Federal Worker Rights

Assessing the MSPB’s approach to class actions in the first six months of Trump II The second Trump administration has sought to terminate federal employees in unprecedented numbers, using mass terminations of probationary employees, reductions in force (RIFs), and other initiati…

New blog post discussing the MSPB's approach to class actions in the first six months of the administration. Why has the MSPB entertained class actions for terminated probationary employees, but not RIFed employees? federalworkerrights.com/2025/08/04/a...

Over at @lawfaremedia.org, I explain the new Schedule G and some broader trends that signal an effort to make a significant portion of the federal workforce subject to at-will removal.

www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

Are you a lawyer interested in litigating against the Trump administration in defense of federal employees? This job might be for you: www.jamhoff.com/jhrecruit/. Feel free to DM for more info.

This is the second case where the MSPB has certified a class for probationary federal workers who were mass fired by the Trump Administration and DOGE. We are proud to stand with them by filing this class action and will continue fighting for federal workers' rights.

DOI probationary class includes all DOI “employees serving in a probationary or trial period who were issued termination notices between February 14-18, 2025, in response to a January 20, 2025, guidance memorandum issued by the Office of Personnel Management.” Exceptions discussed in blog post.

Federal Worker Rights Visit the post for more.

Exciting news: our class action for fired probationary workers at the Department of Interior was just granted! DOI workers can learn more about what will happen next at federalworkerrights.com

LINK: www.reuters.com/legal/govern...

Supreme Court Intervenes to Allow Trump’s Unlawful Reorganization of the Federal Government to Continue as Case Proceeds The U.S. Supreme Court has granted another emergency stay request from the Trump-Vance administration to stay the injunction two lower courts had approved in AFGE v. Trump that halted the unlawful reo...

And here is the statement from the unions, nonprofits, and localities that brought the case: www.afge.org/publication/...

Guide from Civil Service Strong on next steps after the Supreme Court's RIF decision: www.civilservicestrong.org/resources/yo...

Blocking my column because it was too opinionated was a shock. I’ve authored many pieces over my 17 years writing the Federal Diary (renamed the Federal Insider in 2016), that were at least if not more opinionated as the now dead one. In that piece, I argued that “one hallmark of President Donald Trump’s first three, turbulent months in office is his widespread, ominous attack on thought, belief and speech.” The piece contained specific examples, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s alarming memo supporting deportation of Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil. Rubio said Khalil could be expelled for “expected beliefs…that are otherwise lawful.” What immigrants might believe in the future now can make them federal law enforcement targets. Another far-reaching example I cited is Trump’s aggressive attack on speech promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). His executive order commanded federal agencies to “excise references to DEI and DEIA [“A” for accessibility] principles, under whatever name they may appear.” Also, Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, of Turkey, was abducted off the street by masked officers because she co-wrote an op-ed critical of Israel. It was a terrifying sight, caught on video, which previously would have seemed more applicable to George Orwell’s dystopian and cautionary tale against totalitarianism and thought police in is novel “1984.” This is America in 2025. Killing that column was a death blow to my life as a Washington Post columnist. But I wrote two more articles to see if I could cope with the restrictions. That’s when I learned just how severe the policy is. In my next piece, I was not allowed to describe a potential pay raise for federal employees as “well-deserved” because of Post policy. As a columnist, I can’t live with that level of constraint. A column without commentary made me a columnist without a column. I also was troubled by significant inconsistencies in the implementation of the p…

Joe Davidson, longtime Washpost columnist, quit due to editing restrictions. He couldn't call a pay raise for fed'l employees "well deserved" or say that a hallmark of Trump’s "turbulent months in office is his widespread, ominous attack on thought, belief & speech”

www.facebook.com/story.php?st...

Why didn’t the Supreme Court address channeling in its RIF decision? An interesting aspect of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on RIFs is that it doesn’t mention the so-called “channeling doctrine.” This doctrine provides that federal employees generally cannot go…

We have another post on yesterday's RIF decision: Why didn't the Supreme Court address channeling? federalworkerrights.com/2025/07/09/w...

