Passenger Rights in Virginia: How Injured Passengers Can Recover After a Car Accident

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025

Passengers involved in a motor vehicle accident almost always have a “good case” to recover for their injuries received in an automobile accident. So long as the passenger did not contribute to the accident in some way, for example by interfering with the driver, the passenger will likely be able to recover monetary damages.

The passenger’s claim can be against many different defendants, such as another vehicle driver that was involved in the crash or a company/individual who contributed to the crash by setting up a dangerous situation in the roadway or even by the passenger’s driver and their vehicle – even if that driver was related to them by blood or marriage or a friend. More and more frequently these days, the passenger may have been injured by the conduct of a professional driver such as an Uber, Lyft, or similar driver, or even a taxi driver. In any of these scenarios, the injuries can be severely debilitating and result in permanent injuries or perhaps temporary or permanent loss of the ability to earn a living.

Virginia law does impose some requirements on all passengers in the vehicle. Of course, the passenger cannot interfere with the driver’s ability to safely operate the vehicle by actions such as grabbing the wheel, covering the driver’s eyes, or similar conduct. Most recently, the Virginia General Assembly passed a law requiring all passengers to continuously wear a seatbelt throughout their transportation. However, if a seatbelt is not worn, the passenger still has a claim. The lack of use of a seatbelt is not admissible evidence in a civil action against a negligent defendant. If the defendant causes the crash, they cannot try to put the blame back on the plaintiff for failure to wear a seatbelt.

Over the years, we have found many severely injured passengers are, at first, reluctant to “blame” their host driver, particularly when the host driver is a family member or close friend. However, this hesitation is frequently overcome when the passenger realizes that almost in every instance their medical bills, lost wages, etc., are covered by the host driver’s insurance. The passenger does not have to go after the assets of their host driver and rarely does anyone attempt to do so. The point is – we all buy and pay for insurance for exactly this reason! If there is a crash, the insurance policy is supposed to pay for any and all damages created by the driver’s negligence up to the policy limits under the contract.

This is precisely the reason we advise families, business owners, and anyone who is purchasing automobile liability insurance to get as much insurance as they can on their own policy. You cannot control the amount of insurance another person may purchase on their specific vehicle. However, we can all control the amount of insurance we purchase on our own vehicle(s) or our business vehicles. It needs to be an amount which could adequately pay for severe injuries by anyone in our vehicles which often will be family members and friends.

It is important to know and understand that automobile insurance is less expensive the more you buy. For example – the first $250,000 in automobile insurance coverage is the most expensive. As the amounts increase, the premiums go down and everyone should purchase a secondary insurance policy called an “umbrella.” This policy is usually connected to a person’s home or business in the amount of $1 million or more. If drafted correctly, this policy can pull all underlying policies up to the amount of the umbrella. For example – if the driver has a $250,000 liability insurance policy on their vehicle, a $1 million umbrella will provide the driver with an additional $750,000 in coverage. This could be extremely important to a severely injured family member or friend or member of another vehicle or pedestrian.

Passengers can also rely on their own automobile insurance coverage if they are injured while occupying or “using” a motor vehicle at the time of their injuries.

The injured passenger may use or recover from their own insurance policy in several different ways. First, most policies have an important provision called “medical payments coverage.” Each policy is in a specific amount and allows the passenger to contact their own insurance company for help in paying their medical care up to the limits of the medical payments policy.

The passenger may also recover from their own insurance company for underinsured or uninsured situations. For example – if their host driver and his/her vehicle has no insurance coverage or minimal insurance coverage, the passenger can potentially recover from their own insurance company for the inadequate coverage which could potentially mean the difference between getting medical care or not or, even worse, bankruptcy.

If you and your loved one or friend is a passenger in a motor vehicle crash and is injured, make sure to:

1. Immediately contact an experienced and knowledgeable Virginia personal injury attorney to advise them about their rights;
2. Inform their own automobile insurance company about the crash and their injuries; and
3. Carefully follow the medical care recommended by the treating physician throughout the pendency of their case.

Contact Gentry Locke today to schedule a consultation and protect your rights.

Using FOIA to Strengthen Your Personal Injury Case

Wednesday, September 24th, 2025

Article written by Investigator Danny Brabham

It is important to know that if you are involved in a personal injury incident that in any way involves a town, county, city, state or federal agency, the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1967 and/or the Virginia Freedom of Information Act of 1968 could prove to be extremely beneficial to your case.

Virginia FOIA

The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was established by the Virginia General Assembly and was enacted on July 1, 1968 to ensure that citizens have access to public records and meetings of public bodies.[1]

The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), like the Federal Freedom of Information Act, has a number of exemptions. They are as follows:

1. Petit juries and grand juries;
2. Family assessment and planning teams established pursuant to §2.2-5207;
3. Sexual assault response teams established pursuant to § 2-1627.4 and human trafficking response teams established pursuant to § 15.2-1627.6, except that records relating to (i) protocols and policies of the sexual assault or human trafficking response team and (ii) guidelines for the community’s response established by the sexual assault or human trafficking response team shall be public records and subject to the provisions of this chapter;
4. Multidisciplinary child sexual abuse response teams established pursuant to § 2-1627.5;
5. The Virginia State Crime Commission; and
6. The records maintained by the clerks of the courts of record, as defined in § 1-212, for which clerks are custodians under § 1-242, and courts not of record, as defined in § 16.1-69.5, for which clerks are custodians under § 16.1-69.54, including those transferred for storage, maintenance, or archiving. Such records shall be requested in accordance with the provisions of §§ 16.1-69.54:1 and 17.1-208, as appropriate. However, other records maintained by the clerks of such courts shall be public records and subject to the provisions of this chapter.

