Southworth PC

The Case That This Administration Is Targeting People with Disabilities, and What Federal Employees Should Do About It

2026-09-03T13:01:02Z

I try discrimination cases for a living. The hardest element to prove is almost never the harm. It is intent. Agencies rarely write down that they acted because of someone's disability, so the law lets us prove intent the way juries and fact-finders have always inferred it: from what decision-makers said, from what they did when nobody was watching, from whether they followed their own rules, from whether their explanations held still, and from who ended up hurt. For the past twenty months I have watched a set of facts accumulate around federal employees with disabilities that I would be eager to put in front of an Administrative Judge. This post lays that record out, cites it, and then reads it the way I would read a case file. I will tell you where I think the evidence is strong, where it is an inference, and what the best defense of the administration's conduct sounds like. Then I will tell you what to do if you are living inside these facts. I want to be careful about one word. "Targeting" is a conclusion, not a fact. What follows is the evidence I believe supports that conclusion. You can weigh it yourself.

Part I. The Record

The Words

Start with what was said, because in a discrimination case the decision-maker's own words are the closest thing to direct evidence. On January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14151 opened by declaring that the prior administration had "forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' (DEI), into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government, in areas ranging from airline safety to the military." The order directed the termination of "all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and 'diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility' (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government," and gave agencies sixty days to eliminate all "DEI, DEIA, and 'environmental justice' offices and positions." The A in DEIA stands for accessibility. It was named in the order as something to be terminated. The next day, the White House issued a presidential memorandum on aviation hiring. The accompanying fact sheet, as reported by Government Executive on January 23, 2025, stated: "The Biden FAA specifically recruited and hired individuals with 'severe intellectual' disabilities, psychiatric issues and complete paralysis over other individuals who sought to work for the FAA." Fact-checkers found the FAA's targeted-disability recruitment language had been on the agency's website since at least 2013, through the entirety of the first Trump term. Eight days after that, an Army helicopter and a regional jet collided over the Potomac. On January 30, 2025, the President signed a second memorandum, "Immediate Assessment of Aviation Safety," which again described the prior administration as "specifically recruiting individuals with 'severe intellectual' disabilities in the FAA," and directed the Secretary of Transportation to "review all hiring decisions and changes to safety protocols made during the prior 4 years, and to take such corrective action as necessary to achieve uncompromised aviation safety, including the replacement of any individuals who do not meet qualification standards." No investigative body had linked the crash to any employee's disability. The document nonetheless placed disabled hires and "uncompromised aviation safety" in the same sentence. On April 16, 2025, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said this about autistic children at a press conference on autism prevalence, as recorded by NPR: "These are kids who will never pay taxes. They'll never hold a job. They'll never play baseball. They'll never write a poem. They'll never go out on a date." The Secretary runs the department that, four months later, issued the telework instruction discussed below. And there is the statement that predates all of it. In a 2023 speech obtained and published by ProPublica and Documented in October 2024, and reprinted by Government Executive, the man who now directs the Office of Management and Budget said of career civil servants: "We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains." And: "We want to put them in trauma." That statement was about the workforce generally. Keep it in mind when you read what happened to the employees who need an accommodation to get to work at all.

The Infrastructure

The DEIA order did not merely change a policy. It removed people and services. OPM's own implementing guidance acknowledged the legal problem. On February 5, 2025, the Acting Director's memorandum "Further Guidance Regarding Ending DEIA Offices, Programs and Initiatives" told agencies: "Agencies should not terminate or prohibit accessibility or disability-related accommodations, assistance, or other programs that are required by those or related laws." It then told them to "retain the minimum number of employees necessary to ensure agency compliance with applicable disability and accessibility laws," and that the functions of any office that processes accommodation requests be "strictly limited to the duties within its statutory authority and that staffing levels are consistent with those responsibilities." Read that as an instruction: keep the floor the statute requires and nothing above it. What happened on the ground was documented by Congress within weeks. On March 24, 2025, eleven Members of Congress wrote to OPM that "American Sign Language interpretation and captioning services have been disrupted or discontinued across multiple agencies, with interpreters, captioners, coordinators, and other support staff being placed on leave or terminated," and that "Requests for interpreters from Deaf and Hard of Hearing federal employees have been denied because the provision of interpreters is no longer a priority." The letter also recorded that "White House press briefings have ceased to include ASL interpreters" and that accessibility resources had been removed from White House, DHS, and FEMA web pages. The White House's decision to end ASL interpretation at its own briefings became a lawsuit. In National Association of the Deaf v. Trump, No. 25-cv-01683 (D.D.C.), Judge Amir Ali granted a preliminary injunction on November 5, 2025. The government argued that closed captioning was a sufficient accommodation. The court, as reported by OPB, answered: "[I]t is not reasonable — indeed it can hardly be called an accommodation at all — to transcribe press briefings into a language that Ford and many NAD members do not know." The exclusion of deaf Americans, the court wrote, "in addition to likely violating the Rehabilitation Act, is clear and present harm that the court cannot meaningfully remedy after the fact." On November 17, 2025, the court had to order the defendants again to "take all reasonable steps to comply," noting the defendants "have not made any submissions, in writing or orally, that would justify failing to take all reasonable efforts to provide ASL interpretation when they have knowledge of such a plan to brief the press." That is the government's own house. The accommodation it fought hardest to avoid was the one it owed to deaf citizens at its own podium.