Posted late last night regarding the Supreme Court’s RIF decision:

Here's our post on the Supreme Court decison permitting RIFs to move forward at 22 agencies. It's a major setback for federal employees, but many options remain open for challenging RIFs. federalworkerrights.com/2025/07/08/w...

“One Big, Beautiful Bill” Has More Provisions That Violate the Byrd Rule, According to Senate Parliamentarian | U.S. Senate Committee On The Budget The Official U.S. Senate Committee On The Budget

The senate parliamentarian has ruled against a 50-vote threshold for reorganization of the executive branch and pay-for-job protections plan, among other provisions in the republican budget bill: www.budget.senate.gov/ranking-memb...

Some folks have asked how to receive blog posts by email. We've added an email subscription option here: federalworkerrights.com/2025/06/17/r...

Senate strips most retirement cuts from reconciliation, but anti-civil service provisions remain Under language released by a Senate panel Thursday night, new federal workers who decline to serve as at-will employees will pay nearly 15% of their paycheck toward their pension benefit.

"Senate strips most retirement cuts from reconciliation, but anti-civil service provisions remain" www.govexec.com/pay-benefits...

Limon: “I believe these new requirements will drag our nation back to the spoils era.”

Trump’s new civil service hiring plan: Merit or Meritless? COMMENTARY | OPM's new Merit Hiring Plan isn't based on a new principle, but its enactment could make Schedule F look quaint, says the former vice chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Good article by former MSPB board member Raymond Limon on the new OPM hiring memo: www.govexec.com/management/2...

Update from SCOTUSblog on Supreme Court proceedings regarding RIFs: www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/grou...

An early morning thread on the RIF decision from the Ninth Circuit. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit denied a stay of a preliminary injunction preventing agencies from engaging in reductions in force (RIFs) on separation of powers grounds. 1/42

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

The MSPB certifies its first probationary workers class action Earlier today, an administrative judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board agreed to let terminated probationary employees at the Department of Homeland Security proceed as a class. This means th…

Note that this decision does not determine whether other appeals can proceed on a class basis, especially for agencies where employees have not been made fully whole. The MSPB previously granted class cert for terminated probationary employees at DHS: federalworkerrights.com/2025/05/23/t...

An MSPB admin judge has denied class certification in an appeal challenging probationary employee terminations at the Dept of Energy, citing evidence that the agency had made employees whole and that 302/555 affected employees took the DRP. Order here: federalworkerrights.com/wp-content/u...

Trump taps Paul Ingrassia to head US Office of Special Counsel U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday announced his intention to nominate Paul Ingrassia to lead the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

Trump taps Paul Ingrassia to head US Office of Special Counsel reut.rs/4kl9xif

What MSPB can and can’t do without a quorum MSPB is generally responsible for adjudicating appeals on federal personnel cases. But without a board quorum, some specific actions at MSPB can't be finalized.

Good article on "what the MSPB can and can't do without a quorum," from Federal News Network: federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce-ri...

The MSPB certifies its first probationary workers class action Earlier today, an administrative judge at the Merit Systems Protection Board agreed to let terminated probationary employees at the Department of Homeland Security proceed as a class. This means th…

The MSPB has granted class certification in an appeal challenging the mass termination of probationary employees at DHS. Update here: federalworkerrights.com/2025/05/23/t...

The House has passed legislation requiring new federal employees to pay for job protections. We discussed the proposal here: federalworkerrights.com/2025/05/06/e...

