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

• FEHB Health Data: Six Senate Democrats asked OPM on Wednesday to suspend its plan to collect claims-level health data on the more than 8 million people covered by FEHB and PSHB plans, saying the June "pseudonymization" changes still leave records re-identifiable and kept for 30 years. They want answers by September 25.

• EEOC Class Complaints: A federal judge declined to order the EEOC to restart federal-sector class complaints because the agency told her the pause "should not have been suspended" and "will not recur," but she ordered limited discovery into whether it was a coordinated policy. The EEOC's proposed rule to end class complaints takes comments through September 28.

• Education Department RIF: A union local and three former Education secretaries asked the inspector general to audit the cost of last year's RIF, saying fired employees are being passed over for their old jobs. That claim turns on the Reemployment Priority List and the transfer-of-function rules that took effect September 2.

Top Stories:

1. Senators Press OPM to Suspend Its FEHB Claims-Data Collection — Here Is What the June Notice Says OPM Will Collect, and What the Privacy Act Requires

Source: Government Executive, September 16, 2026

TL;DR: Six Senate Democrats, led by Sens. Adam Schiff and Mark Warner, asked OPM Director Scott Kupor on Wednesday to suspend the agency's plan to collect claims-level health data on FEHB (Federal Employees Health Benefits) and PSHB (Postal Service Health Benefits) enrollees and their family members. OPM proposed the collection in December 2025 and on June 23, 2026, published a modified Privacy Act system-of-records notice, "OPM/Central-15, Health Benefits Claims and Cost Records," effective on publication (its new routine uses took effect July 23). The notice says OPM will receive medical and pharmacy claims data from carriers, OPM's inspector general, and Medicare, with names, Social Security numbers, and street addresses stripped out and each member ID replaced by a hashed identifier, but it also states that OPM "retains the ability to re-identify records for authorized operational purposes." The senators say a stable identifier linked to ZIP code, birth year, provider, dates of service, diagnoses, procedures, and drug codes still reveals "highly specific patterns of care," that the incorporated records schedule keeps the records for 30 years, and that the notice does not rule out using the data in personnel decisions such as hiring, suitability, RIFs, or accommodation requests. They asked for a written response and briefing by September 25.

For federal employees, this means:

• The collection covers more than 8 million people, including annuitants, spouses, former spouses, children, Postal Service employees, certain tribal employees, and people on Temporary Continuation of Coverage.
• You have a Privacy Act right to ask what OPM holds about you; the notice routes written access and amendment requests to OPM's Office of the General Counsel (FOIA) and says an enrollee can see only his or her own records.
• Nothing here changes your FEHB coverage or the Open Season that runs November 9 through December 14; the date to watch is OPM's September 25 response deadline.

Legal Insight

The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(1), allows an agency to keep only information about a person that is "relevant and necessary" to a purpose required by statute or executive order, and § 552a(b)(3) permits disclosure without consent only under published "routine uses"; the June notice lists twelve, including referral to law enforcement where a record "indicates a violation or potential violation of law." OPM grounds the collection in 5 U.S.C. § 8910(a), which directs it to make "a continuing study of the operation and administration" of the FEHB Program, and in its status as a HIPAA "health oversight agency" under 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(d). Whether claims-level, re-identifiable data on family members is "relevant and necessary" to that study is the senators' question; § 552a(g) provides a civil remedy for violations that adversely affect an individual.

2. A Judge Would Not Order the EEOC to Restart Federal-Sector Class Complaints — Because the EEOC Told Her the Pause "Should Not Have" Happened and "Will Not Recur"

Source: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, AFGE v. EEOC, No. 1:26-cv-02640, Memorandum Opinion, September 2, 2026 (public docket via CourtListener; latest entries September 16, 2026)

TL;DR: On September 2, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied, without prejudice, AFGE's motion for a preliminary injunction ordering the EEOC to resume processing federal-sector class complaints. The suit grew out of a December 2025 "Notification of Case Processing Abeyance" issued by the administrative judge in a certified class complaint brought by women correctional workers at the Bureau of Prisons' FCC Pollock, Louisiana; the notice said all case processing "must be paused until further notice" and that it "applies to all class cases in the federal sector." The EEOC told the court it has no such policy, that the notice "was an isolated incident of an administrative judge's order issued in error," that the processing of class complaints "should not have been suspended," and that a suspension "will not recur"; it has reassigned the affected cases to new administrative judges, who have entered scheduling orders. The judge found those steps averted imminent irreparable harm but wrote that her ruling "expressly depends upon" the EEOC's representations and that the plaintiffs "have presented a substantial body of evidence that tends to support an inference that the lengthy delays in Pippen and other cases did result from a coordinated policy." She ordered limited discovery into what policy, if any, caused the delays. The public docket shows a September 16 order resetting deadlines; its text was not yet available when this was written. The EEOC's August 28 proposed rule, which would end administrative class complaints altogether, takes comments through September 28.

