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
 |
Today at a Glance
-
DoD Union Contracts: AFGE and NFFE asked a federal judge on July 20 for a preliminary injunction restoring Defense Department collective bargaining agreements, arguing the Pentagon terminated the contracts without the reasoned decision-making the Administrative Procedure Act requires.
-
Directed Relocations: About 465 Army Corps of Engineers employees in New York City face a proposed office move to New Jersey. A bipartisan group of lawmakers is urging the administration to reconsider, and a union survey found 45% of affected employees say they would leave.
-
Agency Leadership Turnover: A Partnership for Public Service analysis finds Senate-confirmed officials are leaving the administration at record rates, with more agencies run by acting officials — a fact that can matter in personnel cases.
Top Stories:
1. Unions Ask a Federal Judge to Restore DoD Collective Bargaining — Arguing the Pentagon Skipped the Government's Own Process
Source: Government Executive, July 22, 2026
TL;DR: The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) asked a federal judge on July 20 to issue a preliminary injunction restoring their collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the Defense Department. The unions sued earlier in July in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland over Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's April directive terminating the contracts with 24 hours' notice, a step the Defense Department tied to the March 2025 executive order excluding much of the federal workforce from collective bargaining on national security grounds. The motion does not challenge the executive order itself. Instead, the unions argue the termination was not the product of reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): they say the Hegseth memorandum did not explain how any specific contract conflicted with national security and did not consider alternatives, such as letting contracts expire on their own terms. The filing also says DoD skipped the contract-termination template the Office of Personnel Management issued in February, which was designed to address the APA's requirements. According to the unions, since the terminations some managers have told employees their union "does not exist," employees have been denied union representation in disciplinary matters, and some have been required to sign documents attesting that they lack union representation. The case is assigned to Judge Stephanie Gallagher.
For federal employees, this means:
• If you are a DoD employee whose contract was terminated, keep copies of any document you are asked to sign about union representation, and note dates and names — those facts are now part of active litigation.
• A preliminary injunction, if granted, could restore contract terms — including grievance and arbitration procedures — while the case proceeds. Arbitrators have already ordered telework and related terms restored at the IRS and the Forest Service in separate proceedings.
• Even with a contract terminated, statutory rights remain: discipline that once went through a negotiated grievance procedure is generally appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) instead.
Legal Insight. The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute lets the President exclude agencies or subdivisions from collective bargaining on national security grounds (5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1)), but the unions argue that how DoD implemented that order is separately reviewable, because the APA bars agency action that is arbitrary and capricious (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). Independent of any contract, 5 U.S.C. § 7102 protects a federal employee's right to form, join, or assist a labor organization, and 5 U.S.C. § 7114(a)(2)(B) gives employees in a recognized bargaining unit the right to union representation in an investigatory interview the employee reasonably believes could lead to discipline. A DoD employee facing discipline without a working grievance procedure generally has 30 days to appeal a final adverse action to the MSPB (5 U.S.C. § 7513(d); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)) — if you are in that position, consult a federal employment attorney promptly, because the appeal window is short.
2. About 465 Army Corps Employees Face a Move Across the Hudson — the Rules That Apply When Your Duty Station Moves
Source: Government Executive, July 24, 2026
TL;DR: Employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' New York District and North Atlantic Division rallied in Manhattan on July 23 against a proposed relocation of their offices from Manhattan and Brooklyn to a new headquarters expected to land in Newark, Hoboken, or Jersey City, New Jersey. The move would affect approximately 465 employees. The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 98, which represents the employees, says workers were not consulted, and a union survey found 45% of New York-based employees say they would leave their positions if the offices move. Members of both the Democratic and Republican New York congressional delegations have sent letters urging the administration to reconsider. Union members and local officials said added commuting and childcare costs would fall hardest on women employees. A Corps spokesperson said the agency has an ongoing responsibility to review its facilities "to ensure the effective stewardship of taxpayer money" and is "committed to ensuring there will be no impact on mission execution." According to the union's president, no lease has been signed; an initial move of management personnel is planned for August 15.
For federal employees, this means:
• An agency generally may decide where work is performed, but which rules apply — and which rights you keep — depends on whether the new duty station is inside or outside your current commuting area, so get that question answered early and in writing.
• If you receive a directed reassignment to a duty station outside your commuting area and decline it, the agency may propose removal — but that removal carries MSPB appeal rights, and declining employees may qualify for severance pay or, with enough age and service, discontinued service retirement.
