Ask The Lawyer

By Debra Roth

No ‘high times’ for federal employees

Bookmark and Share

With the legalization of marijuana for recreational use by the states of Colorado and Washington, and the growing number of states (and the District of Columbia) that have legalized the drug for medical purposes, there’s discussion among the federal workforce wondering how this affects them. What I typically hear is: “if it’s legal for me to smoke marijuana on vacation in Colorado, how can the federal government come after me for it?”

The answer is quite simple. Since 1970, marijuana has been a Schedule I substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act and it remains so today. That means any use of marijuana is illegal under federal law, regardless of state law. As a federal employee, yes you must comply with federal law or suffer job consequences.

Whether and how the federal government chooses to enforce the federal criminalization of marijuana is also irrelevant to your federal employment, as long as it remains covered by the Controlled Substances Act. This is due to a 1986 Executive Order (EO 12564) issued by then-President Reagan, which mandates the federal workplace as a drug free workplace. Specifically, Section 1 of the Executive Order 1) requires federal employees “to refrain from the use of illegal drugs,” 2) establishes that “the use of illegal drugs by Federal employees, whether on duty or off duty, is contrary to the efficiency of the service,” and 3) holds that “persons who use illegal drugs are not suitable for Federal employment.”

So even if your federal position does not require a security clearance or subject you to random drug testing, use of an illegal drug by a federal employee is prohibited. This prohibition means that a misconduct action could be taken against you for on- or off-duty marijuana use, and such use can adversely affect a determination on whether you are “suitable” for federal employment.

Expect also to place your security clearance in jeopardy for current and future recreational use in a legalized state. It’s the federal government that issues security clearances, not the states. and intuitively you should know you must comply with federal law to obtain a clearance. Indeed, question 23 of the SF-86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, the form every person must complete to be considered for a security clearance, requires you truthfully disclose whether “in the last seven (7) years have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances? Use of a drug or controlled substance includes injecting, snorting, inhaling, swallowing, experimenting with or otherwise consuming any drug or controlled substance.” Marijuana is specifically listed. There are a series of sub-questions that ask about the time period and nature of your use, including whether your use occurred “while possessing a security clearance.” The form does not inquire whether your use occurred in a state where marijuana is legal. These inquiries should also serve to inform you how seriously the federal employer considers the use of marijuana for purposes of obtaining a security clearance.

And just to drive this point home, the government-wide adjudicative guidelines used to determine a person’s eligibility for a security clearance, list as Guideline 8 “Drug Involvement.” This guideline states the government’s concern with the “use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug” as raising questions about a person’s “reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person‘s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” For me, that’s all you need to know if you hold or intend to be issued a security clearance. What the government wants to know is your track record on complying with law, and federal law still prohibits the sale, distribution and use of marijuana.

In sum, with the benefits of federal employment comes the obligation to comply with federal law, which as of now, strictly prohibits use of marijuana.

Q & A Session: Precluding Retirement to Prevent Annuity Apportionment

Bookmark and Share

Q:

Can a federal employee preclude retirement when they reach the maximum retirement percentage in order to prevent a former spouse from receiving their court ordered annuity apportionment?

A:

Yes, if you keep working, then you will not be a retiree, and thus will not receive an annuity.  If you are not receiving an annuity, then your former spouse will not receive the court ordered portion of the annuity.  Unless you are in a position which has a mandatory retirement age, you can continue to work even after you “max out.”  However, you should keep in mind that court orders are not designed to be easily evaded by individuals who hope that they will not have to pay a former spouse what a judge has determined is legally due.  Once you retire, if the court order has been properly filed with OPM or your employing Agency, then you former spouse will very likely receive what he or she was apportioned in the court order.

This response is written by Michael S. Causey, associate attorney of Shaw Bransford & Roth PC, a federal employment law firm.

Disclaimer: Ask a Lawyer publishes information on this website for informational purposes only. Information on this website is intended – but not promised, guaranteed, or warranted – to reflect correct, complete and current developments. In addition, the contents of the website do not constitute legal advice and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the attorney. Information from this website is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on information on this website without seeking specific legal advice about your particular circumstances. No attorney-client relationship between you and Ask a Lawyer’s author is created by the transmission of information to or from this site.

 

Q & A Session: Non-Supervisory Billet from Permanent Supervisory Billet

Bookmark and Share

Q:

Can a federal employee assigned to a permanent supervisory billet be re-assigned to a non-supervisory permanent billet without any disciplinary or adverse action?

A:

Assuming that you maintain the same grade and were not demoted, then yes.  Your employing Agency has broad discretion to place you where you best fit its needs, so long as that is not for any illegal reason, such as whistleblower reprisal or discrimination.

This response is written by Michael S. Causey, associate attorney of Shaw Bransford & Roth PC, a federal employment law firm.

Disclaimer: Ask a Lawyer publishes information on this website for informational purposes only. Information on this website is intended – but not promised, guaranteed, or warranted – to reflect correct, complete and current developments. In addition, the contents of the website do not constitute legal advice and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the attorney. Information from this website is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on information on this website without seeking specific legal advice about your particular circumstances. No attorney-client relationship between you and Ask a Lawyer’s author is created by the transmission of information to or from this site.