By Nicholas Woodfield and Charles Early

---

IMPORTANT: The following article is intended as a general summary of facts and law and not as individual legal advice upon which you should rely or act. Every case is unique and specific. This article represents our firm’s best knowledge as of July 2026.

---

Losing your job can be a difficult situation regardless of the circumstances, but it can feel even harder to bear when you’ve been fired unfairly. What if your employer fired you for reporting discrimination? Or your employer or a coworker deliberately attempted to harm you? Or you endured months of harassment while management looked the other way?

Compensation for lost wages and mental anguish are the typical remedies in successful employment cases, but sometimes they do not address the degree of the egregiousness an employer engaged in. Punitive damages might then deliver the justice warranted when an employer’s conduct is especially harmful.

Employees in Washington, D.C., who have been discriminated or retaliated against by their employers can be awarded additional money in the form of punitive damages under the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA) when fact scenarios are particularly outrageous.

What Are Punitive Damages?

Punitive damages are awarded when a jury or judge decides that a defendant’s actions were so egregious that they warrant punishment. Where compensatory damages aim to make up for measurable financial losses or emotional harm, punitive damages are meant to deter defendants from engaging in similar conduct in the future.

An employee seeking punitive damages must show that their employer acted with “actual malice,” which we’ll explain further in a later section.

What Is the D.C. Human Rights Act?

The DCHRA prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, or public accommodations in D.C. In the workplace, the law makes it illegal for employers to unfairly make decisions regarding personnel changes, discipline or pay based on 23 protected traits, including:

• Age,
• Disability,
• Race,
• Familial status,
• Political affiliation,
• Religion,
• Sexual orientation,
• Personal appearance,
• And more.

This, for example, would make it illegal for an employer to deny someone a promotion because they’re Muslim. The DCHRA also prohibits retaliation against employees who report discrimination or participate in any related investigations. It is a powerful instrument for holding employers accountable for discrimination and retaliation — in many cases even more so than federal law.

What Makes the DCHRA Different (and Potentially a More Effective Mechanism for Achieving Justice) Than Federal Law?

Most workplace discrimination and retaliation claims are brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which allows employees to receive compensation for emotional distress and punitive damages. However, the maximum combined amount that an employee may be awarded is $300,000, regardless of how big the employer is.

Unlike Title VII, the DCHRA places no statutory cap on non-economic or punitive damages, and as a result, employees who prove severe discrimination or retaliation may be able to recover substantially more than would be available under federal law.

The DCHRA also allows for potential individual liability,[1] meaning that the person who commits the discriminatory act (such as a supervisor) can in certain circumstances also be held personally liable for their discrimination.

All in all, the DCHRA can result in significantly greater accountability for employers and significantly greater monetary compensation for employees.

How to Get Awarded Punitive Damages Under the DCHRA

The DCHRA does not expressly mention punitive damages, but D.C. courts have held that they are available in appropriate cases.

In Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland,[2] the D.C. Court of Appeals solidified the availability of punitive damages and pointed to the principles previously established in Robinson v. Sarisky,[3] which stated that “punitive damages may be awarded for [] acts aggravated by evil motive, actual malice, deliberate violence or oppression, or for outrageous conduct … in willful disregard for another’s rights.”[4]

Obtaining punitive damages requires a two-step showing. First, the employee must prove that discrimination (or retaliation) occurred. Second, they must prove that the discrimination and/or retaliation was accompanied by particularly egregious conduct or malicious intent. If the employee satisfies both requirements, the jury may decide whether to award punitive damages and, if so, how much to award.

Step One: Proving Discrimination or Retaliation

For a successful DCHRA complaint, an employee would need to establish that:

• They possess a protected trait (e.g., gender, race, or disability status), or they engaged in a “protected activity” to oppose illegal acts under the DCHRA (e.g., reporting discrimination or participating in an internal investigation);
• Their employer took an adverse employment action (e.g., failed to promote the employee accordingly, paid them less, or terminated them); and
• There is a direct link between the employee’s protected status or activity and the employer’s adverse action.

The employee must submit sufficient evidence to show that it is more likely than not that the discrimination/retaliation occurred. Lawyers and judges refer to this “more likely than not” standard as a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Step Two: Proving “Actual Malice”

Punitive damages are not available in every case under the DCHRA. An employee must prove that the defendant — or someone whose actions the defendant was legally liable for at the time — acted with “malice.” This means the person intentionally attempted to mistreat the employee.

Malice can be shown in many ways. Some examples include an employer:

• Reprimanding an employee for performance issues that the employer or individual actually knows didn’t exist;
• Spreading false information about an employee to harm their reputation;
• Making threats, such as, “you’ll regret this” or “I’ll make sure you never work here again.”

Proving malice requires a more demanding level of evidence. An employee must present “clear and convincing evidence” that the discrimination or retaliation was “aggravated by egregious conduct and a state of mind that justifies punitive damages.”[5] Courts have explained that clear and convincing proof is evidence that is strong enough to leave the jury with a firm belief that the employee’s claim is true.[6]

Who Is Liable for Punitive Damages?