• Watch the paperwork: a formal reassignment notice, transfer-of-function documentation, or an offer of paid relocation expenses each triggers specific rights. Informal town-hall announcements trigger none of them.
Legal Insight. When an agency moves a function to a different local commuting area, the transfer-of-function rules in 5 C.F.R. Part 351, Subpart C generally give identified employees the right to move with their work when the alternative is separation, and an agency that instead separates employees must use reduction-in-force procedures. An employee removed for declining a directed reassignment outside the commuting area may appeal the removal to the MSPB (5 U.S.C. § 7513; 5 U.S.C. § 7701), and an involuntary separation not based on misconduct can support severance pay (5 U.S.C. § 5595) or FERS discontinued service retirement at age 50 with 20 years of service, or at any age with 25 (5 U.S.C. § 8414(b)). Whether a Manhattan-to-New Jersey move crosses a commuting-area line is a fact question the agency's own paperwork will have to answer. If you receive a directed reassignment or relocation notice you do not intend to accept, consult a federal employment attorney before you respond — the sequence of events matters.
3. Senate-Confirmed Leaders Are Exiting at Record Rates — and More Agencies Are Being Run by Acting Officials
Source: Government Executive, July 23, 2026
TL;DR: A Partnership for Public Service analysis published July 22 finds that 27 Senate-confirmed officials — 11.4% of those confirmed — have left the administration so far, nearly two and a half times the 11 departures at the same point in the president's first term and well above the average of 4.3 departures across the first 18 months of the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations. The departures include three Cabinet secretaries and the heads of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the IRS. Departing officials served an average of eight months and waited an average of nearly five months to be confirmed; 30% spent more time in the confirmation process than in the job. The analysis also reports the administration is making the fewest nominations since the Reagan administration, which increases the number of positions filled by acting officials who never go through Senate review. The White House said the administration "will continue to tirelessly implement the Trump agenda."
For federal employees, this means:
• Leadership churn shows up downstream: delegations of authority, reorganization plans, and pending policy decisions can stall or reverse when the official who made them departs.
• When an acting official heads your agency or component, the legal limits on acting service can matter to actions taken on that official's watch — including personnel actions.
• Keep copies of who signed what: proposal notices, decision letters, and delegation memoranda become important if an action is later challenged.
Legal Insight. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 3345-3349d) controls who may perform the duties of a vacant Senate-confirmed office and for how long — generally 210 days, subject to extensions tied to pending nominations (5 U.S.C. § 3346). Where the Act applies, an action taken by someone serving in violation of its limits "shall have no force or effect" (5 U.S.C. § 3348(d)). For federal employees, the authority of the official who proposes or decides a personnel action is a threshold question in any later challenge — one more reason the paperwork behind an action matters as much as the action itself.
Legal Tip of the Day
If You’re Charged AWOL
Being marked AWOL can quickly become more than a timekeeping issue. It may support discipline, affect pay, and create a record suggesting you were absent without permission even when there was a valid explanation. Gather leave requests, call logs, emails, medical notes, emergency records, timecards, and any proof that you notified management. Ask for clarification in writing if leave was denied or changed after the fact. Do not assume the agency will correct the record without documentation, and do not wait to respond if the charge is wrong.
Programming Note
Our podcast will be delayed this week — our Media Relations Cooridnator Ruby Alosbanos is out, so the new episode will drop Monday, August 3 instead of this Friday.
Also, this week's emails will not include our usual blog post roundup. Don't worry — the content is still coming, just on Instagram instead. Follow us there so you don't miss it: @southworth_pc
We'll be back to our normal schedule next week, and wish Ruby a great, relaxing vacation.
Need Help with Discipline or Performance?
If you’ve just been put on a PIP, received a proposed suspension or removal, or are worried your “coaching” has turned into a paper trail, it’s time to get real advice—not just hallway rumors.
At Southworth PC, we represent federal employees nationwide in:
-
Proposed discipline and removals
-
Performance issues and PIPs
-
EEO discrimination, harassment, and retaliation
-
Whistleblower and civil rights matters
-
MSPB, EEOC, and OSC cases
-
OPM/FERS disability retirement applications (flat‑fee full‑service assistance)
In a free, confidential consultation, you speak directly with an attorney about your timeline, key documents, and options. Deadlines can be quick in the federal sector, so if you have a deadline, don’t wait.
👉 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.
Responses