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
-
EPA Union Lawsuit: AFGE Council 238 sued the EPA on Tuesday to restore the contract it terminated in August 2025, arguing the termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act and cleared the way to discipline 139 dissent-letter signers without union representation.
-
USDA Relocations: After Tuesday's hearing, Judge Chhabria extended the freeze on USDA reassignment deadlines through October 13 and told both sides to submit proposed injunction language by October 7.
-
Army Hiring: The Army lifted its civilian hiring freeze effective September 25 after losing about 43,000 employees since January 2025. Former employees have reinstatement and priority-placement rights worth knowing.
Top Stories:
1. AFGE Sues to Restore the EPA Contract — the Complaint Says the Agency Ended It Two Months After the Dissent Letter, Then Disciplined 139 Signers With No Union Representative
Source: Federal News Network, September 29, 2026
TL;DR: On Tuesday, AFGE Council 238, which represents about 8,000 EPA employees, and its Boston-area Local 3428 sued the EPA and Administrator Lee Zeldin in federal court in Boston to restore the collective bargaining agreement the agency terminated on August 8, 2025. The 2024 contract ran through June 30, 2028. The complaint says the EPA ended it "effective immediately," more than four months after Executive Order 14251 excluded the agency from federal labor law, with a notice that cited "irreparable harm to national security" and no explanation of what had changed. It also says the agency waited until after the termination to discipline employees who signed the June 2025 declaration of dissent: 139 in all, at least 16 removed and 119 suspended for two weeks without pay by the complaint's count (Federal News Network reports 20 removals), and 110 of them covered by the contract. With the contract gone, those employees had no union representative in disciplinary meetings and no arbitration; the EPA's own FAQ said pending grievances "will be considered dismissed." The suit brings three counts — arbitrary-and-capricious action under the Administrative Procedure Act, agency action contrary to the First Amendment, and a direct First Amendment claim — and asks the court to vacate the termination. The case, No. 1:26-cv-14436, is before Judge Allison D. Burroughs.
For federal employees, this means:
- If your agency ended its contract under Executive Order 14251 and you now face discipline, you still have rights that do not depend on a contract: written notice, time to answer, and representation by an attorney or other representative for any suspension (5 U.S.C. § 7503(b)), and, for a removal or a suspension of more than 14 days, 30 days' notice and an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (5 U.S.C. § 7513).
- A suspension of 14 days or less cannot be appealed to the MSPB. Without a negotiated grievance procedure, the remaining routes are the agency's administrative grievance system, an EEO complaint if discrimination or EEO retaliation is involved (45 days to contact a counselor under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1)), or a complaint to the Office of Special Counsel if the discipline followed a protected disclosure or activity.
- The lawsuit does not restore anything on its own. Until a court rules, the termination stands. Keep every notice, decision, and FAQ your agency issued about the contract, and note the date of any discipline.
Legal Insight
Under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1), the President may exclude an agency from the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute only on a determination that its primary function is intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work and that the statute cannot be applied to it consistent with national security; whether that holds for the EPA is being litigated in the broader challenge to the order, which this case does not raise. Instead, the complaint argues that even an excluded agency must give a reasoned explanation under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) before ending a contract its employees relied on, and may never do so to punish protected speech. Whatever the outcome, Chapter 75 rights are statutory, and an MSPB appeal is due within 30 days under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b). If you have received a proposed action since your agency ended its contract, consult a federal employment attorney before the reply deadline runs.
2. USDA Relocation Freeze Extended to October 13 — the Judge Told Both Sides to Draft an Injunction and Said the Unions' Reading of the Appropriations Rider Is Supported by Its Text and History
TL;DR: Judge Vince Chhabria heard the unions' motion for a preliminary injunction against USDA's reorganization on Tuesday, then took two steps affecting the roughly 2,600 employees holding directed-reassignment letters. First, the minute entry directs the parties to "meet and confer and submit a proposed order regarding the language of the injunction pursuant to the Court's guidance." No injunction has been entered, but the court is working on the terms of one. Second, at a status conference that afternoon, the judge extended the administrative stay that was set to expire October 2 through October 13, set supplemental briefs for October 2 (government) and October 6 (unions), asked for amended stay language by October 1 "that avoids creating any unintended problems for USDA," and made October 7 the deadline for the proposed injunction. In a separate text order, the judge wrote that "the plaintiffs' position on the severability of section 716(a) is supported both by the text of that provision and by its legislative and statutory history," calling it "significant that Congress added an approval requirement to section 716(a) in FY2015, after it had been on the books as a notice-and-wait provision for many years." This account comes from the docket; no news outlet had reported the outcome as of early this morning.
For federal employees, this means:
- If you hold a directed-reassignment letter in one of the eight covered components, the freeze on report dates, accept-or-decline deadlines, discipline, and AWOL charges now runs through October 13, not October 2. Watch for a revised order after the October 1 language submission; Tuesday's entries did not change the eight-component scope or the National Capital Region carve-out.
