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
-
Bigger Awards, Faster Approval: OPM has handed agency heads the authority to approve individual cash and performance awards between $10,000 and $25,000, a sign-off that used to require OPM itself. Awards above $25,000 still need the President's approval.
-
Air Traffic Controller Raise: The FAA Administrator told House appropriators he will keep withholding 2.8 points of the 3.8 percent raise Congress funded in April until he sees scheduling efficiencies, and lawmakers pushed back on what Congress intended.
-
FBI Employee Data Claim: A hacking group says it took records on FBI employees and job applicants, the FBI says it is investigating, and the claim is not yet verified. The Privacy Act, not the hackers, sets what an agency owes its own workforce when records are exposed.
Top Stories:
1. OPM Lets Agency Heads Approve Awards Up to $25,000 — Here Is What the Law Requires, and What Did Not Change
Source: Federal News Network, September 22, 2026
TL;DR: In a memorandum to agency heads dated September 21, 2026, Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor delegated OPM's authority to review and approve individual awards greater than $10,000 and up to $25,000. Until now, an agency that wanted to pay an award in that range had to send the recommendation to OPM for approval. The delegation is effective immediately. It covers special act, suggestion, and invention awards, awards to former employees, and performance awards under chapter 45 of title 5. It does not cover Presidential awards, Presidential Rank Awards, or Senior Executive Service performance awards, and awards above $25,000 still go to the President. An agency head may redelegate the authority one level down, to the Chief of Staff, the Chief Human Capital Officer, or a bureau or component head, but no further. OPM described the change as removing a hurdle so agencies can reward high performance quickly, and the memo ties it to OPM's recent performance-management rule changes. Federal News Network reported the change in its September 22 newscast.
For federal employees, this means:
- The dollar ceilings did not move. Awards over $10,000 still require a written certification that your accomplishment is highly exceptional and unusually outstanding; the only change is who signs off. Awards above $25,000 still require Presidential approval.
- Decisions on large awards now sit with your own agency leadership. If your agency has been reluctant to recommend awards above $10,000 because of the OPM step, that reason is gone. Whether the money follows is a budget question, not a legal one, and the 2027 pay-freeze fight does not affect awards.
- Awards remain discretionary and are not a right. But the memo pairs larger awards with OPM's new performance-rating rules, which means rating distributions and calibration will shape who is eligible. Your FY2026 rating, which closes this month, is the record that matters.
Legal Insight
5 U.S.C. § 4502(a) caps a cash award under chapter 45 at $10,000. Section 4502(b) allows an award above $10,000 and up to $25,000 only when the agency head certifies that the effort is highly exceptional and unusually outstanding, and only with OPM's approval. OPM's regulations at 5 C.F.R. § 451.107(a) and (b) repeat that OPM reviews each recommendation above $10,000 and sends anything above $25,000 to the President. The memo does not rewrite those rules; it relies on 5 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(2), which lets the OPM Director delegate any function vested in the Director to agency heads, and it states that an agency official acting under the delegation performs the OPM review function for purposes of § 4502(b) and § 451.107(a). Section 1104(b) still requires OPM to set standards and run an oversight program for delegated authority, and § 1104(c) lets OPM order corrective action if a delegated award violates law or regulation.
2. The FAA Administrator Tells Appropriators He Will Keep Withholding Most of the Controller Raise — Congress Funded 3.8 Percent, Controllers Have 1 Percent
Source: Government Executive, September 22, 2026
TL;DR: Congress appropriated $140 million this spring to fund a 3.8 percent raise for federal air traffic controllers as part of the law that ended the 76-day Department of Homeland Security shutdown. FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford has released only a 1 percent raise. At a House Appropriations subcommittee oversight hearing last week, Democrats pressed him on why. Bedford said the funding law gives him sole discretion to implement the raise, subject to improvements in workforce scheduling, staffing utilization, and other operational efficiencies, and that the agency has not achieved those improvements. He pointed to data showing controllers average roughly four hours per shift actively managing traffic, down from more than five hours 15 years ago. He also noted controllers received a separate 1.6 percent contractual raise. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the panel's ranking member, said Congress intended the 3.8 percent to put controllers on par with law enforcement and that the discretion was meant to address the working environment, not to condition the raise itself. The FAA has hired more than 4,000 controllers in the last 18 months but says the New York region remains the hardest to staff. We covered the September 4 Senate letter on this dispute on September 9; the hearing is the first time the Administrator has defended the decision to Congress directly.
For federal employees, this means:
- If you are a controller, the 2.8 points are not lost; they are conditioned. As the FAA described the law to the Washington Examiner in August, the increase is retroactive to the first pay period after January 1 if the Administrator makes the determination. Keep your own record of overtime, six-day weeks, and staffing at your facility, because "efficiency" is now the argument.
