering federal agencies to offer up to six weeks (240 hours) of advanced paid sick leave to federal employees relating to the birth of a child, adoption of a child, or the placement of a foster child in their home. The Office of Personnel Management will have 90 days to issue guidance to federal agencies in implementing the new leave policies detailed in the Memorandum.
The Memorandum is designed to address the disparity between federal and private-sector leave policies. While private sector paid sick leave policies tend to vary considerably by occupation, they are generally better than federal sick leave policies.
In his Memorandum, the President reasoned that “offering family leave and other workplace flexibilities to parents can help achieve the goals of recruiting and retaining talent, lowering costly worker turnover, increasing employee engagement, boosting employee morale, and ensuring a diverse and inclusive workforce.”
In addition, the President has asked Congress to pass a national paid sick leave standard by way of the Healthy Families Act that would allow employees who work for businesses with 15 or more employees to earn up to seven annual paid sick days. While the new paid parental leave policy will help federal employees with new children, it is hard to predict whether Congress will pass the broader Healthy Families Act. The President’s proposal for a paid sick leave standard is generally good for employees, employers, and for the economy as a whole.
Our law firm represents and advises federal employees on employment-related matters. If you need legal assistance, 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 Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters. They write biweekly on RestonNow.
At Berry & Berry, we represent many federal employees in the workplace, including defending federal employees against proposed disciplinary actions. Despite the common belief that it is hard to discipline or terminate a federal employee, federal employees do face discipline and termination. We have summarized below some of the most frequent issues that federal employees encounter and provide some general tips regarding how to avoid these potential problems:
Don’t surf the Internet at work for personal use: While many federal agencies are somewhat relaxed in their enforcement of Internet policies, it is important to avoid using the Internet for personal use while at work. We have represented many federal employees who are investigated for either inappropriate use of the Internet (accessing inappropriate sites) or for too much personal Internet use.
Often, we defend federal employees who have used the Internet to watch Netflix, check their banking accounts or purchase items on eBay. Keep in mind that, if an agency wants to, an agency can check the websites that a government employee has been accessing and determine the amount of Internet usage.
Don’t use government email for personal use: Always use your personal email account for personal email correspondence. We have represented a number of federal employees who have been proposed for discipline due to misuse of their official government email account. Sometimes the federal employee’s issues involve using government email for personal use or sending inappropriate correspondence or photos. In addition, avoid using famous quotations or sayings, like inserting a famous quotation below your signature block, when corresponding using your government email account.
Don’t use government credit cards for personal use: We have represented many federal employees who have mistakenly or innocently used their government credit card for personal charges. Not only are many federal employees disciplined or terminated for such misuse, but they can be forced to repay the funds inappropriately charged to their government credit card. Even if policies on credit card usage are not apparently enforced, do not use a government credit card for personal use under any circumstances.
This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters. They write biweekly on RestonNow.
In the past, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had often sought to dismiss gender identity and transgender discrimination cases since it asserted that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of discrimination based on sex did not include gender identity. However, on December 15, 2014, the DOJ issued a memorandum regarding a new policy on the treatment of transgender workplace discrimination claims.
The new policy means that the DOJ will now include gender identity, including transgender discrimination, in the prohibition of sex discrimination in the workplace. In defending lawsuits, according to the memorandum, the federal government has also evolved and will no longer take the legal position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect against workplace discrimination on the basis of gender status.
The DOJ’s new policy follow on the heels of a revised Executive Order issued by the President in July 2014 which provides protection for gay and transgender individuals who are employed by the federal government and government contractors.
Our law firm represents and advises individuals and private sector employers on employment-related matters. If you need legal assistance, 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 Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters. They write biweekly on RestonNow.
Job seekers who have a criminal history usually get passed over by potential employers after they check the box on the job application indicating that they have a prior criminal record. Many jurisdictions are now changing laws to prevent employers from requiring such disclosures before hiring.
This change is known as “ban the box.” So far, 13 states and numerous counties and municipalities have enacted such laws to give second chances to individuals with prior criminal records.
In the past eight months, the District of Columbia, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, and Prince George’s County have passed versions of “ban the box” laws that restrict, in varying degrees, required disclosures regarding prior criminal convictions when applying for employment.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has not yet enacted a version of “ban the box” statewide, but a number of jurisdictions such as Alexandria, Richmond, Newport News, and Norfolk have passed local laws prohibiting the disclosure of criminal history for many types of public employment.
In the District of Columbia, the D.C. Council passed a sweeping law that offers some of the strongest protections thus far. The Fair Criminal Record Screening Act forbids a covered employer from ever requiring an applicant to disclose or reveal an arrest or a criminal accusation that did not result in a conviction or is not pending in court.
