Support

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.

There are several reasons why federal employees should hire an experienced federal employment attorney if facing a potential disciplinary action, security clearance issues, equal employment opportunity violations, whistleblower claims, investigations, or disability retirement issues.

Here are seven reasons why a federal employee should hire a federal employment lawyer when the need arises:

1. Resolve Issues Early

With a federal employment lawyer, a federal employee may be able to resolve disciplinary action, equal employment issues and security clearance matters early, before they get worse and potentially lead to removal or result in other adverse situations for the federal employee in the workplace.

2. Identity Potential Reasonable Accommodations

For federal employees with disabilities, a federal employment lawyer can help identify potential reasonable accommodations for them to assist them in making the workplace better for them.

3. Get Accurate Advice on Confusing Issues and Claims

Federal employment lawyers understand the nuances of the different statutes that govern federal employee issues before the Merit Systems Protection Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, security clearance authorities at each agency and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. These different venues/issues can be confusing and are often intertwined. Getting accurate advice is very important. A Federal employment lawyer helps to provide clarity and understanding amongst confusing claims and complex laws to help federal employee clients.

4. Identify Claims of Defenses Not Previously Considered

The complicated language of federal laws can be challenging for federal employees outside of the legal profession to understand thoroughly. There may be a basis for a defense or perhaps a separate claim against a federal agency that a federal employee is unaware of unless they have the benefit of representation by a federal employment lawyer.

Read More

0 Comments

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.

Noncompete agreements in the Commonwealth of Virginia have undergone some changes since 2020. It’s very important to obtain legal advice before signing a noncompete agreement since noncompete issues often arise when an employee is facing termination from employment or a decision to leave an employer.

What is a Noncompete Agreement?

A noncompete agreement is a contract in which an employee agrees to give up a right that they would otherwise have in exchange for something from an employer. An employer often ties a noncompete agreement or clause to severance payments. The general purpose of a noncompete agreement is to ensure that a former employee does not use the knowledge they have gained with an employer and then later attempt to compete against them using this knowledge.

Virginia Requirements for Noncompete Agreements

In general, a noncompete agreement in Virginia must be reasonable to be valid. An agreement that restrains competition “must be evaluated on its own merits, balancing the provisions of the contract with the circumstances of the businesses and employees involved.” Omniplex World Servs. Corp. v. US Investigations Servs, 618 S.E.2d 340, 342 (2005).

According to the Virginia Supreme Court, in order to be enforceable, a noncompete agreement must meet a three-part test. Under this test, the employer bears the burden to show that the non-compete agreement or clause is:

  1. no greater than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest,
  2. is not unduly harsh or oppressive in curtailing an employee’s ability to earn a livelihood and
  3. is reasonable in light of sound public policy.

Modern Env’Ts v. Stinnett, 561 S.E.2d 694, 695 (Va. 2002); Assurance Data v. Malyevac, 747 S.E.2d 804, 808 (Va. 2013); Gordon v. Blue Mt. Therapy, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105432 (W.D. Va. June 4, 2021).

Determining the enforceability of such an agreement “requires consideration of the agreement in terms of function, geographic scope and duration, with these factors considered together.” Home Paramount Pest Control Cos., Inc. v. Shaffer, 718 S.E.2d 762, 764 (Va. 2011).

When applying these tests in Virginia, the courts have become more employee friendly in recent years. Noncompete agreements that are too vague or cumbersome may be invalidated. Courts are more likely to enforce noncompete agreements that are reasonable, have a limited geographic scope and are precise in their terms.

Virginia Recently Barred Noncompete Agreements for Low-Wage Workers

Virginia has also added new protections for low-wage workers, exempting them from noncompete agreements. As of July 1, 2020, Virginia now prohibits employers from placing noncompete restrictions on low-wage employees. This law only applies to noncompete provisions that came into effect on or after July 1, 2020. See Virginia Code § 40.1-28.7:8.

Contact Us

When noncompete issues arise, it’s important to get legal advice early and not wait until issues develop. These types of agreements, even if already in effect, may be renegotiated. If you are employed in Virginia and have signed or are considering signing a noncompete agreement, you should seek the advice of a qualified Virginia employment lawyer.

