Washington, D.C.’s economy runs on government contracting. Tens of thousands of people working in the District report to federal agency buildings every morning, use government email systems, attend government meetings, and perform work that is indistinguishable from what the federal employees sitting next to them do. But they’re not federal employees. They work for Booz Allen, Leidos, SAIC, Deloitte, or one of the hundreds of smaller firms that hold contracts with the federal government. When those workers are fired, the legal landscape they face is confusing. They don’t have the MSPB appeal rights that federal employees have. But they’re not ordinary private-sector employees either, because their work environment, their security clearances, and the terms of their employer’s government contract all create complications that standard wrongful termination analysis doesn’t account for. A wrongful termination attorney in DC who represents government contractors understands this middle ground and knows how to navigate the overlapping legal frameworks that apply to it.
The first thing most contractors need to hear is that they have more rights than they think.
You Work for the Contractor, Not the Government
This distinction sounds obvious, but it’s the source of most of the confusion. Your employer is the contracting company. The federal agency is the client. Even if you sit in a government building, use a government computer, and answer to a government program manager, your employment relationship is with the contractor. That means the contractor is the entity responsible for complying with employment law, and the contractor is the entity you sue if you’re wrongfully terminated.
The government agency’s role in your termination may be relevant as a factual matter. If the agency requested your removal from the contract, the contractor may argue it had no choice but to terminate you. We’ll address that argument below. But the legal obligations flow from the employment relationship, and that relationship is between you and the contracting company.
This also means you’re covered by the employment laws that apply to private-sector employers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and D.C.’s local employment protections all apply to government contractors just as they apply to any other private employer operating in the District.
The DCHRA Covers Government Contractors
The D.C. Human Rights Act applies to all employers operating in Washington, D.C., including government contractors with employees performing work in the District. The DCHRA’s protections are broader than federal law in several respects. It covers employers of any size, with no minimum employee threshold. It protects more than 20 categories of characteristics, including personal appearance, political affiliation, family responsibilities, and matriculation, none of which are covered by federal law. It provides a one-year filing window with the D.C. Office of Human Rights and allows employees to bypass the administrative process entirely and file directly in D.C. Superior Court.
For government contractors, the DCHRA’s breadth creates protections that may not exist under the federal statutes the contractor is more accustomed to complying with. A contractor that fires an employee for their political views, for example, faces no federal liability (the First Amendment constrains the government, not private employers) but may face liability under the DCHRA’s political affiliation provision. A contractor that fires an employee based on their personal appearance may be in the clear under federal law but in violation of D.C.’s unique personal appearance protections.
The contractor’s status as a government vendor does not exempt it from the DCHRA. There is no “government contractor exception” to D.C.’s anti-discrimination laws. The company signed a government contract, not an immunity agreement.
The “Agency Requested Your Removal” Defense
This is the argument contractors use most frequently when defending against wrongful termination claims. The contractor says it didn’t want to fire you. The agency told the contractor it wanted you off the contract, and the contractor had no choice but to comply because losing the contract would jeopardize the jobs of everyone else on the team.
The argument has surface appeal. Government agencies do have the authority to direct contractors to remove specific individuals from a contract, particularly in environments involving security clearances or sensitive programs. If your clearance is revoked, or if the agency’s contracting officer issues a directive that you be removed from the project, the contractor may genuinely face a difficult business decision.
But the argument fails as a complete defense for several reasons. First, even if the agency requested your removal, the contractor still has the option of reassigning you to a different contract rather than terminating you. A large contractor with multiple active contracts may have dozens of positions where your skills and clearance level are relevant. If the contractor terminated you without exploring reassignment, the termination may not have been as inevitable as the contractor claims.
Second, the contractor cannot carry out a discriminatory or retaliatory directive from the agency and then claim the agency made them do it. If the agency requested your removal because you filed a discrimination complaint, reported safety violations, or requested a disability accommodation, and the contractor complied by firing you, both the agency directive and the contractor’s compliance are tainted by the illegal motive. The contractor doesn’t get to launder the discrimination through the government’s request.
