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

• EEOC Meeting Today: The Commission meets at 10:00 a.m. Eastern to consider a draft proposed rule rewriting the federal-sector EEO complaint regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. The meeting is open to the public, and the draft text has not been released.

• Unions Sue Over Suitability And Rating Rules: Four national unions filed suit Monday in federal court in California challenging OPM's new suitability rule for current employees and its performance-management overhaul, including forced rating distributions.

• Hatch Act Enforcement: The Office of Special Counsel filed disciplinary complaints with the MSPB against two federal employees for running for partisan office and soliciting contributions, the same day a watchdog group pressed OSC on six pending cases involving senior officials.

Top Stories:

1. The EEOC Votes Today on a Draft Rewrite of the Federal EEO Complaint Rules — and the Text Is Not Public

Source: EEOC.gov

TL;DR: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published a Sunshine Act notice on August 21 setting an open Commission meeting for today, Wednesday, August 26, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time at the Jacqueline A. Berrien Training Center, 131 M Street NE, Washington, D.C. Two items are on the agenda: the EEOC Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2026-2030, and a "Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking—Revision of Federal-sector EEO Complaint Regulations (29 CFR part 1614)." Part 1614 is the rulebook for every federal-sector discrimination complaint — counselor contact, formal complaint, investigation, the hearing stage, and appeals. The notice states that the public may observe the Commission's deliberations and voting but not participate, and that listen-only audio instructions would be posted on eeoc.gov at least 24 hours before the meeting; anyone attending in person had to register by email at least 24 hours in advance. The notice does not describe what the draft would change, and as of this morning the draft text has not been made public, so its contents cannot be verified from the record. For scale: EEOC reported receiving 7,175 federal-sector hearing requests in fiscal 2025 and resolving 6,178, securing almost $78.1 million in benefits for federal workers.

For federal employees, this means:

• Nothing changes today. A vote to publish a proposed rule is not a rule change. Every current Part 1614 right and deadline stays in force until a final rule takes effect.
• If the Commission votes to publish, a public comment period follows. That comment period is the only formal opportunity to put objections and questions on the record, so watch the Federal Register for the proposal and the closing date.
• Keep meeting the deadlines that exist now: 45 days from the discriminatory action to contact an EEO counselor, 15 days to file a formal complaint after the notice of right to file, and 30 days after the report of investigation to request a hearing.

Legal Insight

Under the current rules, after the agency investigates, the complainant may elect a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge, 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.108(f), 1614.109, and the 45-day counselor-contact deadline is set by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1). A draft notice of proposed rulemaking is a proposal only: the Administrative Procedure Act requires publication and an opportunity for public comment before an agency adopts a final rule, and a substantive rule generally cannot take effect until at least 30 days after the final rule is published, 5 U.S.C. § 553. Because the text has not been released, no one can responsibly say what the proposal does — the sound course is to keep the current deadlines and read the proposal when it publishes. If you have a live complaint or an approaching deadline, this is a good moment to speak with a federal employment attorney.

2. Four Unions Sue OPM Over the New Suitability Rule and the Performance-Rating Overhaul

Source: Federal News Network, August 25, 2026

TL;DR: The American Federation of Government Employees, the National Federation of Federal Employees, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed suit on Monday, August 24, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint argues that the Office of Personnel Management exceeded its statutory authority and violated the intent of the Civil Service Reform Act when it issued two final rules. The first, from June, allows agencies to apply to current employees the same suitability and fitness standards long used for job applicants, and allows expedited removals of employees found not to meet them; OPM said the change closes an "irrational gap." The second, finalized in July, reshapes the governmentwide performance-management system — it permits a forced distribution of employee ratings, a practice barred for decades, and removes the ability to challenge a rating through the negotiated grievance and arbitration process. The unions also challenge OPM's separate rule changing where suitability-action appeals go, arguing it removes independent review. AFGE President Everett Kelley said OPM "wants to fire people itself and then review its own decision"; NFFE President Randy Erwin said the regulations "stretch far beyond the agency's authority." An OPM spokesperson declined to comment on pending litigation; OPM has said the appeals changes are meant to make the process more efficient and cost-effective, not to erode its independence, and that the rating changes address longstanding inflation in federal appraisals.

For federal employees, this means:

• Know which letter you are holding. A proposed adverse action under Chapter 75 carries advance written notice, a reply, the right to representation, and an MSPB appeal. A suitability action runs on a different and shorter track.
• If your rating drops under a forced distribution, the July rule closes the grievance-and-arbitration route to challenge it. Save your written performance standards, your accomplishment record, and the dates on every appraisal document now, while you still have them.
• A lawsuit is not a stay. Both rules remain in effect unless a court orders otherwise, so treat every deadline in any notice you receive as real.