If you are in need of advice regarding noncompete agreements or clauses, 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.

0 Comments

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., www.berrylegal.com

Many employees that leave or are terminated from their employment in Virginia enter into severance agreements. Most employees in Virginia are considered “at will,” which generally means they can be terminated or resign at any time. Even if these employees are “at will,” an employer may offer severance to an employee in exchange for an employee’s waiver of their rights, including the right to file suit for any work-related issues (e.g. discrimination/harassment claims).

In the absence of an employment contract, an employer usually has no obligation to provide an employee severance pay. If severance pay is offered, an employer will always require that the employee sign a severance agreement, which will include a general release of liability. It’s very important to obtain legal advice before signing such an agreement.

What is a Severance Agreement?

A severance agreement is simply a contract between an employee and an employer that spells out the terms of an employment departure. Severance agreements can be offered in cases of terminations, resignations, layoffs or in other situations.

In order for a severance agreement to be valid, it must typically provide something of value to the employee. For example, in most cases, financial benefits are provided to the departing employee by an employer in exchange for a waiver of the employee’s rights. Often, an employee receives continued salary for a period of weeks or months in exchange for a release.

The terms of a severance agreement are generally negotiable between the employer and employee (and their attorneys).

Areas of Consideration in Severance Agreement Terms

Some of the issues that can be bargained over in severance agreement include, but are certainly not limited to:

  • Financial terms for the departing employee
  • The clearing of termination or other discipline from an employee file
  • Agreed to reference letters or contact points
  • Non-compete clauses
  • Non-solicitation clauses
  • Non-disparagement clauses
  • Non-disclosure clauses
  • Re-employment/re-hiring clauses
  • Health benefits
  • Unemployment compensation issues
  • Description of claims waived
  • Preservation of trade secrets

Each severance agreement is different, and an employee can typically benefit in negotiating the specific terms involved with the employer.

Before an employee enters into a severance agreement, he or she should consult with an attorney to discuss the rights that he or she may be waiving and the terms of the severance agreement. An employee will want to ensure that they know what they are signing and any potential admissions that they are making.

Conclusion

If an employee needs assistance in negotiating a severance agreement in Virginia, please contact our office at 703-668-0070 or at www.berrylegal.com to schedule a consultation. Please also like and visit us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BerryBerryPllc or follow us on Twitter.

0 Comments

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.

A reasonable accommodation is a modification to employment conditions or work practices that provides employees with disabilities equal opportunity at employment.

Reasonable accommodations apply to both employees and job applicants in all states and the District of Columbia. Most employees are generally covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but federal employees are covered under a similar law known as the Rehabilitation Act. In Virginia, employees are also covered under the Virginians with Disabilities Act. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and other civil rights governmental entities enforce these laws.

Requesting a Reasonable Accommodation

A request for reasonable accommodation can be formal or informal. Some employers have specific forms covering reasonable accommodation requests and others simply involve verbal discussions between the employee and his/her immediate supervisor or human resources department.

The most typical accommodation involves an employee who has developed a medical condition or disability that requires some changes to his/her working arrangement.

The discussion between an employer and employee is often referred to as the “interactive process,” which means that the employer works with the employee in an effort to arrive at a reasonable accommodation that does not create an undue hardship on the employer. Although the employer is not required to grant every accommodation request, the employer is required to make a reasonable effort at resolving the accommodation at issue.

Examples of Reasonable Accommodations

  • An employee develops a back disability and requests a new chair because his current chair is aggravating his back condition.
  • An employee has developed a serious medical condition and is undergoing medical treatment in the morning. She informs her supervisor that she needs an adjustment in her start time for eight weeks while she undergoes treatment.
  • An employee develops cancer and requests daily breaks at a certain time to take his medication.
  • An employee develops a disability that prevents her from performing her assigned duties so she requests a position reassignment.

For more information, the EEOC has published additional guidance on reasonable accommodations.

Contact Us

If you are in need of legal representation or advice in security clearance matters, 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.

0 Comments

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

By John V. Berry, Esq.

