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
 |
Today at a Glance
-
Appeals Move to OPM on September 2: New OPM guidance says employees who appeal a RIF action, a probationary termination, or a suitability action will no longer have an automatic right to a hearing — most cases will be decided on the written record alone.
-
2027 Pay Decision Due Before September 1: The President has until the end of this month to issue an alternative pay plan for next year. Neither chamber of Congress has passed language overriding a freeze.
-
Getting an Arbitrator Just Got Harder: A new Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service rule, effective August 4, lets the agency screen and refuse requests for an arbitration panel. Comments close September 3.
Top Stories:
1. OPM’s New Appeals Process Starts September 2 — and There Is No Automatic Right to a Hearing
Source: Federal News Network, via Maryland Matters, August 10, 2026
TL;DR: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has released implementation guidance explaining how it will handle three categories of employee appeals it takes over from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on September 2: firings and demotions during a reduction in force (RIF), terminations during a probationary or trial period, and suitability actions. Under the guidance, employees who file these appeals will no longer have a right to a hearing or a formal investigation; OPM says it will decide most cases on the written record alone and will hold a hearing or investigate only “when necessary and efficient,” at its own discretion. OPM’s Merit System Accountability and Compliance (MSAC) office will decide RIF and probationary appeals, and its Suitability Executive Agent (SuitEA) will decide suitability appeals. The filing sequence is fixed: the employee has 30 days from the agency’s action to file, the agency then has 30 days to respond with its reasons and all related records, and the employee has 15 days to reply — after which an OPM adjudicator issues an initial decision, subject to a request for reconsideration within 30 days and, in some cases, review by the OPM director. Appeals already pending when the rules take effect stay with the MSPB. OPM says MSAC and SuitEA can run these programs “from day one,” while a recent Government Accountability Office report found MSAC’s staffing declined 41% between fiscal 2024 and fiscal 2026 and warned that OPM’s existing skills gaps could worsen.
For federal employees, this means:
- If you are facing a RIF, a probationary termination, or a suitability action on or after September 2, assume your case will be decided on paper. Preserve the record now — notices, emails, SF-50s, retention register information, performance documents — because there may be no hearing at which to explain it.
- Calendar two clocks: 30 days from the agency’s action to file your appeal with OPM, and 15 days to reply after the agency submits its record. The reply is your opportunity to answer what the agency put in the file.
- Discrimination and retaliation claims travel a separate route that this change does not close. EEO counselor contact and whistleblower complaints to the Office of Special Counsel remain available on their own deadlines.
Legal Insight
Before the Board, an appellant has a statutory right “to a hearing for which a transcript will be kept,” 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1), with the 30-day filing deadline set by 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b). OPM’s new programs replace that hearing right with written-record adjudication in the three transferred categories, and probationers’ appealable grounds remain narrow in any forum — partisan political or marital-status discrimination, or defective procedure where the termination rested on pre-appointment reasons, 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(b), (c). A discrimination claim still requires contact with an EEO counselor within 45 days of the action under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1), and that clock runs whether or not an appeal is pending. Because the filing windows are short and the written record may be the only record, employees facing an action in this window should consult a federal employment attorney before the first deadline passes.
2. The 2027 Pay Decision Is Due Before September 1 — and Congress Has Not Overridden It
Source: Government Executive, August 6, 2026
TL;DR: President Trump is expected to issue an alternative pay plan this month proposing no pay increase for civilian federal employees in 2027. The administration’s fiscal 2027 budget proposal, published in April, was silent on civilian compensation; the Office of Management and Budget later confirmed that the proposal was “no pay increase” for civilians, while military members would receive between 5% and 7% depending on rank. The deadline matters: if the President does not formalize an alternative plan by the end of August, the automatic locality-pay formula written into the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 produces much larger increases by default. Congress has not overridden the plan. The House’s fiscal 2027 financial services and general government appropriations bill is silent on federal pay, and the Senate has not yet published its draft, though senators have proposed trimming the military raise to an across-the-board 3.6% in their version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. Democrats in both chambers are again pressing the FAIR Act, which would provide an average 4.1% raise — 3.1% in basic pay plus an average 1% in locality pay. Last year followed the same pattern of a silent budget and a planned freeze, and ended with a 1% across-the-board increase, no locality increase for most employees, and 3.8% for employees in law enforcement fields.
For federal employees, this means:
- Watch for the alternative pay plan before September 1. That document, not the budget proposal, sets the default for your January paycheck.
- Budget for a freeze while the plan is outstanding, and treat last year’s 1% outcome as the nearest comparison rather than a forecast.
- OPM has signaled it intends to issue new locality pay regulations. If a proposed rule appears, the comment period is the only formal way for employees and their organizations to weigh in.