In most personal injury cases in Virginia that involve a motor vehicle crashes, a simple request made to the investigating agency requesting the information below can be exceptionally helpful to you and your attorney prior to the filing of a lawsuit:

• A copy of the investigation officer’s field notes, including, but not limited to, diagrams, measurements, names and contact information for any witnesses, and statements from all parties, including witnesses;
• All dash cam and/or body worn camera footage relating to the motor vehicle crash;
• All photographs taken at the scene of the motor vehicle crash;
• Any CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) produced by the investigating agency.

If your motor vehicle crash involves a tractor trailer or a fatality and was investigated by the Virginia State Police, it would be further helpful to also request a copy of  the Virginia State Police Motor Carrier Post-Crash Investigative Report or a copy of any report, notes, photographs or video produced by any member of an accident reconstruction team.

With an incident that was investigated or handled by an agency other than the Virginia State Police, it is recommended that you contact the jurisdiction involved by telephone to determine who the agency’s Freedom of Information officer is and where to send your request for records.

Costs for Virginia FOIA Requests

The Virginia Freedom of Information statute “allows a public body to make reasonable charges not to exceed its actual cost incurred in accessing, duplicating, supplying, or searching for the requested records at the lowest possible costs.

Also, prior to conducting a search for the records requested, agencies may require a deposit if the estimated charges exceed a certain threshold before proceeding with the request.

In Virginia, the Freedom of Information Advisory Council can be contacted for general questions about FOIA.  Their contact information is as follows:

Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council
900 E. Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804.225.3056

Federal FOIA

The Federal Freedom of Information Act was enacted on July 4, 1966. The Federal Freedom of Information Act mandates all federal agencies to disclose requested information to the public under the FOIA unless it falls under one of the following nine exemptions below that are to protect interests such as personal privacy, privileged communications and law enforcement interests. The following will not be produced:

1. Information that is properly classified under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy;
2. Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
3. Information specifically exempted from disclosure by another statute, if that statute either: (1) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or (2) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld. An Exemption 3 statute must also cite specifically to subsection (b)(3) of the FOIA if enacted after October 28, 2009;
4. Trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is obtained from outside the government and that is privileged or confidential;
5. Records exchanged within or between agencies that are normally privileged in the civil discovery context, such as records protected by the deliberative process privilege (provided the records are less than 25 years old), attorney work-product privilege, or attorney client privilege;
6. Information about individuals in personnel and medical files and similar files when the disclosure of that information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
7. Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information:
8. 1. could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;
   2. would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
   3. could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
   4. could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a state, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis. In the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, it also protects information furnished by the confidential source;
   5. would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law;
   6. could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

8. Information contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; and

9. Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.[2]

Federal Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests should be forwarded to the federal agency that is the “keeper of the record” or the agency responsible for maintaining and managing the record requested. The website https://www.foia.gov allows individuals to search for the correct agency among the four hundred and fifty seven agencies to submit your request to and provides the following information for each agency:

• Agency mission;
• Contact information;
• Average processing time for requests;
• Agency’s website information.

Costs for Federal FOIA Requests

Federal agencies can charge for the direct costs for searching or, reviewing and copying requested records.

The Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice is the agency responsible to providing government-wide guidance on FOIA. Their contact information is as follows:

Office of Information Policy (OIP)
U.S. Department of Justice
441 G Street NW, 6^th Floor
Washington, DC 20530
Email:  National.FOIAPortal@usdoj.gov

Understanding and utilizing FOIA requests can make a significant difference in the strength of your personal injury claim. From securing crash reports and photographs to obtaining body cam footage and investigation notes, these records often provide crucial evidence that may otherwise be difficult to access. Knowing your rights under Virginia and Federal FOIA is a powerful step toward protecting your interests and achieving the best possible outcome. If you need guidance on your personal injury case, contact our experienced attorneys at today.

[1] The full Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) statute 5 U.S.C § 552 can be found online at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodepopularnames/virginia-freedom-of-information-act/.
[2] The full Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) statute 5 U.S.C § 552 can be found online at https://www.justice.gov/oip/freedom-act-5-usc-552.

Pentagon Announces Final Rule Implementing CMMC, Effective November 10, 2025

Thursday, September 18th, 2025

On September 9, 2025, the Department of Defense (DoD) released its long-anticipated final rule implementing the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program. After several years of proposals, public comments, and interim measures, the DoD has now solidified the framework for its revamped CMMC program. The goal: ensure contractors in the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) properly protect sensitive information, particularly Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and Federal Contract Information (FCI), while clarifying legal obligations, streamlining processes, and providing a phased implementation.

The final rule introduces a phased, three-year implementation period that begins on November 10, 2025. At a basic level, the CMMC program changes the current self-assessment model for certifying cybersecurity readiness to a third-party verification model that will require most defense contractors handling CUI to pass a cybersecurity assessment by a “third party assessment organization” (C3PAO).

Key Takeaways for DoD Contractors:

• Phased Implementation – Contracting officers can begin including CMMC requirements in solicitations and contracts beginning November 10, 2025, but this will be a phased rollout and not all contracts and solicitations will contain CMMC clauses as of this date. The majority of solicitations and contracts will not initially require third-party assessments. So when should contractors complete their third-party assessment and certification?
  • This depends on your business’s perspective on risk and opportunity cost. Prime contractors will apply pressure on their subcontractors to become certified, regardless of the immediate presence of CMMC clauses early on in the phased implementation of the rule. Becoming certified may not be immediately required for compliance during the first year of implementation, but it will provide a competitive advantage.
• Subcontractor Management – Higher-tier contractors must confirm that their subcontractor has a “current CMMC status” at the level “appropriate for the information that is being flowed down to the subcontractor” prior to subcontract award. Prime contractors will be responsible for the compliance of subcontractors.
• Affirming Official– The final rule uses the term “affirming official” to describe the individual who the contractor designates to provide the annual attestation of CMMC compliance. This is consistent with the Title 32 CMMC Program rule, and replaces the previous term “senior company official.” Contractors should contemplate which employee will serve in this role, which carries a risk of liability in the event of a false or misleading compliance affirmation.
• False Claims Act Risk – Contractors will be required to certify that there have been no “changes in compliance” following formal certification, which will likely be one of the most perilous traps for inattentive contractors that fail to appropriately monitor their CMMC compliance following certification. The DOJ’s Cyber Fraud Initiative will likely gain momentum as CMMC requirements increasingly show up in contracts.