- The dispute is about how an appropriations rider works when it hands an agency head discretion. That structure is not unique to the FAA. Any time Congress funds a raise or benefit "to the extent the Secretary determines," the agency head's determination, not the appropriation, controls when you get paid.
- FAA employees are outside most of title 5's pay rules, so the ordinary General Schedule statutes do not supply a fallback. Your union contract, and the negotiated pay system under it, is the operative document.
Legal Insight
Under 49 U.S.C. § 40122(g)(1), the FAA's personnel management system operates notwithstanding title 5 and other federal personnel laws, except for the provisions listed in § 40122(g)(2); the General Schedule pay chapter is not among them, so controller pay is set through the FAA's own system and its collective bargaining agreement. Section 40122(a)(1) requires the Administrator to negotiate changes to the personnel system with the exclusive bargaining representative, and § 40122(a)(4) directs the FAA to use every reasonable effort to find cost savings and increase productivity within each bargaining unit — the same efficiency theme the Administrator now invokes. Senators have identified the raise as enacted in Public Law 119-86, signed April 30, 2026, with the condition language quoted above; the specific section has not been independently confirmed by this briefing. Controllers with questions about how the contract interacts with the appropriations condition should raise them through their union representative or consult a federal employment attorney.
3. A Hacking Group Says It Took Records on FBI Employees and Applicants — The FBI Is Investigating, and the Privacy Act Sets What the Agency Owes Its Workforce
Source: Government Executive, September 22, 2026
TL;DR: The cybercriminal group ShinyHunters claims it obtained sensitive data on FBI employees and people who applied for FBI jobs, and it has demanded that the bureau retract a May public service announcement describing the group's harassment tactics. The group says it gained access Monday night through a previously unknown vulnerability in Oracle PeopleSoft software and then reached servers in a government cloud environment. The FBI said in a statement that it is aware of claims of unauthorized activity affecting FBIjobs.gov and is investigating; the FBI jobs site displayed a maintenance notice Tuesday. Nextgov/FCW, which reported the story for Government Executive, received a file that appeared to contain personal information on nearly 5,000 FBI employees, including names, home addresses, phone numbers, and information about spouses and siblings, and confirmed that some listed names are FBI employees. The full data set, the two-to-three-terabyte figure, and the group's account of how it got in have not been independently verified. We are reporting this because FBI employees and applicants are part of this readership, and because the legal framework for a breach of federal personnel records is the same at every agency.
For federal employees, this means:
- If you work for or applied to the FBI, do not wait for confirmation to take basic steps: place a fraud alert or credit freeze with the three credit bureaus, change passwords reused across personal accounts, and review who in your household could be identified from your personnel file. A freeze is free and reversible.
- A federal breach notification, if one comes, will arrive from the agency, not from a hacker. Treat any message claiming to be from the FBI about "your compromised data" as a phishing attempt until you verify it through official channels.
- Every agency holds the same kind of file on you. The 2015 OPM breach, which exposed background-investigation records on more than 21 million people, is the reason many current employees already have identity-protection coverage; check whether you are enrolled and when it expires.
Legal Insight
The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(10), requires every agency to establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of records and to protect against anticipated threats or hazards to their security that could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to the individual. Section 552a(g)(1)(D) allows an individual to sue an agency that fails to comply with the Act in a way that has an adverse effect on that person, and § 552a(g)(4) provides actual damages, with a $1,000 floor, when the agency's conduct was intentional or willful — a high bar. In the litigation over the 2015 OPM breach, the D.C. Circuit held that affected employees had standing and could proceed on Privacy Act claims. In re U.S. Office of Personnel Management Data Security Breach Litigation, 928 F.3d 42 (D.C. Cir. 2019). Employees who suffer identity theft traceable to a confirmed agency breach should document every loss and expense from the start, because the damages provision turns on what you can prove, and should consult a federal employment attorney before any claim deadline runs.
Legal Tip of the Day
When You’re Left Out of Meetings or Opportunities
Being left out of meetings, training, details, acting roles, or projects can quietly affect performance and advancement. Document what opportunities you missed, who was included, how decisions were made, and whether the exclusion affected your work or visibility. Ask professional questions when appropriate, such as whether there is a new selection process or whether you should still be involved. Avoid relying only on a general feeling of isolation; specific examples are much more useful. Pay attention if the exclusion began after protected activity or appears tied to protected status. Southworth PC can help federal employees assess whether exclusion from opportunities may be part of a larger legal or strategic concern.
In Case You Missed It
A few quick hits from our recent posts:
Why We Oppose the EEOC Federal Complaint Rewrite
|
EEOC Budget: 58 Judges for 7,175 Hearing Requests
|
EEOC's 1999 Reasoning vs. the 2026 Proposed Rule
|
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.
Responses