Attorneys for Federal Employees — Nationwide

Nearly 200,000 federal workers and supporters follow our updates across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Each briefing gives you the three stories that actually matter to your job, plain‑English legal  guidance, and one short practice to protect your peace of mind. If it helps you, forward it to a colleague—new readers can subscribe at https://fedlegalhelp.com/newsletter. 

🎧 Listen: Civil Rights for Civil Servants

Shaun Southworth & Lydia Taylor on what's happening to the federal workforce. Latest episode: Apple · Spotify · Amazon Music · Youtube

Listen to the latest episode of Civil Rights for Civil Servants They kept a file on you. It's time you kept one on them. For the last year and a half, federal employees have lived through hiring freeze... player.captivate.fm

Today at a Glance

• NASA Class Decertified: The EEOC has thrown out the 13-year-old class complaint over NASA's performance ratings, ruled for the agency on the merits, and declared that federal-court class-action precedent governs EEOC class complaints; its proposed rule would end administrative class complaints entirely.

• USDA Stay Stands: Judge Vince Chhabria on Thursday denied USDA's request to lift the relocation stay while it appeals. Reassignment letters remain unenforceable, and the parties must negotiate a fix for employees who moved between September 14 and October 13.

• OSC's Record Year: The Special Counsel reports 363 prohibited-personnel-practice cases with favorable outcomes in fiscal 2026, the most in the agency's history, plus the most Hatch Act disciplinary complaints filed at the MSPB since 2010.

Top Stories:

1. The EEOC Decertifies the 13-Year-Old NASA Ratings Class and Rules for the Agency on the Merits — and Its Proposed Rule Would End Administrative Class Complaints Altogether

Source: Federal News Network, November 5, 2026

TL;DR: In February 2013, NASA employees filed a class complaint alleging that the agency's performance appraisal system, specifically the "Communication" and "Collaboration and Teamwork" elements scored by frontline supervisors, produced lower ratings for African-American and Asian-American employees. An EEOC Administrative Judge did not certify the class (grade 13 through 15 employees rated below "Distinguished") until September 2022; NASA rejected the certification in its final order and appealed. On August 6, 2026, the Commission affirmed NASA's order, decertified the class, and, rather than send the individual claims back, entered judgment for NASA on the merits, finding the two rating elements "job related . . . and consistent with business necessity" under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k). The decision holds that the class definition lacked "objective criteria" to identify who was actually injured, that a policy of supervisory discretion is "the very antithesis of commonality," and that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), and other federal-court precedents apply to EEOC class complaints: "They do." Government Executive reported the vote was 2–1; the employees asked for reconsideration in September, NASA opposes, and their counsel told Federal News Network on Thursday that they expect a denial and do not plan to refile in federal court. Separately, the EEOC's August 28 proposed rule would rewrite 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 so that "no complaint may be filed, maintained, certified, processed, adjudicated, resolved, appealed, or enforced as a class complaint"; the comment period closed September 28, and no final rule has been published.

For federal employees, this means:

• If you were a member of the NASA class, NASA must notify you of the decertification and handle any re-filed individual complaint "consistent with this Decision," which forecloses a disparate-impact theory about these two elements. The ruling is "limited strictly to the unintentional disparate impact context"; a claim that a specific supervisor rated you lower because of your race is a different claim, subject to the 45-day counselor-contact clock in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1).
• If you are weighing a class complaint anywhere in government, the current rule still exists, but the federal-court tests now govern: expect to be asked for the "specific employment practice" causing the disparity and a "common mode" of exercising discretion across supervisors. A statistical disparity plus a nationwide policy was held not enough.
• Watch the Federal Register. The proposed rule (91 Fed. Reg. 55690) is not law yet; it would end administrative class complaints, keep a "putative class claim" only to satisfy exhaustion, and leave class-wide claims to federal court. Until a final rule takes effect, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204 governs.