Recommendations for Competitiveness and Compliance:

• Level of Certification – Contractors should determine the level of certification they should obtain to remain competitive for contracts based on the awards for which they wish to compete. Contractors should review their current contracts with legal counsel to determine the level of certification that will likely apply to them.
• Subcontractor Scoping – Contractors should also review subcontractor agreements to determine if their subcontractors will be in compliance with CMMC requirements. Again, prime contractors will be responsible for the compliance of subcontractors.
• Schedule C3PAO Certification Assessment – Contractors should schedule their CMMC C3PAO assessment as soon as possible if they have not already done so, as availability of C3PAOs is limited due to demand for these assessments. As CMMC requirements begin to appear in contracts, uncertified contractors will lose opportunities and jeopardize relationships with primes.
• Engage Counsel for Data Protection and Compliance Assessment – Engage legal counsel to conduct a privileged data protection assessment to determine the contractor’s ability to meet CMMC requirements, while shielding the findings of the assessment from disclosure during an investigation or litigation. Contractors that do not require a Level 2 C3PAO assessment should be sure to schedule this self-assessment through counsel to ensure accurate self-assessment scores are submitted to the Government.
• Incident Reporting – Do not ignore the other cybersecurity requirements found in the DFARS, including the cyber-incident reporting requirements of DFARS 252.205-7012. Cyber-incidents must be reported by defense contractors within 72 hours of discovery and images of affected systems must be preserved to be in compliance with DFARS 7012. Notably, the CMMC proposed rule incorporated this 72 hour reporting requirement, but the final rule dispensed with the reporting requirement, noting reliance on the requirements found in DFARS 7012.

Protecting Your Organization: Rules on Attorney Contact with Employees

Wednesday, September 17th, 2025

In Virginia, there is an ethical rule that prohibits attorneys that are representing a client from speaking about the subject of representation with another person that is represented by another attorney for that matter.[1]  For example, say Employee A has hired Attorney A to represent her in a claim against Organization B before the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission (“Commission”).  The rule prohibits Organization B’s attorney from talking about the claim with Employee A without either Attorney A’s presence or permission, i.e. Organization B’s attorney could not have an ex parte communication with Employee A.

But what about the reverse?  Does Attorney A have to go through Organization B’s attorney to speak about the claim with every individual associated or employed with Organization B?  The answer is no, but there are categories of individuals associated with Organization B where Attorney A must go through Organization B’s attorney.

Along with the ethical rules that attorneys must adhere to in Virginia, there are comments that help attorneys in interpreting and applying the ethical rules in various cases.[2]  One of the comments to the rule on ex parte communications between attorneys and represented parties deals specifically with represented organizations.[3]  Prior to January 6, 2021, that comment to the rule indicated that it was prohibited for an attorney to communicate with the “organization’s ‘control group’ as defined in Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981).”[4]  Essentially, if an organization’s employee could bind the organization based on their status or position, then an attorney could not have an ex parte communication with that employee.[5]

However, the comment on ex parte communications between attorneys and represented parties was rewritten and adopted on January 6, 2021.[6]  The rewritten comment expanded the class of employees that attorneys cannot have ex parte communications with from individuals in the organization’s “control group” to three categories of individuals that either (1) supervise, direct, or regularly consult with the organization’s attorney concerning a represented matter; (2) have authority to obligate the organization with respect to a represented matter; or (3) whose act or omission in connection with the matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability.[7]  Additionally, the employee must still be employed by the organization.[8]

The employees of an organization who use to fit into the definition of “control group,” e.g. officers, directors, and managers, will most likely always fit into of these new three categories, particularly the second or third, based on their inherent authority and the possible imputation of their acts or omissions to the organization.[9]  But, depending on the facts and circumstances of a claim before the Commission, other employees may or may not fit into one of these categories.[10]

Going back to the above example, say another employee, Employee C, who has no managerial duties witnessed the accident where Employee A was injured.  Employee C would most likely not fit into one of the rule’s three categories, so Attorney A would most likely be able to have ex parte communications with Employee C.[11]

However, say a third employee, Employee D, who also has no managerial duties caused in the course of his duties the accident that injured Employee A.  Employee D could possibly fit into the third category of the rule since his act may be imputed to Organization B for civil liability, so Attorney A would likely have to go through Organization B’s attorney to communicate with Employee D.[12]

While the updated comment to the rule provides help in determining whether an attorney is prohibited from ex parte communications with an employee, the analysis to reach this determination can still be tough.  In going through this analysis, there are two questions that can help: (1) does this employee have access and knowledge of privileged communications between the organization and the organization’s attorney that might be revealed in an ex parte communication; and (2) can the statements of this employee in an ex parte communication bind the organization to certain actions regarding a claim before the Commission?  If the answer is yes to either one, the employee is likely one that an attorney prohibited from having ex parte communications.

So what does it mean if an attorney can have an ex parte communication with a particular employee?  In dealing with this issue under the previous version of the comment to the rule, the Commission stated that the organization and its attorneys had to turn over the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of employment to the employee and his attorney that filed a claim so that the employee’s attorney could talk with each of those employees without the presence or permission of the organization’s attorney.[13]  However, in a later case, the Commission ruled that an employer had to turn over this information with respect to employees that worked in close physical proximity and time to the employee that filed a claim.[14]

Therefore, if an employer organization is facing a claim from an employee and is asked to provide contact information from potential witnesses as part of discovery, it is essential to do an analysis under the rule to see whether the organization has to turn over certain employee-witness information.  The employee-claimant’s attorney might not be able to speak with certain employee-witnesses without the presence or permission of the organization’s attorney.