For federal employees, this means:

• If you are a class agent or member in a pending federal-sector class complaint, get the new scheduling order; the EEOC told the court every affected case has been reassigned and rescheduled, and those deadlines now run against you.
• The court has not decided whether the pause was lawful or was a policy; those questions are now in discovery, and the judge signaled she will hold the EEOC to its statements if it later takes a "clearly inconsistent" position.
• The bigger change is still on paper: the EEOC's proposed Part 1614 overhaul would eliminate class complaints and the automatic right to a hearing before an administrative judge. The comment period closes September 28, 2026.

Legal Insight

Federal-sector class complaints are governed by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204, which sets out certification by an EEOC administrative judge, notice to the class, a hearing, and, if discrimination is found, an order that the agency "must eliminate or modify the employment policy or practice out of which the complaint arose." The plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, which lets a court "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed," 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), and set aside arbitrary and capricious action, § 706(2)(A); interim relief under 5 U.S.C. § 705 requires imminent irreparable harm, which the EEOC's resumption of processing defeated for now. The proposed rule is 91 Fed. Reg. 55690 (Aug. 28, 2026). If your class or individual EEO matter sat idle during the pause, a federal employment attorney can help confirm where your deadlines now stand.

3. A Union Local and Three Former Secretaries Ask the Education Inspector General to Audit Last Year's RIF — and Say Fired Employees Are Being Passed Over for Their Old Jobs

Source: Federal News Network, September 16, 2026

TL;DR: AFGE Local 252 and three former Education secretaries, Arne Duncan, John B. King Jr., and Miguel Cardona, asked the department's acting inspector general, Mark Priebe, for a formal review of the cost of the department's 2025 workforce and program cuts, including the expense of reinstating and rehiring hundreds of employees, Federal News Network and States Newsroom report. The department cut roughly half of its career staff last year through a RIF (Reduction in Force) and separation incentives; FNN reports headcount is now about 2,000, down from about 4,000. The local's president, herself a 2025 RIF recipient, said the department is posting hundreds of jobs that match the work fired members did while declining to hire them back. The department said its RIF "was implemented carefully and in compliance with all applicable regulations and laws." The department is also implementing over a dozen interagency agreements moving programs and personnel to other agencies, and the 21 state attorneys general suing over the RIF asked the court Monday to compel production of about 1,300 withheld documents; the Supreme Court let the layoffs proceed in July 2025 while that case continues.

For federal employees, this means:

• If you were separated by RIF from a competitive-service job and applied to your agency's Reemployment Priority List (RPL) on or before your separation date, you hold placement priority for two years for most competitive-service vacancies in your former commuting area at or below your former pay level, and the agency "must not" appoint an outside candidate over you unless a listed exception applies.
• RPL priority does not reach every posting. Excepted-service appointments and 10-point veterans' preference hires are listed exceptions, contractor jobs are not federal appointments at all, and you must be "qualified" for the specific vacancy, so keep your registration current and in writing.
• If your program is moving to another agency, the revised transfer-of-function rules that took effect September 2 let the agency canvass you by letter but give you at least 30 calendar days to decide, and a competing employee identified with the function must be transferred "without any change in the tenure of his or her employment." That right exists only when the alternative at the losing agency is separation or demotion.

Legal Insight

The RPL is mandatory under 5 C.F.R. § 330.201, registration lasts two years from the RIF separation date under § 330.208(a), and § 330.210(b) bars the agency from making a competitive-service appointment of another person while a qualified registrant is available for the vacancy; § 330.214 lets a registrant who believes the agency filled a job with someone "who otherwise could not have been appointed properly" appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Transfers of function are governed by 5 U.S.C. § 3503 and 5 C.F.R. §§ 351.301–.303 as revised effective September 2, 2026; an employee who declines to transfer may be separated only through adverse-action procedures under 5 C.F.R. part 752 (or other procedures governing the appointment) or a concurrent RIF. Whether a given interagency agreement is a "transfer of function" under § 3503 is the threshold question; a federal employment attorney can review a canvass letter or RPL registration against these rules before you respond.

Mindful Moment of the Day

When the Headline Is About Your Own Records

Today's stories touch things that feel personal: your health claims, a complaint you filed, a job you lost. That can set off a quiet alarm that follows you all day. Notice it, and name it as worry rather than a verdict. Most of what is in the news today is a comment period, a request for answers, or a court still gathering facts; none of it requires you to act in the next five minutes. Take one slow breath, write down the single date that matters to you, and let the rest wait until you know more. 

In Case You Missed It

A few quick hits from our recent posts:

Should Petty Friday Live or Die? Federal Employees, Tell Us What You Want From Hey Feds

Twenty-Two Cases, Two Million Feds: OPM Reopens Comments on Its Federal Removal Rule Through September 29

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.