Legal Insight
The annual across-the-board adjustment is automatic by statute, 5 U.S.C. § 5303(a), and locality-based comparability payments are set under 5 U.S.C. § 5304. The President may substitute smaller increases only by transmitting an alternative plan to Congress before September 1 of the preceding year, 5 U.S.C. § 5303(b) for basic pay and 5 U.S.C. § 5304a for locality pay. Congress can override either the formula or the alternative plan in appropriations law, which is why the silence in the House bill functions as acceptance. Nothing in this process gives an individual employee a right to grieve or appeal the amount of the annual adjustment.
3. A New Rule Lets the Federal Mediation Agency Screen — and Refuse — Requests for an Arbitrator
Source: Federal Register, 91 FR 49273, August 4, 2026
TL;DR: The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) — the agency that supplies the lists of arbitrators used to decide contract grievances — issued an interim final rule that took effect on publication, August 4, 2026, amending 29 C.F.R. Part 1404, Subpart C. The rule deletes the assurance that a panel request, “whether joint or unilateral, will be honored,” and instead authorizes FMCS’s Office of Arbitration to conduct a “limited threshold inquiry” into whether providing a panel would be inconsistent with applicable law, a court order, or the agency’s own authority. After that inquiry, FMCS may issue the panel, decline the request, hold it in abeyance, or “take other administratively appropriate action.” The preamble ties the change to Executive Order 14251, which excluded named agencies from the federal labor-relations statute and directed covered agencies to end participation in pending grievance proceedings. FMCS states that its threshold decision “does not constitute a decision on the validity of any collective-bargaining agreement, the merits of any grievance, [or] the arbitrability of any dispute,” and points parties to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) or a court instead. The rule formalizes an April policy under which FMCS stopped appointing arbitrators for grievances at agencies covered by the executive orders; Government Executive reported on August 5 that four unions — AFGE, IFPTE, NFFE and NTEU — sued in May, arguing FMCS was violating the Administrative Procedure Act by disregarding its own regulations. Comments on the interim final rule are due September 3, 2026.
For federal employees, this means:
- If your grievance is on its way to arbitration at an agency covered by the collective-bargaining executive orders, expect FMCS to ask threshold questions before it issues a panel, and build the added delay into your expectations.
- The rule does not change your contract. Grievance filing deadlines, steward representation, and the steps in your negotiated procedure are unaffected; what changed is how an arbitrator gets appointed.
- The comment period is open through September 3 at regulations.gov. Unions, stewards, and individual employees may file comments, and comments are posted publicly as received.
Legal Insight
A negotiated grievance procedure must provide that an unresolved grievance is “subject to binding arbitration which may be invoked by either the exclusive representative or the agency,” 5 U.S.C. § 7121(b)(1)(C)(iii), and the new 29 C.F.R. § 1404.9(b)(3) does not repeal that right — it changes whether the agency that supplies arbitrators will process the request. An agency’s refusal to honor a contractual arbitration provision may be an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1), (5), and an arbitration award, once issued, is reviewable by the FLRA under 5 U.S.C. § 7122. Employees whose grievances are stalled at the panel-request stage should raise it with their union promptly, and where a filing deadline in the negotiated procedure is at risk, consult a federal employment attorney about preserving the claim.
Mindful Moment of the Day
The Approval Waiting Space
Waiting for approvals can be its own kind of stress. A package may sit with a supervisor, counsel, HR, budget, or another office while deadlines keep moving closer. You may keep refreshing the tracker, rereading the same thread, or imagining blame landing on you. When you notice the checking loop, pause and breathe out slowly. Ask, “Is there anything useful I can do right now?” If yes, do that one thing. If no, document the status and return to another task. This practice helps you stop spending energy on a door that is not currently in your hands to open.
In Case You Missed It
A few quick hits from our recent posts:
A Federal Judge Blocked the VA From Ending Its AFGE Contract — Again
|
The Senate Passed a Funding Patch 90-6. Why October 1 Is Not Safe Yet.
|
Ninety Seconds Before Your First Meeting: A Monday Reset for Federal Employees
|
Facing Harassment or Discrimination?
If you’re dealing with slurs, exclusion, hostile emails, or sudden negative treatment after speaking up, you don’t have to wait until things get unbearable to explore your options.
We regularly represent federal employees in:
-
EEO complaints for discrimination, harassment, and hostile work environment
-
Retaliation for prior EEO activity or protected conduct
-
Reasonable accommodation disputes
-
Related discipline or performance issues that follow on the heels of complaints
In your free, confidential consultation, we’ll walk through what’s been happening, key dates (including the short EEO deadlines), and the tools available to you—formal and informal.
👉 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