[1] Va. Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2.
[2] See generally Va. Rules of Professional Conduct.
[3] Comment 7 of Va. Rule of Professional Conduct.
[4] See Nava v. Hanover Country Club, VWC File No. 223-30-02 (Mar. 7, 2006) (citing the Note to Rule 4.2 that dealt with represented organizations).
[5] See id.
[6] See Va. Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2.
[7] Comment 7 of Va. Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2.
[8] Id.
[9] See id.
[10] See id.
[11] See id.
[12] See id.
[13] See Nava v. Hanover Country Club, VWC File No. 223-30-02 (Mar. 7, 2006).
[14] See Lynch v. VC Health Sys. Auth., VWC File No. VA000-0017-7807 (Sept. 30, 2010).

When Words Cross the Line: Lessons from a $1 Million Defamation Verdict

Monday, September 15th, 2025

In July 2022, a former Virginia state senator, Brandon Bell, and his wife, Deborah Bell, sent a letter on state Senate letterhead accusing a 15-year-old Cave Spring High School student of sexually assaulting their daughter. Three years later, a Roanoke County jury ruled that the Bells’ accusations were not only false but defamatory per se, and awarded the plaintiff, Jane Doe, $1 million in damages plus pre-judgment interest.

Background: The dispute traces back to 2021, when Jane Doe, then a high school sophomore, and the Bells’ daughter, began a same-sex relationship after meeting in band. Both testified that the relationship involved kissing, hugging, and hand-holding, but no sexual activity.

The Bells’ daughter eventually disclosed the relationship to her parents, who instructed their daughter to break off the relationship. A few weeks later, the Bells’ daughter reported to them that Jane Doe had touched her back because her hands were cold, and Jane Doe had kissed her without asking for consent.

The Bells reported these events to the school principal as sexual assaults. But when the principal spoke to the Bells’ daughter, she did not corroborate the sexual assault allegations and admitted that she had lied to her parents about continuing the relationship with Jane Doe. The principal relayed that information back to the Bells.

Despite this, four months later the Bells drafted a letter, sent on Mr. Bell’s retired Senate letterhead, accusing Jane Doe of sexually assaulting his daughter “on two occasions” at their high school. He copied the entire Roanoke County School Board, the state superintendent of education, the secretary of education, and several state legislators. Jane Doe filed suit for defamation, defamation per se and insulting words.

Defamation Per Se:  Virginia recognizes certain categories of false statements as defamation per se, including false allegations of (1) a crime of moral turpitude; (2) contagious diseases; (3) related to a person’s fitness to perform their job; or (4) that directly harm the person’s ability to earn a living in their profession or trade.

A crime of moral turpitude is a crime involving lying, cheating, or stealing or a crime that is punishable by imprisonment or an act otherwise base and vile and against community standards. The Court ruled that false allegations of sexual assault are defamatory per se – thus damages were presumed.

Jane Doe nonsuited the defamation and insulting words claims and proceeded only on the defamation per se claim.

Qualified Privilege: One of the central legal questions was whether the Bells’ communications were shielded by the qualified privilege. Virginia law recognizes a privilege when a person makes a statement to others who share a corresponding interest or duty in the subject matter — in this case, parents communicating with school officials about their child’s welfare.

The Court ruled that the Bells’ letter initially qualified for this protection.

A plaintiff can overcome the privilege by proving by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants abused the privilege. The defendants abuse the privilege when they make the statement (1) knowing it was false or with a reckless disregard for the truth; (2) to additional persons having no interest or duty in the subject matter; (3) in bad faith; (4) with unnecessarily insulting words or strong language disproportionate to the circumstances; or (5) out of personal ill will, spite or hatred.

At trial, the two main issues on liability were whether the sexual assault allegations were false and whether the Bells abused the privilege. In making the first determination, the jury relied on “the common understanding” in the community. The evidence showed that the cold hand on the back incident was not sexual in nature, and was a joke rather than an intentional, unwanted touching. The evidence also showed that while Jane Doe did not ask permission to kiss the Bells’ daughter, they had previously kissed and the Bells’ daughter wrote Jane Doe a note a couple days before the kiss, saying she could not wait to kiss Jane Doe again.

The evidence also showed that the Bells had no information to suggest either incident was a sexual assault and the principal informed them that their daughter had confessed to lying about continuing the relationship. The Bells never took their daughter to the police until after Jane Doe filed her lawsuit and over 250 days after the alleged assaults occurred. The evidence also showed that the visit was not out of concern for their daughter — but instead to stop the lawsuit.

The Bells tried to frame their actions as simply those of concerned parents. In doing so, they blamed their daughter for lying to them, and they blamed the principal and other school officials for not addressing their concerns in a manner that satisfied them.

After three days of trial, the jury found both of the Bells liable for defamation per se and that both of them abused the privilege. They awarded Jane Doe $500,000 in compensatory damages, $500,000 in punitive damages, and also awarded pre-judgment interest.

Does My Virginia Lawsuit Belong in General District Court, Circuit Court, or Federal Court?

Thursday, September 11th, 2025

As a plaintiff personal injury attorney, clients often wonder which court their case will be filed in. This article will discuss the three trial courts in which a Virginia civil lawsuit can potentially be filed—general district court, circuit court, and federal district court.

General District Court

In Virginia, general district courts have jurisdiction over almost all types of civil claims up to $50,000.[1] In other words, any claim for breach of contract, personal injury, or property damage not exceeding $50,000 can be filed in general district court.[2] If you have a contract, personal injury, or property damage claim for $4,500 or less, then it must be filed in general district court.[3] In general district court, a judge will hear your case—there are no juries. General district court can be an advantageous place to file a lawsuit if you have a small claim. This court is designed to handle a large volume of smaller claims, which means that your case will go to trial much faster than in circuit court or federal court. Additionally, litigation is much cheaper in general district court because the filing fees are lower and the discovery process is very limited.