Legal Insight

Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(a)(2), a class complaint must show numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, and the Commission reviews an Administrative Judge's certification decision de novo under § 1614.405(a). A party may request reconsideration within 30 days of receiving a Commission decision, § 1614.405(c), and a complainant may file a civil action within 90 days of receiving the Commission's decision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). The NASA employees reportedly missed the 30-day window, saying they were never served; excusing that is within the Commission's discretion. If you receive a Commission decision on any appeal, calendar both clocks the day it arrives and consult a federal employment attorney before choosing between reconsideration and court, because filing a civil action ends the administrative process.

2. Judge Chhabria Refuses to Lift the USDA Relocation Stay During the Appeal — MDR Letters Stay Unenforceable, and the Parties Must Negotiate a Fix for Employees Who Already Moved

Source: Federal News Network, November 5, 2026

TL;DR: Federal News Network's Thursday newscast reported USDA pressing Judge Vince Chhabria to lift his October 13 stay of the reorganization while it appeals. Later Thursday, the docket in AFGE v. USDA, No. 3:26-cv-09976-VC (N.D. Cal.), recorded the judge's one-paragraph order: "The defendants' [111] motion for a stay pending appeal is DENIED." The order directs the parties to "meet and confer regarding a proposed stipulated clarification" of the stay and says the court "would consider a very narrow motion to clarify or modify" it for anything they cannot agree on. USDA's October 30 motion argued the stay "significantly hinders USDA's operations across the board," citing Forest Service fire and avalanche positions and research at Beltsville. The unions' November 4 opposition answered that the stay does not block moves unrelated to the reorganization, that much of USDA's new declaration testimony was copied from earlier filings, and that the appropriations restrictions behind the stay expire December 11, a question for Congress, not the court. The unions also said they would not oppose a clarification letting employees who finished moving between the September 14 administrative stay and the October 13 order choose whether to report to the new duty station or return. USDA's appeal, filed October 15, remains pending in the Ninth Circuit.

For federal employees, this means:

• If you hold a "management directed reassignment" letter, including the October 28 letters, nothing in it can be enforced and no deadline in it runs while the stay stands. The order bars USDA from "issuing or enforcing" MDR letters "or any other notice or directive of reassignment or relocation in whole or in part, including any deadlines in those letters." Keep every letter and email.
• If you moved between September 14 and October 13, the stay never required USDA to return employees who started at a new duty station before September 14 (paragraph 7), and the parties are now negotiating the in-between group. The unions' proposal would give you the choice and let USDA finish the paperwork either way.
• Watch December 11. The judge wrote that the statutory restrictions expire that day and that if USDA wants to proceed "it can ask Congress to change the language of the next appropriations statute." The next funding bill, not the Ninth Circuit, may decide what happens after that.

Legal Insight

The stay rests on 5 U.S.C. § 705. A party seeking a stay pending appeal must ordinarily ask the district court first, Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1), and must make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on appeal and that it faces irreparable harm before the court weighs harm to others and the public interest, Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009); USDA may now ask the Ninth Circuit for the same relief under Rule 8(a)(2). The order's "local commuting area" is defined by 5 C.F.R. § 351.203, so a reassignment within that area is not covered. If you receive a new directive to move, or a notice proposing action for declining one, consult a federal employment attorney promptly; refusing a valid directed reassignment can support removal under 5 U.S.C. § 7513.

3. OSC Reports a Record Year — 363 Cases With Favorable Outcomes, 47 Disclosures Referred, and the Most Hatch Act Disciplinary Complaints Filed Since 2010

Source: Federal News Network, November 5, 2026

TL;DR: In a commentary published Thursday by Federal News Network, and highlighted the same day in an Office of Special Counsel press release, Special Counsel Charles Baldis reported OSC's fiscal 2026 results. OSC received 5,229 new prohibited personnel practice (PPP) complaints, the second-highest annual total on record, and secured 422 favorable outcomes across 363 cases, the largest number of cases with favorable outcomes in OSC's history, including reinstatements, restored duties, back pay, and stays of adverse actions. OSC referred 47 whistleblower disclosures to agencies for investigation, its highest total since 2021. The Hatch Act Unit resolved more than 560 cases, filed six disciplinary complaints with the Merit Systems Protection Board (the most since 2010), and obtained 13 disciplinary actions; recent settlements included unpaid suspensions of up to 10 days, and a VA employee who discussed candidates and parties with subordinates at work agreed to retire and stay out of federal employment for at least four years. Baldis credited OSC's career staff despite the 43-day shutdown, and cautioned that "not every claim establishes a violation or results in relief."