One of the larger questions in our security clearance practice over the past year and a half is whether or not the security clearance hearing process will move online permanently and what form it will take as we move to a post-pandemic world.

The clearance hearing process or personal appearance (depending on the federal agency involved) is typically the most important stage of an unresolved security clearance case where an individual is allowed to present their case in person with counsel if they choose. Depending on the federal agency, the clearance applicant or holder can present their case directly to the decision-maker, along with other witnesses and exhibits.

Pre-pandemic hearing process

Pre-pandemic, almost all federal agencies held security clearance proceedings in person. Depending on the agency, the process would vary significantly. Some agencies like the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) held courtroom proceedings with administrative judges. The Department of Energy (DOE) held less formal court-like proceedings with administrative judges. Other federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), often held personal appearances before a designated decision-maker. Intelligence Community agency processes varied but were in person. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Reconnaissance Office typically held personal appearances that were less formal. The National Security Agency (NSA) held cases before a multi-person panel consisting of employees and advisors. In short, every federal agency was a little different, but most cases were heard in person.

During the pandemic

During the pandemic, the security clearance hearing process did not stop but began to change slightly. Cases continued to be adjudicated, and security clearances were restored or denied following the hearing or personal appearance process. Many federal agencies, like DHS, went online.

Other agencies, like DOHA, followed CDC protocol and still held many cases in person in courtrooms but began to experiment with online hearings. For the first time, a number of Intelligence Community agencies began to suggest the possibility of telephonic hearings but also offered in-person personal appearances.

Thoughts on the online hearing process during the pandemic

In general, we found that the online hearing process was useful for many clients. It definitely helped in some cases where clients were in remote locations. However, where cases required many documents to be reviewed as exhibits or had many witnesses or where the credibility of the person was at stake, we found ourselves believing that a return to in-person hearings should occur.

We think that the online hearing process is definitely helpful for some individuals but not others. In cases where credibility is not at issue, and there were a reasonable amount of documents and exhibits to be presented, online hearings could be very helpful in the future. However, where an individual is accused of being dishonest or where large amounts of documents are needed, we found that online hearings were not as useful. Decision-makers tend to get a better evaluation of an individual when they are facing them directly, as opposed to observing them online. Complicated cases are also harder to present online and should remain in person.

Read More

0 Comments

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.

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’s 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’s 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, it can check the websites 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 also 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.

Do properly account for time at work. We often handle issues involving a federal employee leaving early or arriving to work late — even by 15 or 20 minutes — and without adjusting his or her time records accordingly. The federal employee then gets paid for a full work day. Generally, this is not an issue until a personality conflict arises, which causes scrutiny or an investigation. However, when a time issue does arise, it can result in a time and attendance disciplinary case, along with forced repayment of funds to the government.

Do take performance improvement plans seriously. Most performance improvement plans (PIPs) are designed by federal agencies to facilitate the termination of an employee, rather than to help the employee improve work performance. A PIP is almost always used by management to demonstrate the government’s interest or steps it has taken to help an employee improve his or her performance. However, this is typically not the case. A PIP is almost always a pre-planned attempt to terminate a federal employee despite assertions to the contrary.

Read More

0 Comments

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.

Depending upon the security concerns involved, it can be extremely helpful when federal employees or government contractors facing security clearance issues have support from a medical professional. In security clearance matters, it’s usually very beneficial and important for our federal employee and contractor clients to consult with a medical professional if appropriate and when medical or medical-related security concerns are under review by clearance authorities.

Types of Security Concerns that Could Involve Medical Professionals

Depending upon the facts of the security clearance case, there are a variety of security concerns for which a seasoned medical professional may be helpful to a security clearance applicant or holder. One of the most common types of security clearance cases in which a medical professional may be helpful involves the psychological or mental health condition of the security clearance applicant or holder under Guideline I, Psychological Conditions, under SEAD 4 (Page 19). Medical professionals may also be of assistance when a security clearance applicant or holder has security concerns involving illegal prescription drug use and/or an alcohol-related traffic matter.