Circuit Court

In Virginia, circuit courts have jurisdiction over all civil claims exceeding $4,500.[4] This means that if you have a contract, personal injury, or property damage claim between $4,501 and $50,000, then you have a choice of filing your case in either general district court or circuit court. If your claim is for more than $50,000, then you must file it in either circuit court or federal court, but it can only be filed in federal court under certain circumstances, as discussed below.

In circuit court, both judges and juries decide cases, depending on the nature of the dispute and whether a jury trial has been demanded by the parties. In circuit court, parties can conduct a significant amount of discovery by taking depositions and sending written interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admission, subpoenas duces tecum, etc. Due to the higher value of the claims and additional discovery methods, circuit court cases often do not go to trial until a year or two after they are filed. The additional discovery methods also increase litigation costs and attorney’s fees when compared to general district court.

Federal District Court

Certain types of lawsuits can be filed in federal district court. Generally, these lawsuits fall into two buckets: (1) cases involving a federal question, and (2) cases involving diversity of citizenship where the amount in controversy is $75,000 or more.[5] Federal question jurisdiction is when your claim arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.[6] In other words, if you are seeking a court order to hold that a law is unconstitutional or you are suing someone for a cause of action that is provided under a federal statute, then you can file your lawsuit in federal district court.[7] You can also file your case in federal district court if the defendants are citizens of states different from your state of citizenship and the amount in controversy is $75,000 or more.[8] This is called diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Federal district court is more like Virginia circuit court than general district court. In federal district court, both judges and juries decide cases, depending on the nature of the dispute and whether a jury trial has been demanded by the parties. Just like circuit court, parties can conduct a significant amount of discovery by taking depositions and sending written interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admission, subpoenas duces tecum, etc. It generally takes a year or more for your case to go to trial. Although there are many similarities between federal district court and Virginia circuit court, there are also many differences. Federal district courts adhere to their own rules of civil procedure and rules of evidence. Additionally, in federal district court, juries are selected from a larger geographic area.

Which Court Do I File My Lawsuit In?

If you file your lawsuit in the wrong court, it will likely be dismissed and depending on whether the statute of limitations has run, you might not be able to refile the lawsuit in the correct court. All three courts have different rules, which can greatly influence your chances of prevailing. Often, claims can be filed in multiple courts, and there are many practical and strategic considerations when deciding where to file. Additionally, sometimes a case can be transferred, appealed, or removed from one court to another. This is why it is imperative to retain a Virginia trial lawyer that handles cases in all three courts. An attorney that handles cases in all three courts will be intimately familiar with the rules of each, and they will be able to properly advise you where your Virginia lawsuit belongs.

If you have questions about where your lawsuit should be filed or need guidance navigating Virginia’s court system, the experienced trial attorneys at Gentry Locke are here to help. Our team regularly represents clients in general district court, circuit court, and federal court, and we understand the strategies and nuances unique to each. Contact us today to discuss your case and learn how we can protect your rights and pursue the best possible outcome for you.

[1] See Va. Code § 16.1-77.
[2] See id.
[3] See id.
[4] See id.; Va. Code § 17.1-513.
[5] See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
[6] See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
[7] See id.
[8] See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Advisory Note: Recent Ruling Deems Certain Tariffs Unlawful

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2025

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that President Trump’s attempt to bypass Congress and impose sweeping tariffs on foreign products was unlawful. The Trump administration had argued that import duties are necessary to strengthen the U.S. economy, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 7-4 that the Trump administration went too far when he declared national emergencies to justify tariffs on other countries writing that “it seems unlikely that Congress intended to… grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.” The ruling did not take effect immediately and provided the administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Small businesses and Democratic states brought the case challenging the tariffs and argued that the President has exceeded his authority in issuing the import duties. The appeals court’s decision is focused on the tariffs President Trump imposed in April on most trading partners, along with earlier levies on China, Mexico, and Canada. On April 2 — or Liberation Day as it was called — the administration imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the U.S. runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. Many of the tariffs have been on and off again as the administration suspended tariffs from time to time.

The administration justified the taxes under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits “a national emergency.” In February, the administration invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that illegal immigration and drug trafficking amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and President Trump has made the most of it.

The court’s ruling does not encompass the levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the administration imposed under a different regulation after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that President Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the U.S. and other Western countries.

On to the Supreme Court.

The President vowed to take the fight to the Supreme Court. The dissenting judges foreshadowed a possible argument for the administration that the 1977 law allowing for emergency actions “is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority under the Supreme Court’s decisions” that have allowed the legislature to grant some tariffing authorities to the President.

If President Trump’s tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it has collected. Tariffs are paid by U.S. importers, such as American manufacturers or retailers that rely on foreign-made products. While the U.S. companies typically swallow some of the cost, they pass on much of the added expenses to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Future Tariffs By Different Authority?

For instance, in its decision in May, the trade court noted that President Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and to just 150 days on countries with which the U.S. runs big trade deficits.

The administration could also invoke levies under a different legal authority — Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — as it did with tariffs on foreign steel, aluminum and automobiles. But that requires a Commerce Department investigation and cannot be imposed at the President’s sole discretion.

What About the Tariffs That Businesses Already Paid?

If the ruling that the tariffs were unlawful stands, payors or duties will have 180 days to file a claim for duties previously paid. Courts have consistently recognized the right to recover unlawfully collected tariffs, provided claimants adhere to procedural requirements. Administrative remedies must be pursued before initiating litigation, a principle applicable to customs refunds under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 and 19 U.S.C. § 1520.

When a tariff is declared unlawful, importers must pursue administrative remedies through U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) before seeking judicial relief. These remedies are governed by the Tariff Act of 1930:

• 19 U.S.C. § 1514: Allows importers to file a protest against a CBP decision within 180 days of liquidation. This is the primary statutory mechanism to contest the imposition of duties.

• 19 U.S.C. § 1520(a)(4): Permits refunds based on clerical error, mistake of fact, or other inadvertence, but not errors of law. This provision may apply in certain procedural missteps related to entry documentation.