Generally, an employer would have had to endorsed or authorized the illegal action themselves to potentially be held liable for punitive damages. They can also be liable if an officer, director, or manager of their company committed or authorized the action and acted with malice.

An employer can’t usually be subject to punitive damages for a regular employee’s actions, however. Employers are responsible for harm done by any of their employees who are acting within the course and scope of their employment, but that harm is paid for through compensatory damages.

Remember that punitive damages are meant to punish the person who acted with malice, so why would the employer be punished when it was another employee who did the illegal action? The exception is supervisors to whom employers give the authority that allows them to take adverse actions against an employee.

The DCHRA also includes the potential for individual liability,[7] meaning that the individual person who commits the illegal act might be held personally liable and required to pay punitive damages.

Whether punitive damages should be awarded, what the amount should be, and who should be required to pay it is up to the jury — for the most part. The amount awarded might be reduced if the court determines that it’s excessively disproportionate to the other damages awarded or otherwise unfairly large for the actual harm done, which would violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause.[8]

Can Requesting Punitive Damages Help My Case?

A viable claim for punitive damages can result in a faster and more favorable resolution.

Going to trial can be risky for employers. A jury might side with the employee and award punitive damages, possibly making the overall award significantly larger than it would be under federal law. The damages might get reduced later, but either way, the employer will still have to pay whatever amount the court deems appropriate based on factors such as the nature of the misconduct and the employer’s relative wealth. As one court observed, “the wealthier the [employer] the greater the award.”[9]

The threat of having to pay more money in damages can make employers more willing to offer a favorable settlement. Employers may also wish to avoid the reputational harm that can result from allegations of egregious discriminatory conduct becoming part of the public record.

Making a claim for punitive damages can be a powerful strategy in negotiating and settling a DCHRA claim, and it can be even more powerful in the courtroom. If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination or retaliation in the workplace, an experienced employment attorney can evaluate your claim and determine whether punitive damages may be available.

———-
[1] D.C. Code §§ 2-1402.11 & 2-1402.61.
[2] Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland, 631 A.2d 354, 372 (D.C. 1993).
[3] Sutherland, 631 A.2d at 372 citing to Robinson v. Sarisky, 535 A.2d 901, 906–908 (D.C.1988).
[4] Robinson, 535 A.2d at 907.
[5] Id.
[6] In re Dortch, 860 A.2d 346, 358 (D.C. 2004).
[7] D.C. Code §§ 2-1402.11 & 2-1402.61.
[8] See BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).
[9] Robinson, 535 A.2d at 907.

———-

Nicholas Woodfield is a principal and general counsel at The Employment Law Group, P.C.; Charles Early is an associate at the firm.

By Nicholas Woodfield and Alexa Calomiris

---

IMPORTANT: The following article is intended as a general summary of facts and law and not as individual legal advice upon which you should rely or act. Every case is unique and specific. This article represents our firm’s best knowledge as of July 2026.

---

The Virginia Human Rights Act’s age discrimination protections originally passed into law with a strange flaw — it applied to employers with more than five but fewer than 20 employees. This meant that larger companies couldn’t be sued for age discrimination under Virginia’s workplace bias laws.

That unusual size limitation, however, changed on July 1, 2026, when the law governing workplace discrimination — the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA) — was amended to apply to all employers with five or more employees, striking the restriction that caused it not to apply to employers with 20 or more employees.

Employees who watched younger colleagues get promoted past them or heard one too many comments about “fresh ideas” and “new blood” now have the means to hold their employers accountable under Virginia law.

What is the Virginia Human Rights Act?

The VHRA is a Virginia state statute that prohibits employment discrimination based on protected traits, including age, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy and related medical conditions, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and military status.

Employees are able to sue their employers for discrimination and for retaliation if the employee experienced an adverse employment action (such as termination or demotion) for opposing a discriminatory practice or participating in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing related to a discrimination complaint.

A successful VHRA claim can result in awards for economic damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs.

To qualify for protection under the VHRA, however, an employee must have a protected trait. For age discrimination claims, they must be at least 40 years old. Their employer must also have at least five employees.

The VHRA was significantly expanded in 2020 with the Virginia Values Act, but prior to July of 2026, it excluded a large swath of employees from its protections based on their employer’s size. In most cases, an employer had to have at least 15 employees to be held accountable under the VHRA.

There was an exception if an employee wanted to pursue a claim that they were terminated due to age discrimination. In that case, the threshold to allow for a lawsuit was lowered to just more than five employees, but it was oddly capped at less than 20 employees.

New VHRA Amendments Impact on Age Discrimination Protections

The VHRA amendments that went into effect on July 1 evened out — and lowered — the employee threshold across the board. Now, any employer that has five or more employees is subject to the VHRA.

Previously, claims for an age-related termination could only be brought against small businesses, and other discriminations claims — which were not exempt from the usual VHRA threshold — could generally only be brought against larger employers.

This new employee threshold means more businesses, including large businesses, can be held accountable.

The amendments also extended the deadline to file a claim from 300 days to two years, which can be helpful in cases where employer age discrimination or retaliation is not immediately apparent.

Signs of Age Discrimination

Age bias can be subtle. Employers rarely admit that an employee’s age played a role in a workplace decision. Instead, employees may notice patterns of comments, treatment, or decisions that suggest age discrimination.