A covered employer may seek information about an applicant’s previous criminal convictions only after it has provided a conditional offer of employment to the applicant. The employer cannot rescind the offer unless it can justify the withdrawal for a legitimate business reason based on the following factors: 1) time elapsed since the offense, 2) types of duties and responsibilities of the position sought, 3) age of the employee at the time of offense, 4) the seriousness of the offense, 5) evidence of rehabilitation since the offense, and 6) the bearing of the criminal offense for which the person was convicted will have on the person’s fitness or ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position sought.
If the employer does not follow the rules properly, the applicant can file a complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the employer may be subject to sanctions.
In the state of Maryland, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, and Prince George’s County have similar but varying new laws that attempt to make it easier for individuals with a prior criminal record to make a fresh start.
Too often, a mistake made by an individual in high school or college prevents him or her from moving ahead with his or her career even decades later. These new laws attempt to help level the playing field for otherwise qualified individuals by giving them a fair chance to compete for jobs.
Our law firm represents and advises individuals and private sector employers on employment-related matters. If you need legal assistance, 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 Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters. They write biweekly on RestonNow.
In this digital age, it seems that almost everyone uses social media networks such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, or Instagram to communicate with the world whether it is through pictures or writing.
But to what extent, and how often, will security clearance authorities in the future review the social media accounts of security clearance applicants and holders as part of the government’s current upgrades to the security clearance review process?
Trials with Social Media in Clearance Reviews
The Office of the Director for National Intelligence (DNI) is evaluating the possibility of including social media account reviews as part of the security clearance process. According to a number of news sources, the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (NCIX) has been tasked to review the feasibility of including social media evaluations as part of the security clearance process. One consideration by the NCIX is whether this type of review is realistic and would be useful.
Ongoing trials of social media review, using volunteers by the DNI, are looking into how such a system would function and whether it would work in the real world. The trial apparently includes a review of all public entries in social media by volunteer security clearance holders. For instance, the trial review includes an online search into publicly available information by a security clearance holder to see if the information gives rise to security concerns. Read More
This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters. They write biweekly on RestonNow.
Finding and hiring a lawyer regarding a stressful and difficult employment issue can be quite overwhelming and intimidating for most people. There are many things to consider when looking for the right lawyer to handle your employment matter. The below guidelines may be helpful if you are looking to hire an employment lawyer for the first time.
Obtain legal advice early. If you wait too long to obtain legal advice or assistance with an employment issue, you may hurt your chances to amicably or effectively resolve the matter. The earlier you seek legal help, the more likely you are to avoid a more complicated and costly legal problem down the road.
Research the lawyer. When you are looking for the right employment lawyer, make sure to visit the employment lawyer’s or law firm’s website and review the attorney profiles. You’ll likely find useful information just by browsing the website’s attorney biographies, practice areas, and resource sections.
The lawyer’s website may also lead you to additional resources and will hopefully demonstrate that the employment lawyer has the requisite knowledge and experience in employment law. Of course, the website may not be the only or best resource regarding a particular employment lawyer, but researching the website is a good start and will likely lead you to one or two potential lawyers with whom to make an initial inquiry.
Provide a clear and concise written chronology of your case before the initial consultation. You’ll get more out of your consultation with an employment lawyer if you are able to provide the lawyer with a clear and concise written chronology or timeline of your matter prior to your initial consultation. Remember to include any relevant documentation that you may have. Read More
This is a sponsored column by attorneys John Berry and Kimberly Berry of Berry & Berry, PLLC, an employment and labor law firm located in Reston Town Center that specializes in federal employee, security clearance, retirement, and private sector employee matters. They write biweekly on RestonNow.
Until recently, in Virginia and in most other jurisdictions, there were very few, if any, protections from discrimination in the workplace due to an employee’s sexual orientation.
Typically, an individual could be subject to termination from employment based on sexual orientation discrimination without any recourse. The courts tended to readily dismiss such cases or not acknowledge them as valid claims. While the current protections are not where they need to be, the laws in this area and the individuals that interpret them have started to change. Below are the most recent changes to sexual orientation discrimination laws and enforcement.
Active EEOC Enforcement: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has decided to take a proactive approach to and actively prosecute sexual orientation discrimination complaints. Due to the limitations in existing federal law under the Civil Rights Act in pursuing complaints based solely on sexual orientation, the EEOC has taken the approach that many forms of sexual orientation discrimination also constitute sexual harassment or sex discrimination. As such, the EEOC has pursued cases involving sexual stereotyping and gender identity. For example:
- Comments or rumors about an employee being gay can be severe enough to constitute sexual harassment.
- Innuendos about an employee’s sexuality and “feminine voice” can constitute sex discrimination.
- Comments or stereotypes that men should only marry women can constitute sex discrimination.
Changes by Presidential Executive Order: On July 21, 2014, President Obama amended Executive Order 11478, which has a significant effect on a number of Northern Virginia companies that have federal government contracts over $10,000.
The changes to the Executive Order bars federal contractors, subcontractors, and construction employers working on federally assisted construction projects from engaging in discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The specific rules for processing such cases and enforcing the new changes to the Executive Order are being developed by the Department of Labor. Read More