- Nothing about Tuesday's hearing guarantees an injunction or fixes its scope, and USDA can seek review of any injunction in the Ninth Circuit. Plan for both outcomes: know your answer if the deadlines return, and read any injunction closely for whether your letter is covered.
- Civil-service rules do not change with the docket. Declining a directed reassignment outside your commuting area is not a resignation; the agency must propose a removal with written notice, a reply period, and MSPB appeal rights.
Legal Insight
Section 716(a) of USDA's fiscal 2026 appropriations act, Pub. L. No. 119-37, div. B, makes the covered funds unavailable to relocate employees or reorganize offices unless the Secretary "notifies in writing and receives approval" from both Appropriations Committees at least 30 days in advance. USDA argues the approval clause is an unconstitutional legislative veto under INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), that can be severed to leave a notice-only rule; the unions argue a court should not recreate the notice-only rule Congress replaced in fiscal 2015, and the judge's text order signals he finds that reading supported, though it is not a ruling. A removal for declining a directed reassignment remains an adverse action under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512 and 7513, and 5 U.S.C. § 8414(b)(1)(A) governs discontinued-service annuities for eligible employees not offered a reasonable position in the commuting area. If you have a reassignment letter, talk with your union representative or a federal employment attorney now, so your decision is ready whether the deadlines return on October 13 or an injunction issues first.
3. The Army Lifts Its Civilian Hiring Freeze After 20 Months — What Former Employees Should Know About Reinstatement and Priority Placement
Source: Federal News Network, September 29, 2026
TL;DR: The Army has formally ended its civilian hiring freeze, Federal News Network reported Tuesday, citing a September 25 memo from Army Undersecretary Michael Obadal. The memo says the Army can "now resume hiring, up to 96% of the Army-wide direct-funded full-time equivalents, to meet priority missions within budgetary constraints," effective September 25. Per OPM data cited by Federal News Network, about 43,000 people have left the Army since January 20, 2025, against roughly 10,000 hires; the Corps of Engineers alone lost more than 6,000 civilians. The Army also ran several rounds of the deferred resignation program and a "rebalancing" effort that moved surplus employees into vacancies instead of layoffs. The governmentwide freeze has not been lifted in name: under Executive Order 14356 of October 15, 2025, each agency's Strategic Hiring Committee must approve the creation or filling of every vacancy, and Defense Department hiring actions go through that committee.
For federal employees, this means:
- If you left the Army, or any agency, under a deferred resignation, an early retirement, or a resignation, you may be eligible for reinstatement without competing with the public. There is no time limit for a preference eligible or for anyone who completed the service requirement for career tenure, generally three years; other former employees have three years from separation. Look for USAJOBS announcements open to former federal employees and keep your SF-50s handy.
- If you were separated by a reduction in force, Reemployment Priority List registration lasts two years from the separation date and gives you priority for competitive-service vacancies in your commuting area, but only if you registered on or before your separation date. Confirm with your former HR office that you are registered and what you listed.
- If you are a current Army civilian who was declared surplus or moved in the rebalancing, vacancies will be filled through the Strategic Hiring Committee process and the Army's annual staffing plan. Ask your HR office how surplus employees are matched to vacancies.
Legal Insight
Reinstatement eligibility is set by 5 C.F.R. § 315.401(b): no time limit for a preference eligible or an employee who completed the service requirement for career tenure, and a three-year limit, extended by certain intervening service under § 315.401(c), for everyone else. RPL registration must be submitted on or before the RIF separation date under 5 C.F.R. § 330.206(a)(3), and it expires two years after separation under § 330.208(a). Executive Order 14356 and the November 5, 2025, OMB-OPM guidance route every vacancy through a Strategic Hiring Committee and an annual staffing plan; until a plan is in place, the four-to-one hire-to-departure ratio from Executive Order 14210 applies outside national security, immigration enforcement, and public safety positions. None of this creates a right to be rehired; reinstatement is an authority an agency may use, not a promise.
Legal Tip of the Day
When Your Rights Are Tied Up in Court
When a union or advocacy group sues over a policy that affects you, it is natural to wait and see. But someone else's lawsuit usually does not pause your own deadlines. If you receive a proposed action, a decision letter, or a reassignment notice, the dates in it keep running unless a court order or your agency tells you otherwise in writing. Read every notice for its deadlines and write them down. Keep copies of notices, agency FAQs, and emails in a private file outside government systems, with a short timeline of what happened and when. If you are unsure which deadlines apply to you, get advice before the first one passes. Do not assume a pending case will protect your individual rights.
In Case You Missed It
A few quick hits from our recent posts:
A Third Federal Judge Rejects Russ Vought's "$0" CFPB Funding Theory
|
|
|
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