Some common warning signs include:

Age-Related Comments

Comments about an employee’s age, energy level, or ability to adapt can be evidence of age bias. Examples include:

• “We need new blood.”
• “We’re looking for fresh ideas.”
• “You are a dinosaur.”
• “Can you keep up with the pace?”
• “You should step down and enjoy your golden years.”
• “We need someone with a ‘digital native’ mindset.”
• “You should let the younger staff handle the new technology.”
• “When are you finally going to retire?”

Sudden Criticism of Your Performance

A strong performer who suddenly receives negative reviews after reaching a certain age may have reason to question the change. This can include increased scrutiny, unfair criticism, lower performance ratings, or claims that they can no longer meet expectations despite a history of good performance.

Reduced Responsibilities or Pressure to Leave

An employer with age bias may attempt to push an older employee out. This can sometimes look subtle with actions such as reassigning an older employee to less desirable work or taking away important responsibilities or direct reports. It can also look like their employer pressuring them to transfer or resign.

Repeated Questions About Retirement Plans

Occasional conversations about future plans may not indicate discrimination. However, repeated pressure about retirement, transition planning behind the employee’s back, or assumptions that they are ready to leave because of their age may be warning signs.

Layoffs That Disproportionately Affect Older Workers

A reduction in force may raise concerns when workers aged 40 or older are disproportionately selected for termination while younger employees remain.

Being Replaced by a Younger Worker

Replacing an older employee with a significantly younger worker — particularly after age-related comments or other concerning conduct — may support a claim of age discrimination.

Examples of Age Discrimination

Scenario No. 1

Patricia, a tenured professor with stellar performance, overheard her colleagues in the break room making fun of her for not using artificial intelligence (AI) when grading papers and suggesting that she should “let the younger staff handle the new technology.”

She mentioned the comments to her supervisor, who dismissed it and questioned whether Patricia could “keep up with the pace” of her colleagues.

Patricia started using AI but noticed it was not providing enough feedback to students on grading decisions. She politely informed her colleagues that she preferred grading papers herself and was called a “dinosaur.”

Scenario No. 2

Julia has been the top performer on her team for 18 years, consistently receiving glowing reviews. Then, a few months after her 60th birthday, her manager began commenting on how she should “let the younger staff handle the new software” and joked that it might be time for her to “enjoy her golden years.”

Her once-favorable performance reviews began to reflect problems no one had mentioned before.

Then came the announcement: a company-wide reduction in force, framed as a routine cost-cutting measure. When the list came out, every employee let go was older than 50. Six weeks later, the company posted job openings for two of the eliminated positions. The jobs were filled by employees in their late 20s.

Scenario No. 3

Marcus spent over a decade building his department’s client relationships and training newer staff. He began noticing when he was 58 that meetings he used to lead were being handled by someone else. His manager reassigned his key accounts to a younger colleague, citing “a need for fresh energy.”

Marcus was moved into a role with far less responsibility. He later learned that leadership had been quietly developing a transition plan for his position months earlier without discussing it with him.

When Marcus raised concerns, he was told the company was simply “modernizing.” He was let go within a year, replaced by an employee who was 20 years younger.

New Day for Age Discrimination Protections in Virginia

The Virginia legislature has taken a huge step when it comes to workplace age-discrimination protection.

Age bias is often based on the mistaken assumption that older employees are less adaptable or less capable of contributing to a rapidly changing workplace. However, years of professional experience can be a valuable asset — even as employers increasingly rely on AI, automation, and outsourcing.

Technology can improve efficiency, but it’s not a replacement for human judgment and expertise developed over years in a profession. In fact, experienced employees may be especially well-positioned to spot when new technology makes a mistake.

If you have experienced age discrimination while working in Virginia, contact The Employment Law Group to discuss your options.

———-

Nicholas Woodfield is a principal and general counsel at The Employment Law Group, P.C.; Alexa Calomiris is an associate at the firm.

By Nicholas Woodfield and Mary Anne Callahan

---

IMPORTANT: The following article is intended as a general summary of facts and law and not as individual legal advice upon which you should rely or act. Every case is unique and specific. This article represents our firm’s best knowledge as of July 2026.

---

Losing your job can be a difficult situation regardless of the circumstances, but it can feel even harder to bear when you’ve been fired unfairly. What if your employer fired you for reporting discrimination? Or your employer or a coworker deliberately attempted to harm you? Or you endured months of harassment while management looked the other way?

Compensation for lost wages can be a common remedy in successful employment cases, but that may not feel like enough to make up for losing your hard-earned career. Punitive damages, however, may be the justice you’re seeking if your employer’s conduct was especially harmful.

Virginia employees who have been discriminated or retaliated against by their employers can be awarded additional money in the form of punitive damages under the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA).

What Are Punitive Damages?

Punitive damages are awarded when a jury or judge decides that a defendant’s actions were so egregious that they warrant punishment.[1] Where compensatory damages aim to make up for measurable financial losses or emotional harm, punitive damages are meant to deter defendants from engaging in similar conduct in the future.