Third, the question of why the agency requested the removal matters. If you can show that the removal request coincided with protected activity, whether it was a harassment report, an accommodation request, a whistleblower disclosure, or another legally protected action, the timing and context support an inference that the removal was retaliatory. Discovery in these cases often reveals communications between the contractor and the agency that illuminate the real reason behind the removal request.
How a Wrongful Termination Attorney in DC Approaches the Contractor Defense
An attorney evaluating a government contractor wrongful termination case needs to establish the actual chain of decision-making. Who initiated the removal: the contractor or the agency? What reason was given? Was the contractor involved in the decision, or did it passively comply? Did the contractor explore alternatives to termination? What communications occurred between the contractor’s management, the contractor’s HR department, and the agency’s contracting officer or program manager in the period leading up to the termination?
These questions often can’t be answered without discovery, which is why the initial evidence-gathering phase is critical. Emails between the contractor and the agency, internal contractor communications about the employee’s status, and the contractor’s documentation of whether it considered reassignment all become central to the case.
Security Clearance Complications
Many government contractor positions in D.C. require a security clearance, and clearance revocation or suspension is frequently cited as the reason for termination. The legal landscape around security clearance decisions is complicated because the government’s authority to grant or deny clearances has been held to be largely unreviewable by the courts under the Department of the Navy v. Egan decision.
That doesn’t mean the termination itself is unreviewable. There’s a distinction between the clearance decision and the employment decision. If the contractor fired you because your clearance was revoked, but the clearance revocation was triggered by your filing a discrimination complaint or requesting an accommodation, the underlying motive may still be discriminatory or retaliatory. The clearance revocation becomes part of the retaliatory chain rather than an independent justification for the termination.
Employees who suspect their clearance was revoked in retaliation for protected activity should also know that certain security clearance actions can be challenged through agency-specific procedures and, in some cases, through the MSPB if the employee meets specific criteria. The interaction between clearance proceedings and employment discrimination claims is complex enough that it requires an attorney familiar with both frameworks.
The Rehabilitation Act for Contractor Employees
Government contractors with federal contracts above a certain dollar threshold are subject to Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires affirmative action and non-discrimination in employment for individuals with disabilities. This creates an additional layer of disability protection beyond the ADA and the DCHRA.
Section 503 is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) within the Department of Labor. Employees of covered contractors can file complaints with the OFCCP alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, or retaliation. The OFCCP investigation process is separate from both the EEOC and the D.C. OHR, giving the employee yet another avenue for pursuing a disability-based claim.
For government contractor employees with disabilities who were terminated after requesting accommodations, the availability of three overlapping frameworks (the ADA, the DCHRA, and the Rehabilitation Act) creates a litigation strategy with multiple paths and multiple enforcement agencies, each with its own procedural advantages.
Executive Order Protections
Federal contractors have historically been subject to Executive Orders requiring non-discrimination in employment. Executive Order 11246 prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, and is enforced by the OFCCP. While the scope and enforcement of these orders can shift with different administrations, the underlying prohibition remains a distinct source of protection for contractor employees that operates independently of Title VII and the DCHRA.
Your Contractor Status Doesn’t Diminish Your Rights
Government contractors occupy an unusual space in the D.C. employment landscape, but that space is not a legal vacuum. You are an employee of a private company. That company is subject to every federal and D.C. employment law that applies to private employers. The company’s government contract doesn’t create an exemption from anti-discrimination law, and the government’s involvement in your work doesn’t strip you of the protections available to every other private-sector worker in the District. If you were fired by a government contractor in Washington, D.C. and believe the termination was discriminatory, retaliatory, or otherwise unlawful, a wrongful termination attorney in DC can identify which of the overlapping legal frameworks apply to your situation and pursue the claims that give you the strongest path to recovery. The Mundaca Law Firm represents government contractor employees across D.C. and understands the specific dynamics of contractor terminations, including the agency removal defense, clearance complications, and the multiple enforcement avenues available. Contact the firm for a consultation before the filing deadlines start closing.