The specific process depends on the liquidation status of the entry, which is the final assessment of the amount due made after payment of the estimated duties. Before liquidation, importers may file Post-Summary Corrections (PSCs) to amend the entry and recover overpaid duties. After liquidation, importers must file a formal protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514. While protests are generally submitted using CBP Form 19, any signed document that contests a CBP decision may qualify.

If CBP fails to act or denies relief, judicial review is available through the Court of International Trade. Importers should promptly assess the liquidation status of their entries and initiate the appropriate refund mechanism to preserve their rights.

Gentry Locke Can Help.

Spoliation & Preservation of Evidence in Virginia Personal Injury Lawsuits

Wednesday, July 23rd, 2025

Let’s say you were in the unfortunate situation of being involved in a traumatic accident where a lawsuit may be on the horizon. It could be a car wreck, tractor-trailer crash, motorcycle crash, boat crash, plane crash, medical malpractice, slip-and-fall accident, etc. You may be the injured person (potential plaintiff) or you may be the person at fault (potential defendant).

No matter the type of accident, if you are a potential plaintiff or potential defendant and the accident happened in Virginia, then you have “a duty to preserve evidence that may be relevant to reasonably foreseeable litigation.”[1] Failing to follow the law can result in “spoliation” sanctions. But what does this mean? What is spoliation? When does the duty to preserve evidence arise? What are the consequences of failing to preserve evidence? What do you do if the other party destroys evidence? This article will summarize Virginia spoliation law, with a focus on Virginia personal injury lawsuits.

What is Spoliation?

The Supreme Court of Virginia has stated: “[s]poliation of evidence occurs when a party is aware that there is pending or probable litigation involving evidence in the party’s custody or under its control, and such evidence if destroyed or otherwise not preserved will interfere with the ability of the adverse party to establish some element of its claim.”[2] Similarly, federal courts have stated: “[s]poliation refers to the destruction or material alteration of evidence or to the failure to preserve property for another’s use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.”[3] Basically, this means that you must save any and all relevant evidence once litigation is reasonably foreseeable, and if you do not save such evidence, then there may be legal consequences in future litigation.

When Does the Duty to Preserve Evidence Arise?

In Virginia, the judge determines “whether and at what point . . . a duty to preserve arose,” and the court must consider “the totality of the circumstances, including the extent to which the party or potential litigant was on notice that specific and identifiable litigation was likely and that the evidence would be relevant.”[4]

The most obvious form of spoliation is when someone intentionally deletes or destroys relevant evidence (such as documents, emails, etc.) after litigation is pending.[5] However, spoliation may also occur before litigation is instituted.

One way for potential litigants to protect themselves and to ensure that other parties preserve relevant evidence is to send a “litigation hold,” “preservation,” or “spoliation” letter to the other parties as soon as possible after the accident.

Spoliation letters do the following:

1. Inform the other parties that future litigation is likely;
2. Request the preservation of relevant information and documents;
3. Provide information about how to preserve relevant evidence; and
4. Caution the other parties of the potential consequences of their failure to preserve such evidence.

A good spoliation letter will be detailed and specifically list the types of documents and evidence that may be relevant to the contemplated litigation.

We routinely send preservation letters in our catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases. These letters protect a potential plaintiff’s rights. They serve two main purposes: (1) to persuade the other parties to preserve relevant evidence, and (2) to put the other parties on notice of litigation. That way, the highly relevant evidence is preserved, and if it is not, then we can seek a spoliation remedy against the spoliating party in future litigation.

Preservation letters should be sent to other parties as soon as possible and by as many methods as possible, including email, mail, and certified mail. Often, the at-fault parties are the ones in possession of the strongest evidence. For example, let’s say you were injured from a slip-and-fall incident at a retail store. The surveillance camera footage at such stores is often overwritten within 30 days. If the retail store does not receive a litigation hold letter requesting preservation of the footage within that time frame and the surveillance video is lost, then they will likely argue that they were not contemplating the litigation and the footage was overwritten without any fault of their own. However, if you have proof that the store received a preservation letter by certified mail shortly after the accident that specifically requested preservation of the video showing the accident, then you have a much stronger argument for a spoliation remedy. This is why it is important for those injured in traumatic accidents to retain a Virginia personal injury lawyer as soon as possible.

It should be noted that spoliation may even occur before the party receives a preservation letter.[6] The focus is on the “totality of the circumstances.” Obviously, a motorist with a dashcam who runs a red light, T-bones another vehicle, severely injures the occupants, is charged with failure to obey the traffic signal, and reports the crash to their liability carrier should know that they need to save the dashcam footage, even if they have not received a spoliation letter.

Consequences of Spoliation

Under Virginia law, courts may impose spoliation sanctions under Virginia Code § 8.01-379.2:1. Under federal law, “[t]he right to impose sanctions for spoliation arises from a court’s inherent power to control the judicial process and litigation.”[7] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) governs spoliation of electronically stored information (ESI) in federal courts. The rationale for remedying spoliation “is the need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process in order to retain confidence that the process works to uncover the truth.”[8]

Virginia Code § 8.01-379.2:1(B) states that if evidence “that should have been preserved in the anticipation . . . of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it . . . and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery,” then the court can take certain measures to remedy the spoliation of evidence, depending on the spoliating party’s level of intent.

Negligent Spoliation

If the spoliating party negligently failed to preserve the evidence and the court finds prejudice to another party due to the loss of the evidence, then the court “may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice.”[9] Given that Virginia’s spoliation statute was enacted in 2019, there is limited caselaw on this issue, and attorneys should be creative when arguing for the proper remedy “necessary to cure the prejudice.”