An employee requesting punitive damages would have to show that their employer acted with “actual malice” or “reckless indifference,”[2] which we’ll explain further in a later section.

What is the Virginia Human Rights Act?

The VHRA is a state statute that prohibits discrimination based on:[3]

• Race or color,
• Religion,
• Ethnic or national origin,
• Sex,
• Gender identity,
• Sexual orientation,
• Age,
• Disability,
• Military status,
• Marital status, or
• Pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, including lactation.

Any employer who has five or more employees is subject to the VHRA.[4] Employees are not only able to sue their employers for discrimination but also for retaliation if the employee experienced an adverse action (such as termination or demotion) for opposing a discriminatory practice or participating in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing related to a discrimination complaint.[5]

A successful VHRA claim can result in awards for economic damages, compensatory damages, and attorney fees and costs, but what truly sets the VHRA apart is the potential for punitive damages, which can significantly increase a plaintiff’s recovery.[6]

How to Get Awarded Punitive Damages Under the VHRA

Punitive damages can be awarded at the jury’s discretion, but it requires a two-step showing. First, the employee must prove that discrimination or retaliation occurred. Then they must prove that the discrimination and/or retaliation was accompanied by particularly egregious conduct or malicious intent. If the employee satisfies both requirements, the jury may decide whether to award punitive damages and, if so, how much to award.

Step One: Proving Discrimination or Retaliation

For a successful VHRA complaint, an employee would need to establish that:

• They possess a protected trait (e.g., gender, race, or disability status), or they engaged in a “protected activity” to oppose illegal acts under the VHRA (e.g., reporting discrimination or participating in an internal investigation);
• Their employer took an adverse employment action (e.g., failing to promote the employee accordingly, paying them less, or terminating them unfairly); and
• There is a direct link between the employee’s protected status or activity and the employer’s adverse action.

The employee must provide enough evidence to show that it is more likely than not that the discrimination/retaliation occurred.[7] Lawyers and judges refer to this “more likely than not” standard as a “preponderance of evidence.”[8]

Step Two: Proving “Actual Malice” or “Reckless Indifference”

Punitive damages are not available in every case under the VHRA. An employee must show that the defendant acted with actual malice (meaning they intentionally attempted to mistreat the employee) or reckless indifference to the consequences of their actions.[9]

Malice or reckless indifference can be shown in many ways. Some examples include an employer:

• Reprimanding an employee for performance issues that didn’t previously exist;
• Spreading false information about an employee to harm their reputation;
• Referring to an employee’s protected status when taking an adverse action; or
• Making threats, such as, “you’ll regret this” or “I’ll make sure you never work here again.”

In one case, a jury awarded $50,000 in punitive damages to an employee based on evidence that the employer dismissed him because he “was just too old,”[10] showing a conscious disregard for the employee’s right to be free from age discrimination in employment.[11] In another case, a jury awarded $25,000 in punitive damages after finding that the defendant repeatedly made defamatory statements about the plaintiff, both at work and in public, and did so with clear malicious intent, which was shown by a statement that she was out to “get” him.[12]

Proving malice requires a stricter standard of evidence. This reflects the seriousness of punitive damages, which are meant to punish particularly egregious conduct rather than compensate every successful VHRA claimant.

An employee must present “clear and convincing evidence”[13] that the discrimination or retaliation was harmful enough to warrant punitive damages. The evidence needs to be strong enough to convince the jury that the misconduct was highly probable or reasonably certain[14] — a firm belief rather than just “more likely than not.”

Under Virginia law, punitive damages are capped at $350,000.[15] If a jury award exceeds that amount, a trial judge must reduce it to meet the cap.[16]

Can You Sue Individual Managers Under the VHRA?

It is up in the air whether employees can pursue a VHRA case against individual supervisors rather than solely the company as a whole. There are possible arguments to be made that the VHRA is meant to allow for individual liability, but there are also arguments to support the opposite. For now, courts have not clearly decided whether to extend liability to individuals, so managers remain in a gray area.

Can Requesting Punitive Damages Help My Case?

A viable claim for punitive damages can result in a faster and more favorable resolution.

Going to trial means risking the jury siding with the employee and awarding punitive damages. There is a cap on how large the award can be, but it still means more money the employer may have to pay. Employers may wish to avoid this possibility by offering a reasonable settlement instead.

Employers might also want a quick resolution to avoid the reputational harm that can result from allegations of egregious discriminatory conduct becoming part of the public record.

Making a claim for punitive damages can be a powerful strategy in negotiating and resolving a VHRA claim. If you are an employee in Virginia and believe your employer may have discriminated or retaliated against you, call The Employment Law Group to discuss the possibility of pursuing a claim under the VHRA.