Legal Insight

The merit system principles the unions invoke are codified at 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b), and 5 U.S.C. § 4302 requires performance appraisal systems whose standards permit, to the maximum extent feasible, accurate evaluation of job performance "on the basis of objective criteria . . . related to the job in question" — the provision behind the challenge to forced ranking. For covered employees, an adverse action still requires at least 30 days' advance written notice, an opportunity to reply, and a written decision under 5 U.S.C. § 7513, with an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board under 5 U.S.C. § 7701; suitability actions run under 5 C.F.R. Part 731. Courts may set aside agency action taken "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations," 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), but that takes time. If a proposal or a suitability notice arrives, the reply clock is short — contact your union representative if you have one, and get a federal employment attorney involved quickly.

3. The Special Counsel Files Two Hatch Act Cases at the Board While a Watchdog Asks About Six Others

Source: Government Executive, August 21, 2026

TL;DR: On Thursday, August 20, the Office of Special Counsel announced it had filed disciplinary complaints with the Merit Systems Protection Board against two federal employees who, despite warnings, allegedly ran for partisan political office and solicited political contributions. Both activities are prohibited by the Hatch Act. The same day, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington wrote to OSC stating that the agency has opened investigations into six senior officials, five of which have been pending more than 10 months. CREW's complaints concern remarks made in media briefings and interviews by officials including outgoing White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about a New York City mayoral candidate. An OSC spokesperson said the agency "doesn't comment on open cases," and OSC has said it resolved several hundred more Hatch Act complaints in fiscal 2025 than in fiscal 2024. Government Executive notes OSC has found Hatch Act violations by senior officials across administrations of both parties, including Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro and Social Security Commissioner Martin O'Malley in 2024 and 2025, and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue in 2020. The Senate confirmed Charles Baldis as Special Counsel earlier this month.

For federal employees, this means:

• Two lines are bright for most executive-branch employees: you may not run for nomination or election to a partisan political office, and you may not knowingly solicit or receive political contributions. Neither depends on whether you were on duty.
• A prior OSC warning letter does not clear the slate. In one of the new cases, OSC says the employee had already been warned after a 2022 investigation and continued after being told a new investigation had opened.
• The penalty is decided by the Board, not by your agency, and the range runs from a reprimand up to removal plus debarment from federal employment for as long as five years.

Legal Insight

The Hatch Act's core prohibitions for most executive-branch employees are at 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a) — no use of official authority or influence to affect an election, no knowing solicitation or receipt of political contributions, and no candidacy for nomination or election to a partisan political office — with the on-duty and in-the-workplace restrictions at 5 U.S.C. § 7324 and OSC's implementing regulations at 5 C.F.R. Part 734. OSC presents disciplinary complaints to the Board under 5 U.S.C. § 1215(a), and the Board may impose removal, reduction in grade, debarment from federal employment for up to five years, suspension, reprimand, a civil penalty of not more than $1,000, or a combination of those, 5 U.S.C. § 7326. Whether a particular post, share, or fundraising request crosses the line often turns on small facts — duty status, the device and account used, and who was asked — so if you are unsure heading into an election season, put the question to your agency ethics official in writing before you act.

Legal Tip of the Day

Requesting a Reasonable Accommodation the Right Way

If a medical condition affects your ability to work, a reasonable accommodation request should be handled carefully and in writing. Explain that you have a medical condition affecting work and identify practical changes that may help, such as schedule adjustments, telework, equipment, modified duties, or reassignment when appropriate. Keep copies of the request, medical documentation, agency forms, and all responses. Do not disclose more medical detail than necessary, and do not rely only on verbal conversations about what the agency will do. 

In Case You Missed It

A few quick hits from our recent posts:

EEOC Votes August 26 on a Plan That Could End Your Right to an Independent Judge

Four Unions Sue OPM Over the Rule That Reroutes Removals — and Their Appeals — to OPM

The Man Who Ran the IRS Says the Bill for DOGE's Cuts Hasn't Come Due Yet

Thinking About Federal Disability Retirement?

If your medical conditions make it hard to safely or consistently perform your federal job—even with accommodations—it may be time to explore OPM/FERS disability retirement.

We help federal employees:

• Decide whether disability retirement is the right path compared to accommodation or reassignment

• Gather and frame medical evidence so it speaks the language OPM expects

• Prepare and submit disability retirement applications and related documentation

• Coordinate strategy when disability retirement interacts with pending discipline, EEO complaints, or MSPB appeals

For most disability retirement matters, we offer full‑service application assistance for a flat fee of $5,000, plus any required costs. In a free consultation, we’ll talk through your health limitations, job duties, and timelines so you understand your options before you commit.

👉 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.