A recent federal court filing outlines allegations that an individual was terminated from his position at a private company because of his ongoing military service and related activities, raising questions about compliance with federal and state protections for servicemembers. The complaint was filed by Alberto Fregoso on April 17, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Halvik Corp., a federal contractor based in Vienna, Virginia.
According to the complaint, Fregoso asserts that he was unlawfully terminated from his employment due to his military status and obligations as a member of the United States Army Reserve. The lawsuit cites violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) as well as the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA). Fregoso is seeking reinstatement or front pay, back pay, lost wages and benefits, liquidated damages for alleged willful violation of USERRA, compensatory and punitive damages under VHRA, attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, litigation expenses, and other relief.
The document details Fregoso’s extensive military background. He has served in the uniformed services for over twenty-two years since April 20, 2003. His roles have included active duty service through Contingency Operations Active Duty Operational Support orders at the Pentagon from January 1, 2020 through August 27, 2024. He is currently a Chief Warrant Officer 3 in the Army Reserve after previously serving with the Georgia National Guard.
Fregoso began working for Halvik Corp. on or about June 3, 2024 as a Mortuary Affairs/Fatality Management and Aerial Delivery Functional Analyst supporting Army G-44S division projects. He alleges that before hiring him, Halvik management was fully aware of his military status and ongoing obligations. The complaint states that supervisors were informed about his likelihood of future deployment and foreseeable military leave.
In late April through early May 2025, Fregoso participated in mandatory Annual Training with the Georgia National Guard at Fort Story, Virginia—a requirement he says he communicated to Halvik’s human resources department in advance per both company policy and USERRA requirements. Upon returning from training on May 10, he provided documentation confirming his military duty.
Following this period of training, Fregoso prepared a Trip Report summarizing outcomes from a water purification exercise at the request of senior Army leaders—actions he claims were performed solely in his capacity as a National Guard officer using official channels rather than as part of his civilian employment with Halvik.
On May 12, 2025 Colonel Adam T. Seibel sent an email criticizing Fregoso’s issuance of this report: “if you had not been an ADOS member on the HQDA staff I do not believe you would have the gumption to send something like this. Protocol is extremely important, and this is a misstep.” Later that week Fregoso learned he would likely be deployed for one year beginning Spring or Summer 2026; he notified Halvik’s program manager James Brundage about this upcoming deployment even though official orders had not yet been issued.
On May 22, Fregoso attended an annual Joint Water Resources Management Action Group teleconference required by Department of Defense directive while using approved paid time off from Halvik. During this meeting Colonel Seibel again disagreed with Fregoso’s input despite acknowledging his subject matter expertise.
That same day Colonel Seibel emailed Brundage with concerns regarding what he described as Fregoso “continuously mixing his military (ARNG) position and his contractor position when it fits him” during participation in official meetings while not on specific military orders but instead using paid time off from civilian work. Seibel requested that Halvik “find him a new position because this is not working out in Troop Support.” According to Fregoso’s complaint these objections arose exclusively from protected military activities rather than any performance issue related to civilian employment.
Five days later on May 27 Brundage emailed Fregoso stating: “Based on the email below and a conversation with COL Seibel I am removing you from the G4 ESS contract effective immediately.” The formal termination letter dated May 28 cited removal at client request without identifying any performance deficiencies or non-military reasons for dismissal.
Fregoso claims there was no investigation into Seibel’s complaints nor opportunity provided for him to respond prior to termination effective May 30. He maintains that prior feedback had been positive with no record of discipline or corrective action during employment at Halvik.
The lawsuit argues that these actions constitute discrimination under USERRA because adverse employment decisions cannot be based on an employee’s membership or obligation to perform service in uniformed services if such factors are motivating elements behind those decisions unless proven otherwise by clear evidence from employers. It also invokes precedent holding employers liable when acting upon antimilitary animus conveyed by third parties who intend their input to result in adverse action—a so-called “cat’s paw” theory referenced via Staub v Proctor Hospital (2011).
In addition to federal claims under USERRA—including discrimination (38 U.S.C §4311(a)), retaliation (§4311(b)), denial of benefits (§4316)—the suit brings claims under VHRA which prohibits discharge or discrimination based on veteran or uniformed services status (Va Code §2.2-3905(B)(1)).
Fregoso further documents administrative steps taken before filing suit: complaints were lodged with both federal Veterans’ Employment & Training Service (VETS) where investigation substantiated his claim; Department of Defense Office of Inspector General; and Virginia Office of Civil Rights which issued notice authorizing civil action within ninety days received April 3rd.
The plaintiff requests relief including reinstatement or front pay; compensation for lost salary ($120k/year), benefits including insurance coverage; liquidated damages equal to lost wages/benefits; compensatory/punitive damages for emotional distress; attorney/expert fees; injunctive relief against further violations; interest; costs; plus any additional remedies deemed just by court order.
Alberto Fregoso is represented by Seth James B. Obed of Obed Law PLLC located in Alexandria VA (VSB #82482). The case is identified as Civil Action No.: 1:26-cv-1066.
Source: 126cv01066_Fregoso_v_Halvik_Corp_Complaint_Eastern_District_Virginia.pdf