———-
[1] Bowers v. Westvaco Corp., 244 Va. 139, 150 (1992).
[2] A.H. v. Church of God in Christ, Inc., 297 Va. 604, 636 (2019); Harris v. Harman, 253 Va. 336, 340-41 (1997).
[3] Va. Code § 2.2-3905(B)(1).
[4] Va. Code § 2.2-3905(B)(1)(a).
[5] Va. Code § 2.2-3905(B)(7).
[6] Va. Code § 2.2-3908(B).
[7] Benefield v. Commonwealth, 82 Va. App. 561, 571 (2024)
[8] Ballagh v. Fauber Enterprises, Inc., 290 Va. 120, 124-25, 773 S.E.2d 366 (2015).
[9] A.H. v. Church of God in Christ, Inc., 297 Va. 604, 636 (2019); Harris v. Harman, 253 Va. 336, 340-41 (1997).
[10] Smith v. Litten, 256 Va. 573, 576 (1998).
[11] Id. at 579.
[12] 254, 263 (1996).
[13] Flippo v. CSC Assocs. III, L.L.C., 262 Va. 48, 59, 547 S.E.2d 216 (2001).
[14] In re Brown, 295 Va. at 227, 810 S.E.2d 444 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 674 (10th ed. 2014)).
[15] Va. Code § 8.01-38.1.
[16] Id.

———-

Nicholas Woodfield is a principal and general counsel at The Employment Law Group, P.C.; Mary Anne Callahan is an associate at the firm.

By Nicholas Woodfield and Cassie Harrington

---

IMPORTANT: The following article is intended as a general summary of facts and law and not as individual legal advice upon which you should rely or act. Every case is unique and specific. This article represents our firm’s best knowledge as of July 2026.

---

Thousands more Virginia workers are able to pursue workplace discrimination and retaliation claims with amendments to the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA) going into effect on July 1, 2026.

Lawmakers expanded the law’s definition of “employer” and significantly extended the deadline for filing discrimination charges. The revisions expand the reach of Virginia’s employment discrimination law, especially for employees working for small businesses.

Governor Abigail Spanberger signed the amendments into law in April.

Smaller Employers Now Covered Under the VHRA

The VHRA, which was significantly expanded by the Virginia Values Act in 2020, forbids employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy and related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and military status.

The VHRA covers more protected traits than the better-known federal law Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which ostensibly meant the VHRA offered significantly more workplace protections. However, not all employees who are members of those protected classes had access to the law’s remedies.

Previously, the law generally applied only to employers with at least 15 employees for most discrimination and retaliation claims. An exception allowed discriminatory discharge claims against employers with more than five employees, while age discrimination discharge claims applied to employers with more than five but fewer than 20 employees.

This left many employees in a position where neither state nor federal law could protect them. Employees may have been a part of a protected class under the VHRA but worked for an employer too small (or in the case of age discrimination discharge claims, too big) to allow for a lawsuit. Federal laws either have similarly high or even higher thresholds or don’t cover the same protected classes. This meant that, as an example, employees of businesses with less than 15 workers who alleged discrimination based on marital status had no legal protection — until the July 2026 amendments addressed that blind spot.

Now, any Virginia employer with five or more employees is covered under the VHRA for all protected classes and all forms of unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation. The change eliminates both the 15-employee threshold that applied to most claims and the size limitation that applied to age discrimination discharge cases.

The practical effect is that employees of many small businesses who previously had no legal remedy will now be able to pursue claims under the VHRA and seek monetary compensation.

Access to Damages for Small-Business Employees and Employees with Age Discrimination Claims

Employees who work for larger employers have long benefited from the VHRA’s wider availability of damages compared to federal laws. Unlike the VHRA, Title VII, for example, puts a cap on compensatory damages. The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not permit compensatory damages at all.

If their employer had at least 15 employees, a worker could generally turn to the VHRA to receive more monetary remedies. Employees with age discrimination claims, however, had to meet specific criteria — bringing only a claim for termination against an employer with 5-20 employees — to have an avenue towards recovering compensatory damages, which could only be done under the VHRA and not the ADEA. Small-business employees were also mostly left out.

The 2026 amendments opened a door for many employees. For the first time, employees of small employers can recover compensatory damages for employment claims against a discriminatory demotion, hostile work environment, and other unlawful actions that didn’t fall under the VHRA’s prior threshold exceptions. Employees with age discrimination claims are no longer blocked from seeking compensatory damages based on their specific type of claim or the size of their employer.

Filing Deadline Extended to Two Years

The new legislation substantially expands the statute of limitations for filing a charge of discrimination or retaliation under the VHRA. Beginning July 1, employees will have two years — rather than 300 days — to file their claims.

The extended filing period could prove helpful in cases where employer retaliation is not immediately apparent.

Consider a salesperson whose territory is reduced for discriminatory reasons. They may not consider it worth going to court until the financial consequences become clear a year later when lower sales lead to missed quotas and a layoff based on poor performance. Under the previous 300-day deadline, the employee may have been able to seek compensation for the termination but not for the territory reduction, which fell outside of the filing period. Any losses that occurred in between the territory reduction and the termination that fell outside the past 300 days would have then been ineligible for compensation.

The new two-year limitations period would have allowed the salesperson to challenge both the earlier discriminatory action and the later termination.

Similarly, an employee who receives a discriminatory performance evaluation may not suffer an immediate financial loss. They may try to prove their good work performance rather than turning to legal avenues right away. If the evaluation eventually results in the loss of a bonus or termination, the expanded filing period will allow the employee to include the evaluation as part of the overall discrimination claim.