Use of Medical Professionals in Security Clearance Matters

When an individual’s security clearance is at issue, it can be very helpful to obtain a medical professional’s review of the underlying issues for use in mitigating the security concern. When such situations arise, the clearance authority will ask whether there are mitigating factors present regarding the security concerns at issue. Clearance authorities will often take reasoned medical opinions into account when considering whether or not to permit an individual to obtain or retain his or her security clearance. When this occurs, it can be important to have a medical professional’s opinion, especially if a regular physician is not available to meet with the individual to attempt to mitigate the security concerns at issue.

The following examples more clearly demonstrate when a medical professional can be of help to a security clearance applicant or holder:

Example 1: The clearance holder has had three arrests for driving while intoxicated over the past five years. In this situation, it is important to have a medical professional evaluate, counsel and respond to the types of security concerns involved. The medical professional can often outline all of the treatment options available to the clearance holder and analyze the efforts undertaken by the clearance holder to address any alcohol-related concerns or treatment. A seasoned medical professional can also render a medical opinion as to whether or not such issues are likely to reoccur and the best way the clearance holder can avoid such issues in the future.

Example 2: The clearance holder has a significant mental health disorder, and a clearance authority needs to determine whether the medical condition would affect the individual’s ability to hold access to classified information. In this situation, it is important and helpful if a medical professional can provide a reasoned medical opinion as to whether the mental health condition will be an impediment to retaining a security clearance. The medical professional can evaluate the individual’s medical history, treatment undertaken for the medical issues and issue an opinion as to how the medical condition will likely affect the clearance holder in the future. Read More

0 Comments

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.

Employees in Virginia are “at will,” which means they can be terminated at any time for any reason and severance is not typically required. When employment ends, however, an employer may offer a severance package to an employee in exchange for the employee’s waiver of rights.

However, employers, in the absence of an agreement or severance policy, generally have no obligation to provide employees severance pay. If severance pay is offered, an employer will require the employee to sign a severance agreement, agreeing to a number of terms.

A severance agreement is a contract between the employee and an employer that provides end-of-employment terms between the employer and the employee. Severance agreements are often offered in termination cases, but can also be offered to employees who are laid off or who are considering retirement.

Additionally, depending on the circumstances, a severance agreement may be offered to an employee who resigns or is terminated. A severance agreement must have something of value (also referred to as consideration) to which the employee is not already entitled to be enforceable.

Employers are generally required to provide an employee time to consider the severance agreement before signing. For instance, an employee usually has a 21-day consideration period to accept the severance agreement and at least a seven-day revocation period to revoke an employer’s severance agreement if the employee is 40 years or older.

Severance agreements usually contain far more than just compensation terms. They can include any number of agreements. Some examples of possible terms in a severance agreement follow:

  • Reference information
  • Financial terms, the timing of severance payments and potential tax information
  • Continuation of health benefits
  • Unemployment compensation benefits
  • Waiver of claims against an employer (e.g. whistleblower, discrimination)
  • Confidentiality (e.g. neither side will reveal the terms of the agreement)
  • Non-disparagement (e.g. neither side will say negative things about the other)
  • The possibility of re-employment
  • Non-competition agreements
  • Preservation of trade secrets

Severance agreements will always include a general release or waiver that prohibits the former employee from filing a lawsuit against his or her employer for wrongful termination. Before an employee signs a severance agreement, he or she should consult with an attorney to discuss the rights that he or she may be waiving and the terms of the severance agreement.

Contact Us

If you are in need of employment law legal representation or advice, 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.

0 Comments

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

By John V. Berry, Esq.

In one of the first court rulings on the issue, a federal district court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by over a hundred Houston hospital employees that had challenged their employer’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. Hospital officials had suspended a number of employees that refused to be inoculated for COVID-19, and a lawsuit was filed.

First Ruling on Forced COVID-19 Vaccinations by Employers

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas noted, in the opinion, that the federal government has advised that employers can require employees to get vaccines.

Judge Hughes, in rejecting the hospital employees’ lawsuit, held: This is not coercion. Methodist [Hospital] is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients and their families safer.

