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. 

Today at a Glance

• Former VOA Employees Just Asked the MSPB to Void Their Deferred Resignation and Buyout Agreements: Four former Voice of America employees filed with the MSPB this week arguing their 2025 separation deals should be voided and their jobs restored — because a court has since ruled that the entire legal basis for those agreements was invalid. If the MSPB agrees, it could open the door for other employees governmentwide who signed separation agreements under similar unlawful pressure.

• OPM's 2027 FEHB Call Letter Ends All Gender-Affirming Care Coverage — Including for Those Mid-Treatment: The guidance, released March 31, also reshapes GLP-1 coverage, removes vaccine incentives, and signals where federal health benefits are headed for the plan year beginning January 1, 2027. Open season is months away, but decisions are being made now.

• The DHS Shutdown Is on Day 53. Congress Held Another Pro Forma Session Today and Went Home. A Real Vote Is Not Expected Until April 13 at the Earliest.

Top Stories:

1. Former Voice of America Employees Just Asked the MSPB to Void Their 2025 Buyout Agreements — a Legal Theory That Could Affect Federal Employees Across Government

Source: Government Executive — April 7, 2026

TL;DR: Four former Voice of America employees — who accepted Deferred Resignation Program offers, VERA, or VSIP payments in 2025 — filed a complaint with the MSPB this week arguing their separation agreements should be voided and their employment reinstated. Their legal theory: a federal judge ruled on March 7 that Kari Lake was unlawfully appointed to lead USAGM, meaning that the threatened RIF she used to pressure employees into leaving "had no force or effect." Because both parties to the separation agreements operated under the mistaken belief that a lawful RIF was coming, the employees argue the agreements were based on a "material mistake of fact" and are therefore voidable under established MSPB precedent. One lead plaintiff described making "life-altering decisions under intense pressure and severe time constraints" based on what turned out to be an unlawful threat. The D.C. Circuit has already stayed the back-to-work order for forcibly terminated employees while the appeal proceeds, but the question of whether voluntary separations are also voidable is a separate and distinct legal question now before the MSPB.

For federal employees, this means:

• If you are a former VOA or USAGM employee who accepted a DRP, VERA, or VSIP during the Lake administration and did not receive a formal MSPB appeal of your termination, this MSPB filing is the first effort to establish that voluntary separations accepted under unlawful pressure may also be reversible. Watch the MSPB's response closely.
• More broadly, this case raises a legal question relevant to the entire federal workforce: if an employee accepted a separation agreement — including a DRP offer, VERA, or VSIP — because they were told a RIF was imminent, and that RIF was later found to have been unlawfully ordered, is the agreement voidable? The MSPB has recognized the "mutual mistake of fact" doctrine before. Whether it applies here is fact-specific, but the theory is legally serious.
• If you are a former federal employee who accepted a separation agreement in 2025 under explicit or implicit pressure from a threatened RIF or agency closure — particularly at agencies like USAID, Education, CFPB, or other agencies where the legal authority for the actions is now under challenge — this case is worth following.

Legal Insight:
The MSPB generally cannot hear cases where an employee voluntarily left federal service. The exceptions are narrow: separation obtained through duress or coercion, separation based on a mutual mistake of law or fact, or separation where a reasonable person would have been misled by the agency. The VOA employees are invoking the mutual mistake doctrine — arguing that both the employees and the agency believed the threatened RIF was lawful when it was not. Whether the MSPB finds that theory applicable here depends on facts specific to each employee's situation. If you are a former federal employee who accepted a separation agreement under similar circumstances — including at agencies whose authority to conduct RIFs or closures is currently under legal challenge — the deadline to file with the MSPB may not have passed. Because the MSPB's jurisdiction over voluntary separations is narrow and deadline-sensitive, consider talking with a qualified federal employment attorney about your specific situation before concluding you have no options.

2. OPM's 2027 FEHB Call Letter Ends All Gender-Affirming Care Coverage, Reshapes GLP-1 Access, and Removes Vaccine Incentives

Source: Federal News Network — April 7, 2026

TL;DR: OPM released its Plan Year 2027 Carrier Call Letter for the FEHB and PSHB programs on March 31. The document outlines what federal health insurance carriers must offer beginning January 1, 2027 and signals several significant changes. Most consequentially: starting in 2027, all coverage for gender-affirming care will end — including for patients who were mid-treatment and had been allowed to continue under 2026 transition rules. The only coverage that will remain is counseling services from licensed mental health providers. On GLP-1 obesity medications, OPM is tightening the requirements carriers must impose before covering these drugs, requiring intensive behavioral therapy programs rather than attestation statements alone. OPM is also directing carriers to remove monetary incentives — such as cash rewards for flu shots — for pediatric and prenatal vaccinations, citing a desire to support members' "independent judgment." The overall framing is a shift from what OPM calls a "sick care model" toward "well care," emphasizing prevention and non-pharmaceutical interventions.