These changes are some of the most significant expansions of Virginia’s employment protections in recent years. If you’re facing workplace bias and retaliation, contact The Employment Law Group to see what legal remedies are available to you.

———-

Nicholas Woodfield is a principal and general counsel at The Employment Law Group, P.C.; Cassie Harrington is an associate at the firm.

By Janel Quinn and Anthony Primelo

---

IMPORTANT: The following article is intended as a general summary of facts and law and not as individual legal advice upon which you should rely or act. Every case is unique and specific. This article represents our firm’s best knowledge as of June 2026.

---

The Department of Justice’s Criminal Division launched a powerful new tool in August 2024 with its Corporate Whistleblower Award (CWA) Pilot Program. This was a major move that filled gaps in existing whistleblower award programs, boosted corporate investigations and prosecutions, and opened the door to more monetary awards for whistleblowers.

The DOJ’s CWA program promises whistleblower awards based on a percentage of the net proceeds forfeited by fraudsters. This rewards model resembles the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) own whistleblower award program, which has led to the agency collecting over $6.3 billion in monetary sanctions since its launch in 2011 and paying whistleblowers over $2.2 billion in awards.

When first launched, the CWA program focused on four categories of fraud previously neglected by other whistleblower award programs. The CWA expanded to cover more categories in 2025, which we explored in detail in a previous installment. Here, we’ll focus on the original types of fraud that established the program’s core priorities.

Violations by financial institutions and abuse of the financial system not covered by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) whistleblower program

The DOJ’s CWA program is designed to target areas of corporate fraud that fall outside the scope of existing whistleblower programs. To understand where the CWA applies, it is helpful to first identify what is already covered elsewhere. Whistleblowers with information about violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or U.S. sanctions, for example, can turn to the Treasury Department’s FinCEN whistleblower program, which specifically covers those types of misconduct.

The BSA requires financial institutions to keep records of negotiable instruments, such as checks or certificates of deposit bought in cash; file reports if total daily transactions exceed $10,000; and report suspicious activity that may signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities. The FinCEN whistleblower program focuses on violations of these regulatory and reporting obligations, including failures to maintain an effective compliance program. Such violations may relate to underlying criminal activity, but the FinCEN program does not target criminal schemes so much as noncompliance with BSA requirements.

The FinCEN program also targets financial institutions that violate U.S. economic and trade sanctions. These sanctions can include travel bans, asset freezes, export and import restrictions, arms embargoes, capital restraint, and foreign aid reductions.

In contrast, the DOJ’s CWA program targets the underlying criminal schemes themselves including:

• Money laundering, which is the concealment of illegally obtained funds;
• Bank fraud, such as fraudulent loan applications, identity theft, or counterfeit transactions; and
• Deceiving federal regulatory agencies or impeding their investigations by taking actions like providing false information or concealing relevant details.

The CWA program also investigates failures to properly register as a money services business (also known as a money transmitting business). Companies and individuals who facilitate the transfer of funds from one entity to another — through activities such as selling payment instruments, exchanging currency, transmitting money electronically, or providing bill payer services or accelerated mortgage payment services — are typically required to file FinCEN Form 107 within 180 days of starting operations and renew their registration every two years.

There are some exceptions to the enforcement of this, however — specifically in the cryptocurrency world. The DOJ issued a memo in 2025 indicating that it wouldn’t pursue failures to register in cryptocurrency cases unless the defendant willfully violated the registration requirement. The DOJ also disbanded its cryptocurrency enforcement team, citing an executive order from President Trump.

The DOJ has brought multiple million-dollar cases to fruition in 2025 alone. Brink’s Global Services USA, Inc. — an armored car company specializing in transporting currency and other valuable goods — agreed to pay more than $50 million to settle criminal allegations that it operated as an unlicensed money transmitting business. The Dubai-based Wall Street Exchange Centre LLC agreed to pay more than $9 million after it was investigated for allegedly lying to a U.S. financial institution about its anti-money laundering compliance.

Foreign corruption schemes not covered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) whistleblower program

The SEC whistleblower program investigates violations of federal securities laws and of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) if conducted by companies that issue securities — generally U.S. publicly traded companies and foreign companies that offer American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), which represent shares in a foreign company. Typical violations include bribery, improper payments, or accounting misconduct.

Any other kind of company that violates the FCPA would fall under the CWA program. This includes privately held U.S. companies and foreign companies that attempt to bribe U.S. officials.

In early 2025, FCPA investigations were temporarily paused as the Trump administration reassessed how the government enforced the statute. The DOJ issued updated guidelines in June of 2025, directing prosecutors to focus on cases involving identifiable individual misconduct rather than generalized claims that a company’s structure or culture enabled wrongdoing.

The DOJ’s guidelines also introduced priorities to consider when pursuing FCPA cases, including:

• Combating cartels and transnational criminal organizations: prioritizing cases where bribery or corruption facilitates large-scale criminal enterprises, such as drug trafficking or organized crime networks;
• Safeguarding fair opportunities for U.S. companies: focusing on misconduct that gives foreign competitors an unfair advantage over U.S. businesses through bribery or corruption;
• Advancing U.S. national security: targeting corruption that implicates strategic industries, sensitive technologies, or geopolitical interests; and
• Prioritizing serious misconduct: directing resources toward more egregious or systemic violations rather than minor or technical infractions.