For federal employees, this means:

• A PPP complaint to OSC also preserves your right to take a whistleblower-retaliation case to the MSPB yourself. Once OSC closes its investigation, or 120 days pass without OSC telling you it will seek corrective action, you may file an individual right of action with the Board under 5 U.S.C. §§ 1214(a)(3) and 1221; after a close-out notice, that window is 60 days.
• OSC can ask the Board to freeze a personnel action: under § 1214(b)(1)(A), the Special Counsel may request a 45-day stay when there are reasonable grounds to believe a PPP is involved. If a removal or reassignment is imminent and you believe it is retaliation, say so in the complaint and ask for a stay request.
• Hatch Act enforcement is running at a decade high. Before any political activity that touches the workplace (conversations with subordinates, posts from a government device, anything on duty), use OSC's advisory-opinion service. Penalties under 5 U.S.C. § 7326 run from a reprimand to removal and a five-year debarment from federal employment.

Legal Insight

5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(1)(A) requires OSC to investigate every PPP allegation "to the extent necessary to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe" a PPP occurred, and § 1214(a)(1)(B) requires written acknowledgment within 15 days. The whistleblower protections themselves are in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9); disclosures of wrongdoing go through § 1213, under which OSC refers a matter to the agency head when it finds a "substantial likelihood" of wrongdoing, § 1213(b), and the agency must report back within 60 days, § 1213(c). OSC's numbers show the system producing results, but relief is not automatic: a complaint with dates, names, and documents moves faster than a narrative, and your union representative can help you assemble it.

Legal Tip of the Day

Build Your Timeline Before You Need It

If something at work feels wrong, start a simple timeline today, before you know whether you will ever need it. Write down what happened, the date and time, who was present, and what was said or sent, in plain factual sentences. Save copies of relevant emails, letters, and ratings somewhere outside government systems, and note where each original lives. Record your own good work too, such as awards, positive feedback, and completed projects, because context matters later. Different offices and forums ask for different things, and each runs on its own schedule, so ask early what deadlines apply to you. A clear, dated record is easier for anyone helping you to use, and it never commits you to any course of action.  

In Case You Missed It

A few quick hits from our recent posts:

Why Federal Pay Needs Fixing: The Government’s Own Numbers on the Pay Gap

Was Your Federal Exit Really Voluntary? What a New Survey Does and Does Not Mean

After the Midterms: The Supreme Court and Electoral College Questions Analysts Are Raising

Worried About Retaliation or Being Targeted for Speaking Up?

If you’ve reported misconduct, safety concerns, discrimination, or waste/fraud/abuse—and now you’re seeing sudden schedule changes, bad performance reviews, or threats of discipline—you may be in whistleblower or retaliation territory.

We represent federal employees who:

• Reported concerns and then saw adverse actions

• Were sidelined, reassigned, or given impossible workloads after speaking up

• Face investigations, PIPs, or proposed removals that look like payback

• Need help navigating OSC complaints, EEO claims, or MSPB appeals tied to retaliation

A free, confidential consultation can help you sort out what’s normal agency behavior and what may cross the line—and what to do before your options narrow.

👉 Schedule Your Free Consultation Today

Disclaimer:

This briefing is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney‑client relationship. Federal employment law is fact‑specific and time‑sensitive; you should consult a qualified attorney about your own situation and deadlines. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Your service is worth protecting. Let's protect it together at Southworth PC.