The language of Virginia’s spoliation statute is very similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e).[10] The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 37(e) state the following:

Once a finding of prejudice is made, the court is authorized to employ measures ‘no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice.’ The range of such measures is quite broad if they are necessary for this purpose. There is no all-purpose hierarchy of the severity of various measures; the severity of given measures must be calibrated in terms of their effect on the particular case. But authority to order measures no greater than necessary to cure prejudice does not require the court to adopt measures to cure every possible prejudicial effect. Much is entrusted to the court’s discretion.

In an appropriate case, it may be that serious measures are necessary to cure prejudice found by the court, such as forbidding the party that failed to preserve information from putting on certain evidence, permitting the parties to present evidence and argument to the jury regarding the loss of information, or giving the jury instructions to assist in its evaluation of such evidence or argument. . . .[11]

However, if the spoliating party was merely negligent, then the court cannot do the following: (1) presume the evidence was unfavorable to the spoliating party, (2) instruct the jury that the evidence was unfavorable to the spoliating party, (3) dismiss the spoliating party’s action, or (4) enter default judgment for the non-spoliating party.[12] Those measures are reserved for a higher level of intent.

Reckless or Intentional Spoliation

If the spoliating party “acted recklessly or with the intent to deprive another party of the evidence’s use in the litigation,” then the court may:

1. “[P]resume that the evidence was unfavorable to the party,”
2. “[I]nstruct the jury that it may or shall presume that the evidence was unfavorable to the party,” or
3. “[D]ismiss the action or enter a default judgment.”[13]

Interestingly, although Virginia’s spoliation statute and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) both state that there must be a finding of prejudice for the court to take measures to remedy negligent spoliation, the statute and rule do not specifically require a finding of prejudice when the spoliation was intentional.[14] This contemplates that a non-spoliating party could move for a spoliation sanction in instances where the spoliating party acted intentionally, even if the loss of the evidence was harmless, as long as such evidence “cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery.”[15] Presumably, the statute and rule are worded in this manner to protect the judicial process by providing extra deterrent measures for intentional spoliation.

Can You Sue Someone For Spoliation?

No, neither Virginia nor federal law allow you to sue someone for spoliation. Virginia’s spoliation statute states: “Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating an independent cause of action for negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence.”[16] Caselaw makes it clear that there is no cause of action for spoliation under federal law either.[17] Claims for “spoliation” or “destruction of evidence” will be dismissed.[18]

Although you cannot sue someone for spoliation, if you are injured due to another’s negligence and you believe the other party has negligently or intentionally failed to properly preserve relevant evidence, then contact us today for a free consultation. Our Virginia personal injury and wrongful death attorneys are knowledgeable about Virginia’s spoliation law and we can take proper measures to protect your rights.

[1] Va. Code § 8.01-379.2:1(A).
[2] Emerald Point, LLC v. Hawkins, 294 Va. 544, 556 (2017) (emphasis added).
[3] Silvestri v. GMC, 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 779 (2d. Cir. 1999)).
[4] Va. Code § 8.01-379.2:1(A).
[5] See, e.g., Atl. Diving Supply, Inc. v. Komornik, 113 Va. Cir. 179, 190 (Norfolk 2024) (“There is also definitive proof that Hanford intentionally destroyed evidence . . . during the course of litigation.”).
[6] See id. at 193 (“The Court is not persuaded by Hanford’s arguments, including but not limited to his assertion that he had no duty preserve evidence prior to the date of the litigation hold letter.”).
[7] Silvestri v. GMC, 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001).
[8] Id.
[9] Va. Code § 8.01-379.2:1(B).
[10] Compare Va. Code § 8.01-379.2:1(B) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).
[11] Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) advisory committee’s note.
[12] See Va. Code § 8.01-379.2:1(B).
[13] Id.; see, e.g., Atl. Diving Supply, Inc. v. Komornik, 113 Va. Cir. 179, 194 (Norfolk 2024) (presuming that the evidence the spoliating party failed to preserve was prejudicial to him where he acted in bad faith and failed to preserve material evidence while aware of pending or actual litigation).
[14] See Va. Code § 8.01-379.2:1(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e).
[15] Va. Code § 8.01-379.2:1(B).
[16] Va. Code § 8.01-379.2:1(C).
[17] Turner v. United States, 736 F.3d 274, 282 n.5 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Spoliation of evidence, standing alone, does not constitute a basis for a civil action under either federal or admiralty law.”); Silvestri v. GMC, 271 F.3d 583, 590 (4th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he acts of spoliation do not themselves give rise in civil cases to substantive claims or defenses.”).
[18] See, e.g., Gill v. Food Lion, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23838, at *27 (W.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2025) (“Because spoliation of evidence is not a recognized cause of action, the court must dismiss this claim as well.”); Mayhew v. Harris, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27623, at *9 (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2023) (“Because spoliation of evidence is not a cause of action, Count III will be struck.”).

You or Your Loved One Is Scheduled for Surgery: A Checklist of Things to Do Before Admission

Thursday, July 17th, 2025

If you or your loved one is scheduled to have surgery in the near future, there are a number of things that you should do prior to admission to the hospital. Many of these things your attorney can help you accomplish and some you may accomplish on your own.

Investigate the Doctor or Surgeon

First, you should investigate the doctor and/or surgeon that will be the primary caregiver while you or your loved one is hospitalized. Investigation of a healthcare provider is relatively easy and can be accomplished by going on the Virginia Department of Health Professions official website and accessing the Virginia Board of Medicine Practitioner information page at Virginia Board of Medicine.

Once on the webpage, click on the Practitioner Information tab. Scroll to the bottom, where you can enter the name of the doctor or surgeon. After selecting the physician, you will be presented with a menu of available information, including:

• General information
• Education and certifications
• Practice areas
• Insurance
• Honors and awards
• Academic appointments and publications
• Disciplinary proceedings, actions, convictions, and paid claims

All of this information can be very helpful in determining whether you believe that the physician is someone that you would be confident in allowing to provide care to you or your loved one. In particular, you will be able to see whether the doctor has settled any malpractice claims and whether the Board of Medicine has issued any actions or censure for the doctor’s conduct.