FCPA enforcement was ultimately paused for 180 days, but the DOJ followed the hiatus with a major win: a $118 million settlement agreement in November of 2025. The settlement resolved allegations that Comunicaciones Celulares S.A. (Comcel), a Guatemalan telecommunications service provider, bribed government officials in Guatemala. Although the conduct occurred abroad, the FCPA allows the DOJ to assert jurisdiction in cases with a U.S. connection — such as the use of the U.S. banking system or, in the case of Comcel, a significant relationship with the U.S. through a subsidiary.

We expect to see an increase in foreign corruption cases in 2026, particularly those involving companies that are not publicly traded in the U.S.

Domestic corruption schemes committed by or through companies related to the payment of bribes and kickbacks to public officials or employees

The CWA program also covers domestic corruption that involves bribes or kickbacks to U.S. public officials. Federal bribery statutes can extend the umbrella to cover spouses who act as an intermediary or co-conspirator in soliciting or accepting a bribe — as in the case of Nadine Menendez, wife of former U.S. Senator Robert Menendez. She was convicted in September of 2025 for accepting bribes from New Jersey businessmen and ordered to pay nearly $1 million.

There are some limitations to what is considered bribery at the federal level, however. Quid pro quo arrangements are prohibited federally, but after-the-fact “gratuities” are not, according to the Court’s opinion in Snyder v. United States (2024). Thus, providing state or local officials with tokens of appreciation does not constitute bribery under federal law, but state or local governments can still pursue such cases depending on state law.

Health care fraud schemes against private insurance plans or patients

The DOJ has long investigated cases under the federal False Claims Act (FCA), which allows whistleblowers to bring cases on behalf of the U.S. government against companies or individuals who knowingly submit false claims for payment to the government. In 2025, the DOJ recovered $6.8 billion from FCA settlements and judgments, of which $5.7 billion was attributed to health care fraud.

The FCA is meant for government fraud and, therefore, covers fraud against government health insurance programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE. Fraud against private insurance companies or patients was not covered by any federal whistleblower reward program until the introduction of the CWA program.

Now, whistleblowers who have information about fraudulent claims submitted to private health insurance companies — for services not provided or “upcoded” services billed at inflated rates, for example — can bring allegations to the DOJ through the CWA program. Whistleblowers may qualify for a reward if their information results in a financial recovery exceeding $1 million.

The DOJ has signaled that it will also consider allegations regarding fraud against patients, which could include patients being improperly charged for services that insurance has already paid for. The DOJ’s previous actions have focused primarily on recoveries under the FCA, but the financial incentives for whistleblowers are likely to drive increased attention to fraud against private insurance companies and patients.

The CWA program fills gaps left by other whistleblower reward programs and sends a clear message: Whistleblowers are encouraged to come forward with information about a wide range of fraud schemes. Those who do may be eligible for financial awards of up to 30% of the first $100 million recovered, with decreasing percentages thereafter.

The Employment Law Group welcomes potential whistleblowers to discuss their case with our experienced whistleblower attorneys.

———-

Janel Quinn is a principal at The Employment Law Group, P.C.; Anthony Primelo is an associate at the firm.

U.S. Government Reports a Potential Overuse of Medically Unnecessary Skin Substitutes

By Janel Quinn and Nina Burris

---

IMPORTANT: The following article is intended as a general summary of facts and law and not as individual legal advice upon which you should rely or act. Every case is unique and specific. This article represents our firm’s best knowledge as of June 2026.

---

Settlements and judgments under the False Claims Act (FCA) exceeded $6.8 billion in Fiscal Year 2025 — the highest amount ever recorded, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Healthcare fraud was the top source of recovered funds with over $5.7 billion involving fraud against Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE.

The FCA, a federal whistleblower law, targets fraud against the government. The FCA’s qui tam provision allows people who learn of fraud to sue on behalf of taxpayers to return ill-gotten gains to the government — and, as a reward, may receive up to 30% of the money they help to recover. Whistleblowers play an important role in government fraud investigations and can be attributed with the filing of over 1,200 cases in FY 2025.

Medically Unnecessary Use of Skin Substitutes and Other Wound Care Products

The DOJ identified “medically unnecessary care” as a major area of healthcare fraud enforcement. New wound care products, particularly high-cost skin substitutes, are susceptible to medically unnecessary use and other forms of fraud intended to increase reimbursements from federally funded healthcare programs.

Skin substitutes — biological or synthetic materials used to treat wounds like burns and ulcers — have seen a rapid increase in use, leaving the federal government concerned about potential fraud. The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) noted in a 2025 report that providers may be overusing skin substitutes or choosing to use more expensive skin substitutes, even when patients don’t require or benefit from it. In the span of two years, Medicare Part B spending on skin substitutes increased 640%.

HHS-OIG identified several situations in skin substitute billing that could be indicative of fraud, including:

• New medical providers whose insurance claims are almost 100% for skin substitutes;
• Specialists, such as psychiatrists, who don’t typically provide wound care yet are billing for skin substitutes;
• The use of skin substitutes for minor wounds such as scrapes and bruises;
• The use of skin substitutes on a patient’s first visit without previously attempting other treatments; and
• Medicare reimbursement requests for skin substitutes that were never purchased.

