Proposed OPM Rule Could Replace Seniority in RIFs

Federal employees have long understood one principle about reductions in force (RIFs): years of service matter. Seniority has historically been a key factor protecting experienced employees when agencies restructure or eliminate positions. A newly proposed rule from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), however, suggests that framework may be changing.

The proposal—identified as RIN 3206-AO86—would significantly shift how agencies determine who stays and who goes during a RIF. Instead of seniority serving as the central protection, performance ratings would carry far greater weight in determining retention.

For many federal employees, that change raises an immediate and practical question: how reliable are those ratings?

The Current RIF Framework: Seniority as a Safeguard

Under the current system, RIF decisions are based on several factors, including tenure group, veterans’ preference, length of service, and performance ratings. While performance matters, seniority and tenure often provide meaningful protection for long-serving employees.

This structure reflects one of the core principles of the federal merit system—stability and fairness in the civil service. Experienced employees who have built long careers in government are not easily displaced during organizational changes.

If the proposed rule takes effect, that balance could shift toward performance metrics as the dominant factor.

Why Performance Ratings Matter More Under the Proposal

Performance ratings already influence federal careers—affecting promotions, bonuses, and sometimes discipline. But using them as the primary determinant in a RIF raises additional concerns because ratings are inherently shaped by supervisory judgment.

A system that heavily relies on performance scores places increased importance on how those evaluations are created, documented, and challenged.

If agencies simultaneously adjust their performance rating systems—another change that has been discussed in policy circles—employees could face a situation where lower average ratings become more common. In that environment, those ratings could carry greater consequences during workforce reductions.

Practical Steps Federal Employees Can Take Now

Even though this rule is only proposed and not yet final, federal employees should begin thinking proactively about their performance records.

A few practical steps can make a meaningful difference:

• Document your accomplishments. Maintain records of projects, outcomes, and measurable contributions throughout the year.

• Review your performance plan carefully. Make sure you clearly understand how success is measured.

• Address concerns early. If a rating appears inaccurate or unsupported, raise the issue through appropriate internal channels.

Being attentive to the administrative record that surrounds your performance is often the most effective way to protect yourself if employment decisions later rely on those evaluations.

A Time for Awareness—Not Panic

At this stage, the proposal is part of the federal rulemaking process, which means it can still change before becoming final. Proposed regulations are typically subject to public comment and further review.

Still, the conversation highlights a broader reality of federal employment: workplace rules evolve, sometimes quickly. Staying informed—and approaching uncertainty with a calm, strategic mindset—helps federal employees navigate those changes more effectively.

Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While I am a federal employment attorney, this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.