Furthermore, Judge Hughes referred to the lawyer’s argument that requiring employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as being similar to medical experimentation in Nazi concentration camps as “reprehensible.”

Employees Have Option to Refuse Vaccine and Seek Other Employment

In closing, Judge Hughes held that employees had a choice between complying with the COVID-19 vaccination requirement or finding other employment. The case is likely to be appealed and more litigation in the future is likely.

Contact Us

If you are in need of employment law legal representation or advice, 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.

0 Comments

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.

As we move forward, employers in the United States will likely be able to require that employees entering the physical workplace be vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in guidance issued this past Friday.

Updated EEOC Guidance

The EEOC issued updated guidance stating that federal laws do not prevent an employer from requiring workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. As with everything, there are some exceptions. In some situations, laws may require that an employer provide reasonable accommodations to employees who, because of a disability or a religious belief, cannot be vaccinated.

As an example of this, the EEOC said, as a reasonable accommodation, an unvaccinated employee entering the workplace might potentially wear a mask, work at a social distance or be given the opportunity to telework. There is also the possibility that other federal, state and local laws could be factored into such decisions as we move ahead.

According to the EEOC, if employers choose to obtain vaccination information from their employees, they must keep such information confidential under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Vaccination Incentives

The EEOC also indicated that vaccination incentives could be an option for employers to consider, so long as they are not deemed coercive. As the EEOC stated: “Because vaccinations require employees to answer pre-vaccination disability-related screening questions, a very large incentive could make employees feel pressured to disclose protected medical information.”

In sum, it is very likely that employers will be able to require that in-house employees be vaccinated from COVID-19 prior to entering the workplace. Many of the details will eventually be worked out, but this seems to be the clear direction that the country is heading toward.

Contact Us

If you are in need of employment law legal representation or advice, 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.

0 Comments

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.

Holding or applying for a security clearance and maintaining significant investments in marijuana businesses can be a problem. We have been advising clients about this issue since some states began to legalize marijuana around 2010. Owning an investment in a marijuana company (e.g., stock, equity) (or working for a marijuana enterprise) is a reportable clearance activity for security clearance holders and applicants and can lead to the loss of a security clearance or problems in obtaining one. Investments in marijuana-related companies may constitute involvement in illegal drug activities under existing government guidelines.

This can potentially be the case even where the clearance holder or applicant does not directly choose their individual stocks. It also makes no difference if the state that the investment is located in has legalized marijuana businesses. The federal government’s current view is that an individual has a duty to know about their investments and to be knowledgeable about federal drug laws.

Federal Directives on Marijuana Usage and Investment

While there has not been new major guidance in the area of investment, Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 4, effective June of 2017, provides the current basis for not granting or revoking a security clearance based on drug involvement, including investments in marijuana under Guideline H:

25. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

. . .

(c) illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;

. . . .

If an issue were to arise, an investment in marijuana businesses could feasibly fall under a number of the security concerns in Paragraph 25 (c) of SEAD 4.

Marijuana investments have been referred to as the new Tesla or other growth industry, according to the news; the urge is to invest now. However, the problem is that until the federal government changes federal drug laws or creates an exception for marijuana businesses or investment, individuals that invest or otherwise become involved in marijuana investments can put their security clearance (and career) in danger. While investments in marijuana businesses are likely less of a red flag than usage of marijuana for a clearance holder, the best advice is to avoid marijuana investments.

We have continued to see significant confusion on this issue since 2010 when a number of states started legalizing the use of marijuana. It is advisable that individuals seeking to hold or to obtain a security clearance refrain from investing in marijuana stocks until federal law or policy changes. Looking at the current standards, the biggest risk is likely knowing that you are investing directly in a marijuana business (or direct ownership), as opposed to investing in a mutual fund where a person might be unaware of such investments. The federal government will eventually change their position on marijuana, but for the moment investing in companies or stocks that are involved in the sale of marijuana could cause security clearance problems.

Conclusion

If an employee needs assistance with security clearance issues, please contact our office at 703-668-0070 or visit our website to schedule a consultation. Please also like us on Facebook or connect with us on Twitter.

0 Comments
×

Subscribe to our mailing list