Frequently Asked Questions

SCSV works to ensure that federal contractors meet their legal requirement to employ veterans. Considerably more companies have lucrative agreements with the US government than you might realize.  Most people are aware that military equipment makers such as Raytheon have deals with the government--but so do entertainment companies like Disney. These corporations license movies and TV shows for exhibition on the American Forces Network, and they are paid millions of taxpayer dollars to do it. In return for getting our money, the companies accrue an obligation under VEVRAA.

Stolen Valor, as legally defined, pertains to individuals who falsely claim to have received military decorations. This definition comes from the Stolen Valor Act of 2013, codified as 18 U.S.C. §704. Since valor isn’t a tangible item subject to larceny, the phrase refers to the idea of dishonestly associating yourself with somebody else’s achievements. Having a medal commands respect because of the amazing things other people have done to earn one. Individuals found to have stolen valor under the law are subject to serious consequences, including imprisonment.

So Corporate Stolen Valor means—what? A company would not be able to claim that it won the Silver Star. What businesses can, and often do, say is that they value and admire veterans so much that they go out of their way to employ them. They will publicly announce their intention to hire thousands of veterans, and then publicly congratulate themselves for meeting or exceeding their stated goal. Verifying that they have done any of the things they claim, however, is difficult if not impossible, thanks to the steps these companies take to guard their employment information. It takes less effort to associate your brand with the sacrifices of veterans, without doing a single thing to benefit veterans, than it does to actually do beneficial things.

It's bad enough that business executives make these claims for their own glory. But many of these same businesses have sizable contracts with the government. VEVRAA purports to require that contractors give employment preference to veterans. So not only aren’t the corporations going above and beyond what a less-patriotic company does, as they so loudly claim, they aren’t even meeting the obligations contractors supposedly accrue by taking taxpayer money. And because of the current flaws in VEVRAA, along with the lack of government enforcement, this can be perfectly legal. 

Hence, the concept of Corporate Stolen Valor. Large companies are taking the positive characteristics associated with military service from veterans and giving nothing in return. This practice affects considerably more people than some guy buying a Navy Achievement Medal he didn’t earn, but unlike that guy, corporations have no punishment to fear. 

"VEVRAA" refers to the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (the original version was signed in 1972). It is a misleading name--the law does not only apply to veterans of the "Vietnam Era," and it is not intended solely to assist with readjustment. The language is unclear, but the statue actually applies to millions of veterans, including everyone who has been in the military since 1990. 

The Act was codified as the Veterans’ Employment Emphasis Under Federal Contracts (although it is still generally referred to as VEVRAA). The new name is an improvement, if for no other reason than that it removes the confusing reference to Vietnam. It also specifies the goal being "Employment," not "Readjustment." Having a more accurate title does not cure the problems with the law, however. 

VEVRAA is important because of how much good it could do for veterans. It was passed in the early 70's based on the idea that "the nation owes [its] veterans not only its deepest thanks for their sacrifice and their service, but also its assistance." That is, saying "thank you for your service" sounds nice but it isn't sufficient. To provide this assistance, the law outlines a requirement that federal contractors hire veterans.  

VEVRAA is part of the Veterans' Benefits section of the US Code (38 U.S.C. §4212). Most Veterans' Benefits are overseen by the Department of Veterans Affairs, but VEVRAA is under the purview of the Department of Labor. They, in turn, have delegated enforcement responsibility to their Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Officially, getting a job is a Benefit without being an Affair. By design, the VA can offer no practical help with VEVRAA issues. In practice, neither can the OFCCP.   

That would be problems, plural. The basic issue with VEVRAA is that there's a wide gap between what it seems to do and what it actually does. This is partly rooted in the fact that, despite its brevity, the law is extremely unclear. As with a lot of legalese, the confusing provisions can be attributed to either ineptitude or brilliance, depending on your level of cynicism. 

Three main concerns need to be addressed.

Problem 1. VEVRAA is mysterious as to who it requires to do what. 

The OFCCP, which (sort of) has the responsibility for enforcing the law, provides this summary of it: 

"The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) is a law that prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment against protected veterans and requires employers [to] take affirmative action to recruit, hire, promote, and retain these individuals."

Well that sounds great to me. Nothing there to complain about, really, except 1) it's not what VEVRAA actually says and 2) the incorrect summary was written by the governmental agency in charge of enforcing the law! Sort of! First, VEVRAA says nothing about employment discrimination. That topic is covered by USERRA, an important but completely different statute. Next, the law does not use the phrase "protected veterans." The defined term is "covered veterans." If this distinction seems insignificant, it isn't. As noted, VEVRAA doesn't deal with discrimination, so it doesn't protect anyone from anything. What it purports to do is confer a benefit--preferential treatment in the recruiting and hiring process for veterans who meet the criteria of the law and are covered by it. Further, VEVRAA does not require employers to do any of those things. The law, in the first sentence of subsection (a), mandates that certain federal contracts contain a provision that requires companies to do them. 