Confirm Board Certification

This information is also helpful in confirming whether the doctor has the necessary credentials and experience to render adequate care. For example, is the physician Board certified in their specialty? Board certification is granted after passing a comprehensive exam administered by the relevant medical board to ensure the doctor has sufficient knowledge in their area of practice. Most doctors are required to recertify periodically to maintain their certification.

Arrange for an Advocate

Before admission, it’s wise to arrange for someone to act as an advocate for you or your loved one while in the hospital. It is always a good idea to have someone with you or your loved one when meeting with doctors or other healthcare professionals. This person can ask additional questions and help you or your loved one remember what was discussed with medical personnel. It is always good to take notes during these meetings.

Establish a Power of Attorney (POA)

Another important step is to have a Power of Attorney (POA) in place prior to being hospitalized. A POA allows you or your loved one to give another person the power to make decisions in case you or your loved one is unable to do so. The person appointed as POA should be a person that understands your or your loved one’s wishes and is trustworthy. An attorney can help execute a valid POA.

Consider an Advance Medical Directive

You or your loved one should consider executing an Advanced Medical Directive. People often refer to this document as a living will. An attorney can help do this as well. An Advanced Medical Directive will govern what medical treatments are wanted or not wanted in case you or your loved one are unable to make those decisions. For example, an Advanced Medical Directive will let healthcare providers know of your or your loved one’s wishes concerning being kept alive with article measures such as ventilators or feeding tubes. It will also determine whether you or your loved one wish to be resuscitated.

Your lawyer can help you or your loved one prepare for an admission to the hospital. He or she can prepare the appropriate legal documents and can assist looking into the healthcare provider that will be rendering your or your loved one’s care. If you have questions about preparing for surgery or need assistance with legal documents such as a Power of Attorney or Advance Medical Directive, our experienced attorneys at Gentry Locke are here to help. We can guide you through the process to ensure that you and your loved ones are protected and informed.

EEOC Opens Portal for EEO-1 Filing

Tuesday, May 27th, 2025

On May 20, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) opened the portal for the submission of the 2024 EEO-1 Component No. 1 Report. All private sector employers with 100 or more employees are required to file their annual workforce demographic report by no later than 11:00pm EDST on June 24, 2025.[1]

The EEOC has a dedicated landing page for this portal, and has provided an updated 2024 EEO-1 Component Instruction Booklet and a host of Fact Sheets, FAQs and other guidance documents to assist with the filing which can be accessed here.

Since 1966, larger employers have been required to submit EEO-1 reports which contain sensitive demographic data (sex and race or ethnicity) on their workforce using 10 job categories set by the EEOC. The report must include the required data on all full-time and part-time employees employed by the company during any part of the “snapshot period” – that is the pay period falling within the 4^th Quarter of 2024 (October 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024) selected by the employer. This means all employees who worked for the company even one day during the snapshot period must be accounted for in the EEO-1 report, as well as those who employment terminated after the snapshot period.

The EEOC uses the information submitted to investigate charges of employment discrimination against employers and to publish periodic reports that use aggregate numbers obtained from the EEO-1’s workforce demographics. Otherwise, EEO-1 reports are confidential and may not be made public by the EEOC unless it files a Title VII claim involving such information.[2] If an employer fails to timely file the 2024 report, the employer will be “out of compliance” with their mandatory filing obligations. No late submissions will be accepted, and the EEOC may file suit to obtain an order requiring the providing of the data.

The same day the portal for 2024 data was opened EEOC’s Acting Chair Andrea Lucas issued a message cautioning employers not to use of the collected and reported demographic data to “facilitate unlawful discrimination” based on race, sex, or other characteristics protected by Title VII. She noted in that in her view “there is no ‘diversity’ exception to Title VII requirements,” and she reminded employers of President Trump decision to “deprioritize disparate impact enforcement.” In closing she made a final cautionary observation to employer by saying “you must not use the information collected and reported in … the EEO-1 report to justify treating employees differently based on their race, sex or other protected characteristic.”  [See full message here.]

KEY POINTS

EEO-1 reports can only be filed electronically through the EEOC’s web-based data collection application referred to as the On-Line Filing System (“OFS”). Reports submitted in paper submission or electronically outside the OFS system will not be accepted.

Some companies may be required to file more than one report based on structure and size. Companies are only required to report on establishments located in the United States, not in foreign countries.

A foreign-owned company that has more than 100 employees working within the US must file one or more reports depending on the establishment structure.

Companies must include remote workers working in the US in the EEO-1, and these employees are to be included in report for the establishment to which that employee reports, or the location where their manager or supervisor is based. The employee’s home address is never to be used.

Employers do not need to use the same workforce snapshot period in this 2024 report that it used when submitting reports in prior years.

EEO-1 reports require employers to submit the demographic data utilizing 10 job categories established by the EEOC. The EEOC has issued a Fact Sheet that helps explain each category to help assist employers to select the category which best reflects the job function performed by its employees. Here is a link to this fact sheet.

The person filing the EEO-1 report must be an employee of the company submitting the report and must have their own user account associated with their email. This person will be the “Certifying Official” who must certify under penalty of law that “the information, including the workforce demographic data, provided is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and was prepared in conformity with the directions set forth in the form and accompanying instructions.”

If you have any questions regarding your company’s obligations to make this type of report and proper means to do so, please do not hesitate to contact any member of Gentry Locke’s Employment Team.

[1] In addition, the EEOC’s 2024 Manual issued on May 20, 2025, indicates that federal government contractors with 50 or more employees and $50,000 or more in contracts continue to be obligated to file an EEO-1 report even though the Ex. Order 11246, which was the legal basis for this filing, was rescinded by President Trump on January 21, 2025.
[2] Additionally, the EEOC may share an EEO-1 report with the OFCCP, federal law enforcement agencies and state agencies under agreements that require protection of confidentiality.

Photo from bangoland/Shutterstock