There may be a couple explanations for the increased use in skin substitutes. HHS-OIG noted that skin substitutes are relatively easier for manufacturers to produce compared to other products. The high reimbursement rate for skin substitutes also creates a temptation for providers to use them — even when not medically necessary.

Reimbursement Changes for Skin Substitutes

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) put into place significant reimbursement changes to curb Medicare spending and reduce incentives for fraudulent billing of skin substitute products.

CMS reclassified skin substitutes in January of 2026 from separately billable biologicals to “incident-to” supplies. Skin substitutes are now considered a regular part of a physician’s service in diagnosing or treating an injury or illness. Therefore, providers can no longer seek additional reimbursement for skin substitutes because these products are bundled into the cost of the overall service.

CMS also revised its reimbursement method. Before 2026, Medicare reimbursed skin substitutes in non-institutional settings — such as physician offices, clinics, and home care — at 106% of the average sales price (ASP). This model created an opportunity for providers to profit by purchasing products at a price below the ASP while receiving reimbursement above the ASP, a practice known as spread pricing. Under the new framework, CMS reimburses skin substitutes at a flat rate of about $127.28 per square centimeter.

This reimbursement change is helpful in making fraud schemes less lucrative, but it won’t completely deter the billing of medically unnecessary wound care services to government programs.

How Whistleblowers Help Against Healthcare Fraud

Whistleblowers often have inside knowledge that is essential for a successful FCA case. Healthcare workers — such as nurses, billers, coders, or sales representatives — may witness provider practices firsthand that can lead to fraudulent billing. This can include:

• Directives from corporate leadership to alter treatment or billing practices to increase revenue;
• Care that does not align with patients’ actual needs, such as using expensive skin substitutes on minor wounds; and
• Changes to electronic medical record (EMR) systems that result in inaccurate or misleading patient charting.

Whistleblowers who pursue FCA claims (also known as “relators”) must show that the defendants knowingly submitted false claims either because they:

• Had actual knowledge of the falsity;
• Acted in deliberate ignorance of the truth; or
• Acted in reckless disregard of the truth.

A 2023 Supreme Court decision clarified that relators don’t have to show a specific intent to defraud the government — only that the defendants had reason to believe the claims they were submitting for payment were not accurate yet chose to continue anyway. This can be demonstrated in several ways, such as:

• Emails or communications showing awareness of compliance risks;
• Internal complaints or warnings that management ignored;
• EMR audit logs reflecting altered records or upcoding (the practice of billing for more expensive services than were provided);
• Audit findings highlighting improper billing; or
• Billing patterns that do not match patient care.

FCA cases remain sealed during the government’s investigation, meaning that the case is not sent to the defendant and the whistleblower’s name is not searchable on public court dockets until the investigation has concluded.

Financial Incentives for Whistleblowers

Whistleblowers who bring successful FCA claims can receive up to 30% of the money recovered in a settlement or judgment. The “relator’s share” is intended to be a reward for a whistleblower’s contribution to an investigation and therefore, can vary depending on how much information and assistance they provide.

Whistleblowers can also be entitled to the costs of litigation, reasonable attorneys’ fees, reinstatement, back pay, and compensation for damages.

The government has increased its efforts to identify and combat wound care fraud in recent years, resulting in several significant settlements and judgments.

In December of 2025, the owners of several wound graft companies in Arizona agreed to pay $309 million to resolve FCA allegations that they overused an expensive biologic skin substitute on patients with small or nonexistent wounds. The company owners submitted over $960 million in fraudulent claims to federal healthcare programs over the course of 18 months, which was brought to the government’s attention by whistleblowers. The company owners were also criminally prosecuted for fraud.

Vohra Wound Physicians Management LLC — one of the nation’s largest providers of wound care services in nursing facilities — and its owner agreed to pay $45 million to resolve FCA allegations that they pressured physicians to perform surgical debridement procedures that were not medically necessary in order to obtain higher reimbursement.

The government also alleged in its complaint that Vohra created false medical records and programmed its EMR software to bill for services that didn’t occur or didn’t qualify as multiple services.

As the Vohra case demonstrates, EMR programming can be instrumental in fraudulent billing schemes and raise red flags for government investigators. Identical patient records, for example, are unlikely to reflect individualized care or treatment plans. Instead, such patterns can indicate that the facility uses a template or manipulates the records to increase reimbursement. Templates that include expensive procedures can suggest a practice of upcoding.

Conclusion

Whistleblowers who work in the healthcare sector are integral to uncovering wound care schemes. The information they provide to government investigators can result in significant monetary recoveries for both the government and the individual relators.

Attorneys with experience in healthcare fraud and FCA cases can help whistleblowers navigate the complex and often changing regulations that govern billing for federally funded healthcare programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE.

If you discover improper billing for wound care or other healthcare services at your workplace, contact The Employment Law Group.

———-

Janel Quinn is a principal at The Employment Law Group, P.C.; Nina Burris is an associate at the firm.