Again, this may seem like splitting hairs, but it is key to remember that if the contract does not include the specified provision, private contractors aren't required to do squat for veterans. Who is tasked with including this crucial paragraph in the contract? VEVRAA doesn't say. A deep dive through federal law leads to the answer (if you click on the link, you'll find the requirement all the way at the bottom of the page in subsection f)(FYI, the regulation is 41 CFR § 60-300.5): the contracting government agency (e.g., the Department of Defense) must do it, but VEVRAA doesn't provide any way to penalize them if they leave it out. Finally, even if the necessary provision is included, it doesn't force employers to do any of those things. What it says is that contractors must "employ and advance in employment" certain veterans. Can you employ someone without recruiting and hiring them first? You tell me! Is "advance in employment" the same as "promote, and retain"? They don't say! I hope so!

Problem 2. Veterans are responsible for discovering violations of the law. 

Subsection (b) of VEVRAA says: "If any veteran covered by the first sentence of subsection (a) believes any contractor of the United States has failed to comply or refuses to comply with the provisions of the contractor’s contract relating to the employment of veterans, the veteran may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, who shall promptly investigate such complaint and take appropriate action in accordance with the terms of the contract and applicable laws and regulations." OK that's a lot of words. Too many, really--they could have replaced "veteran covered by the first sentence of subsection (a)" with "covered veteran," for example. That wouldn't resolve the issue. The key is that the starting point is a covered (not "protected"!) veteran who believes there's a problem. 

Well--why would a veteran believe that? The person would, for starters, have to know that an employer has a contract meeting VEVRAA criteria (such as the minimum dollar amount). How would a member of the public know that? It is possible to find federal contract summaries online, but Jo or Joe Veteran would need to have a reason to search for one of the millions available. Why would they try? In addition to suspecting that a company is an affected contractor, the person would have to believe that the contractor isn't making an effort to employment and advance in employment qualified covered veterans. This belief requires them to either follow their hearts or have information that is not publicly available. 

Why the burden for detecting VEVRAA noncompliance isn't placed upon a government agency--one that has researchers who are paid for their time and have easy access to much more information than the public does--I have no idea.

Problem 3. Even if a veteran develops the required belief and files a complaint, the OFCCP can only sort of enforce the law.

Fine, I'll explain this. Look at the next FAQ.

Good question. This is a problem that the average person might not pick up until they've read the statute twenty times, but being an experienced attorney, it only took me thirteen. Some fruitless attempts to pursue VEVRAA complaints helped make it very clear.  

As discussed above, in the "What's Your Problem" section's Problem Number 2, the VEVRAA complaint process begins with a veteran finding a company that they believe is violating the law. So we already have the agency ostensibly charged with enforcing the law doing nothing to find or address infractions until a random veteran alerts them to one. But OK, Ms. Random Veteran locates an agreement between a government agency and a private contractor for the procurement of $500,000 worth of, say, Thneads. This falls under VEVRAA. And let's say she knows for a fact that the contractor--Onceler, Inc.--is not making active efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified covered veterans. They announce this on their website for some reason. But it's indisputable. The OFCCP can go to town on Onceler, right?

Not so fast, junior. As Problem 1 above tells us, the legal requirement is that the contract contains a certain provision. And Problem 2 only allows a complaint if a contractor violates the provisions of its agreement. So, if the contract omits the required provision, the OFCCP can do precisely squat. 

At this point, one might ask: who is responsible for putting the provision into the contract? VEVRAA doesn't make it easy to figure this out--as written, it says that the contract "shall contain" the pertinent language, seemingly requiring the contract to do the work itself. As I mentioned in Problem 1, Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60-300.5(f) places the burden on the government agency entering into the agreement. Of course, this important federal code section was written by the Department of Labor, so it misquotes VEVRAA and refers to "protected veterans." Which I'm starting to take personally.

Thus, if a government agency omits the veteran employment provision from the agreement, the OFCCP's next move is...nothing. VEVRAA gives them the power to act against only one of the two parties signing an agreement, but it's not the one responsible for making VEVRAA applicable to the agreement. If there's anything they can do of their own volition to deal with the agency--like letting the agency know about the problem, for example--I can tell you from experience, they don't. So when I say that the OFCCP "sort of" enforces VEVRAA, I'm being generous.  

USERRA protects veterans; VEVRAA (supposedly) provides a benefit to them. The OFCCP promotes VEVRAA as a redundant law that prevents discrimination. USERRA is extremely important but it accomplishes the task of protecting veterans, so there doesn't need to be a second law doing the same thing. VEVRAA is designed to confer a benefit, and the intended beneficiaries don't need to be protected from a benefit.