For federal employees, this means:

• If you are a federal employee or retiree currently receiving gender-affirming care under your FEHB plan with a transition exemption, that exemption ends on December 31, 2026. Starting January 1, 2027, no coverage will be available for ongoing treatment — only counseling services. If you are in this situation, talk to your provider now about what completing or transitioning your care before year-end would look like, and confirm your plan's specific coverage terms for 2026 during the remainder of this plan year.
• If you are enrolled in an FEHB plan and use GLP-1 medications for weight loss, review your carrier's current prior authorization requirements and be aware that requirements may tighten for 2027 open season. The specific changes depend on how each carrier implements OPM's guidance, so check your plan's communications as they become available.
• Open season for 2027 plan year coverage will run in November 2026. The decisions being made now by carriers in response to this call letter will determine what plans are available and what they cover. This is the time to start paying attention to any communications from your carrier.

Legal Insight:
OPM's coverage mandates are binding on FEHB carriers. If your carrier fails to follow OPM's requirements — in either direction, whether by maintaining coverage that OPM has required be terminated, or by failing to provide coverage OPM requires — you may have a complaint avenue through OPM's Healthcare and Insurance office. For federal employees affected by the gender-affirming care coverage end: under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and EEO Commission guidance, gender dysphoria may qualify as a disability in some circumstances. If your agency's management takes adverse action against you in connection with your medical status or care, that may be separately actionable as disability discrimination. The coverage end itself is an OPM policy decision and is not itself an employment action — but downstream workplace consequences may be. Consider talking with your union and a qualified federal employment attorney if you experience adverse employment treatment connected to your health status or medical care.

3. The DHS Shutdown Is 53 Days Old. Congress Had Another Pro Forma Session Today. No Vote Until April 13 at the Earliest.

Source: Yahoo News — April 6, 2026

TL;DR: The DHS shutdown entered its 53rd day today. The House held a pro forma session this morning and took no action. The next pro forma session is scheduled for April 9, also expected to produce no votes. Congress is not back in full session until the week of April 13. All DHS employees are now receiving pay by executive order, but the underlying funding lapse continues. The two-chamber stalemate — the Senate passed a bill excluding ICE and CBP funding; the House passed a different bill including all of DHS for 60 days; neither bill has passed both chambers — remains unresolved. A legislative fix requires the House to pass the Senate bill or vice versa.

For federal employees, this means:

• If you are a DHS employee receiving pay under the executive orders, verify your amounts carefully. The orders use a "reasonable and logical nexus" funding standard that has not been legally tested, and some employees in support or administrative roles may experience delays.
• The shutdown's operational effects continue regardless of pay. Budget-constrained activities at FEMA, CISA, and the Coast Guard — including training, long-term grants, disaster preparedness planning, and certain contracts — remain restricted. Being paid does not mean the agency is fully funded.
• April 13 is the earliest realistic date for a House floor vote on ending the shutdown. Even then, passage is not guaranteed given the ongoing intra-Republican dispute over ICE and CBP funding. Do not assume this resolves next week.

Legal Insight:
The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 guarantees statutory back pay for all employees who worked or were furloughed during the lapse once regular appropriations are restored. That guarantee exists independently of the executive orders and will apply in full when the shutdown ends. If there is any discrepancy between what you receive under the executive order and what you are ultimately owed under the GFETA calculation, document it from the first paycheck and follow up in writing. Because payroll correction timelines and available remedies depend on the specific nature of the error and the agency involved, consider talking with your union and a qualified federal employment attorney if a discrepancy is not resolved promptly.

Legal Tip of the Day

When Your Performance Rating Changes Suddenly

A drop in performance rating can affect promotions, pay, and job security. Sometimes the shift comes without clear explanation. Request specific examples supporting the rating. Compare feedback throughout the year to see if it aligns. Keep records of prior evaluations and accomplishments.

In Case You Missed It