OSC ‘amicus’ opinion on probationary firings was ‘unwelcome,’ attorneys say Attorneys representing terminated probationary employees allege that the Office of Special Counsel overstepped its authority when it said last week that it believed agencies have broad discretion to fire employees in their probationary periods. On Friday, the attorneys filed a motion to strike OSC’s amicus brief from the Merit System Protection Board’s docket. The brief, which OSC sent to MSPB last Wednesday, asserted that agencies have “very limited restrictions” in their ability to fire probationary federal employees. Under federal regulations, OSC is authorized to weigh in with an opinion by way of an amicus brief when it comes to whistleblower retaliation cases, “or as otherwise authorized by law.” But because the case before the MSPB alleges a prohibited personnel practice for reasons outside of whistleblower retaliation, the attorneys argued that OSC shouldn’t be able to offer its perspective on the case at all. “OSC’s decision to file an amicus brief in this case without an invitation from the [MSPB] is contrary to the applicable statute and all too consistent with the administration’s multifaceted noncompliance with Title 5 and its implementing regulation,” Friday’s motion states. “Just as the board should find that the agency termination actions at issue caused their employees to violate OPM’s regulations, so too should the board assign no weight or deference to OSC’s ultra vires amicus filing, and strike the same from the record.” The case before the MSPB was filed on behalf of a group of probationary employees who were terminated from their jobs across several different agencies, including the departments of Commerce and Energy, as well as Health and Human Services. The appellants in the case argue that they were unlawfully terminated from their jobs earlier this year. The Federal Practice Group, which is representing fired probationary workers in the case currently before the MSPB, recently filed a request for regulation review. The attorneys are asking MSPB to assess whether agencies were correctly applying federal regulations when they terminated the federal employees earlier this year. Since OSC’s amicus brief was filed specifically following the attorneys’ request to MSPB, they argued that OSC acted outside its statutory authority. They wrote that MSPB should not give any weight to OSC’s opinion when determining the outcome of the employees’ case. “It’s also extraordinary because the government hasn’t even filed a response yet to our request for regulation review. This isn’t a situation where we’re even at the stage where an amicus might be invited,” Debra D’Agostino, the attorney who filed the strike motion and a partner at Federal Practice Group, said in an interview. “To just jump in without any authority to do so, and to try to derail everybody, is unwelcome.” In response to the strike motion, OSC spokesperson Corey Williams said OSC “has a right under [federal regulations] to participate in matters before the Merit Systems Protection Board.” “We took steps to ensure that we followed the appropriate procedures for doing so,” Williams said by email. OSC, the federal agency in charge of policing prohibited personnel practices, has received more than 2,000 complaints on the mass terminations of probationary employees that took place earlier this year at the direction of the Trump administration. The probationary employees alleged that the mass terminations, made on the basis of “performance,” were unlawful. But in April OSC informed the thousands of fired probationary workers who had filed complaints that it would not investigate their cases. OSC’s amicus brief filed last week represents a complete reversal of the investigative agency’s opinion on the mass firings of probationary employees just a few months ago. In February, then-Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger said he believed the mass terminations of probationary federal employees were unlawful. President Donald Trump then fired Dellinger. Although he initially sued Trump over his termination, Dellinger ultimately resigned from his position and withdrew his lawsuit. Charles Baldis, who is currently managing OSC on behalf of Acting Special Counsel and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, has reversed course, saying he believes agencies do have the authority to terminate the workers — and that agencies are “not terminating enough” probationary employees. The agencies involved in the pending MSPB case are expected to respond with their positions on the probationary firings by May 29.The post OSC ‘amicus’ opinion on probationary firings was ‘unwelcome,’ attorneys say first appeared on Federal News Network.

OSC ‘amicus’ opinion on probationary firings was ‘unwelcome,’ attorneys say

How are unions fighting back against Trump's assaults on federal employees? @mrsethharris.bsky.social sits down w/ AFGE's Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, Andres Grajales, & @nteunion.bsky.social's General Counsel, Julie Wilson, on @poweratwork.bsky.social: poweratwork.us/federal-empl...

The brief is here: federalnewsnetwork.com/wp-content/u.... It was reported by the Federal News Network here: federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce-ri...

The new OSC brief also contends that agencies did not conduct a de facto RIF when they terminated probationary employees. But it fails to grapple with most of the evidence showing that the terminations were in fact a RIF.

This argument makes little sense given that OPM's February 14 letter did not merely encourage agencies to "screen out" probatiobary employees, but rather instructed them to terminate employees en masse without any consideration of their individual characteristics.