When your federal career is on the line, you need a real chance to answer an accusation. If your performance is questioned, you need clear expectations and a fair opportunity to improve. Those protections help keep a mistaken or unfair decision from costing you your job.
Southworth PC is fighting changes that would weaken those protections. On July 30, we filed a 52-page opposition to the federal government’s proposed discipline and removal rules. We have now completed a supplemental opposition challenging the new material OPM is using to support its proposal.
Federal employees can add their own perspective. OPM’s reopened comment period closes September 29, 2026. Submit a comment here.
What has changed since our first opposition?
The Office of Personnel Management, or OPM, sets many of the personnel rules federal agencies follow. The Merit Systems Protection Board, or MSPB, hears certain employee appeals. In July, they proposed changes together under the title “Promoting Employee Accountability.”
Our original opposition challenged shorter reply periods, restrictions on performance improvement, limits on raising medical issues, absence-based separations, settlement limits, and changes to how penalties are reviewed. We asked the agencies to withdraw the proposal and explained the protections that should be preserved if they proceeded.
Read our July announcement or download our original 52-page opposition. The deadline in that earlier post has passed; the current OPM deadline is September 29.
Since then, the agencies have taken separate steps:
- MSPB has finalized its part. Its September 3 final rule changes the framework for reviewing misconduct penalties. The rule keeps review for reasonableness but says no particular set of factors must be addressed in every case. It takes effect October 5, 2026, and applies to appeals filed on or after that date. Appeals already pending then keep the framework in effect when they were filed.
- OPM has reopened comments on new supporting material. Its September 15 notice adds separation data and a report from We the Doers. The current comment opportunity concerns OPM’s proposal in light of that material. It does not reopen MSPB’s final rule.
Why we prepared a supplemental opposition
OPM says its new figures support further changes to encourage supervisors to act against poor performance and misconduct. We examined that claim, the report, and the report authors’ own comments.
Our position is straightforward: the government should explain why a protection needs to be cut before it cuts it. Complaints about a difficult process do not, by themselves, establish that employees should have less opportunity to defend themselves.
Read our supplemental opposition.
A firing count does not tell us whether the system is fair
OPM’s table counts completed separations. It does not identify justified actions that supervisors abandoned because of a particular employee protection. It also does not count an employee who improved with help or an accusation corrected before a firing occurred.
Those outcomes matter. A system that helps an employee succeed has accomplished something valuable, even if no removal appears in a spreadsheet. OPM needs to explain why its new numbers justify the specific restrictions it wants to adopt.
Managers’ accounts do not answer every question
The We the Doers report, Fast but Fair Federal Firing, draws on 10 managers describing 22 performance and conduct matters, with detailed time estimates for 12. Their accounts deserve attention. They are not a representative study of the federal workforce or a full examination of whether employees received fair treatment.
The report discusses employees’ EEO complaints, grievances, accommodation requests, and leave under a section about employees gaming the system. But using a legal protection does not itself show abuse. And an unsuccessful discrimination complaint does not, by itself, prove that the employee acted in bad faith.
Before restricting protections across government, OPM should examine what those protections actually did in the matters being described.
Even the report’s authors disagree with important parts of OPM’s plan
We the Doers supports many changes. But in its own public comment, it opposes letting earlier help substitute for assistance during a performance improvement period. It recommends improvement periods tied to the work, generally 30 to 90 days with longer exceptions, and objects to prohibiting penalty tables used as guidance.
That matters because OPM has asked the public to consider this report. The authors’ disagreements deserve an answer, too.
Give supervisors the support to make sound decisions
OPM already proposes more supervisory training. We support useful training and timely help from qualified HR and legal staff. Clear standards, proper documentation, and careful review can help an agency act when action is warranted—and catch a mistake before someone loses a career.
Shortening an employee’s reply does not fix a delay in getting a supervisor sound advice. OPM should address those problems while preserving a meaningful chance to respond, useful assistance during improvement periods, and review that can correct an unjustified action.
Your comment can help put the missing perspective on the record
You do not need to write like a lawyer. Explain a specific problem with the new material and what OPM should do about it.
The federal rulemaking process requires agencies to consider relevant comments and address significant objections when explaining a final rule. Comments can expose missing information, identify better alternatives, and create a record relevant to later legal review. They do not guarantee that an agency will change course. A concrete explanation still gives the agency something it must grapple with.
Because this comment period is limited, connect your point to the new OPM data or the We the Doers report. For example:
- A fair chance to answer: Does the report overlook the time needed to obtain agency records, find a representative, or correct an inaccurate accusation? Explain what an informed response requires.
- A real chance to improve: Have clear expectations, feedback, or assistance helped someone perform successfully? Explain why a removal count misses that result, or why the work requires more than 30 days to evaluate fairly.
- The actual source of delay: Did unclear instructions or waiting for internal advice cause a problem? Explain why reducing an employee’s response time would not solve it.
- The purpose of employee rights: Does the report’s treatment of EEO complaints, disability accommodations, or leave miss why employees use those protections? Explain what information is needed before labeling their use abusive.
Describe only what you know, without identifying other people or disclosing confidential information. One carefully explained point is enough; you do not need to address the entire rule.
How to submit before September 29
- Open the official OPM comment form. It belongs to docket OPM-2025-0012.
- Write your comment or attach a document. Identify the part of the new data or report you are addressing, explain your concern, and state the change you want.
- Follow the form’s instructions, submit by September 29, 2026, and save the confirmation or tracking number.
Comments are generally public, including information in attachments. Speak for yourself, not your agency, and leave out medical records, sensitive agency information, privileged communications, and identifying details about pending matters.
We are also opposing changes to the federal EEO process
On September 22, Southworth PC also announced our 43-page opposition to the EEOC’s proposed rewrite of the federal discrimination complaint process. That proposal raises separate concerns about access to an independent judge, new filing barriers, and the elimination of administrative class complaints.
Read our September 22 EEOC update for the explanation and comment instructions, or read our full EEOC opposition. That separate comment deadline is September 28, 2026.
Southworth PC represents federal employees. That work includes challenging proposals that would make it harder for employees to protect their careers. We are asking OPM to withdraw these restrictions, and we are giving employees the information to speak up for themselves.
This post provides general information, not advice about an individual case. Submitting a public comment does not extend a reply, grievance, EEO, or appeal deadline.