The Accommodation

The return-to-office memorandum of January 20, 2025 directed agencies to end remote work "provided that the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary," and to implement it "consistent with applicable law." OPM's January 22 guidance, as quoted by NPR, excused employees "due to a disability, qualifying medical condition, or other compelling reason certified by the agency head." On paper, employees with disabilities were carved out in the first week. What agencies then did is the heart of this case. On August 13, 2025, HHS issued Instruction 990-3, HHS Telework. The instruction does not mention disability. It does not say how reasonable accommodation requests are to be handled. Its only reference to accommodation is a clause allowing an employee with a telework agreement to be ordered to the worksite "at any time for any reason, unless the employee has a reasonable accommodation precluding such a direction." A policy that is silent on the one category of telework the Rehabilitation Act protects is not neutral. It leaves every component to guess, and components guessed in one direction. On September 16, 2025, a CDC memo obtained by NPR announced that approvals for pending remote-work accommodation requests would be "paused until further notice." The AFGE local reported roughly 250 emails from disabled employees at Atlanta headquarters. On December 15, 2025, five senators wrote to the Secretary that Instruction 990-3 "rescinds telework as a reasonable accommodation for qualified employees with disabilities" and produced "a pause on all new and renewing telework requests in at least one HHS operational division." They observed, dryly, that "This document does not mention the word 'disability.'" Their letter describes an employee with a high-risk pregnancy accommodation sent to the emergency room the day she was ordered back; a disabled veteran with PTSD whose accommodation was "fitfully denied, approved, and denied again" after the August 8, 2025 attack on CDC headquarters; an employee threatened with loss of supervisory duties for requesting a PTSD accommodation after that same attack; and a fully remote veteran who could not learn the status of his request because the human resources and EEO staff who would have answered had been terminated. The senators asked, among nine questions, how many telework accommodations were canceled after January 27, 2025, and whether HHS considers it permissible to demote, discipline, or demoralize employees who request telework as a reasonable accommodation. They asked for answers by January 16, 2026. HHS was not alone. Government Executive reported on January 8, 2026 that the Department of Veterans Affairs began in June 2025 requiring Senior Executive Service sign-off on certain telework accommodations and annual review of those already approved; that HHS moved telework accommodation decisions to the assistant secretary level or above; and that the IRS imposed new restrictions on hardship telework, citing the return-to-office directive. The same story describes a GS-13 physical security specialist at the Justice Department whose telework request was denied within three business days on the ground that it "would remove an essential function," who was then handed a termination notice citing "security concerns with professional conduct" despite no prior discipline, and whose termination was rescinded after his hospitalization. He left with a settlement. Federal News Network reported in January 2026 that HHS had also begun restricting telework as an interim accommodation while requests are processed, and had centralized processing into a backlog of six to eight months. An accommodation that arrives eight months late is a denial with better paperwork. Then the Justice Department itself was sued. On June 3, 2026, two attorney-advisors at the Executive Office for Immigration Review filed Panian v. Blanche in the Eastern District of Virginia. One plaintiff has Type 1 diabetes among other conditions and had teleworked as an accommodation since 2020. The other is immunocompromised while in treatment for Stage IV lung cancer. As their counsel describes the complaint, "EOIR abandoned the legally required process of individually evaluating accommodation requests and instead began automatically rejecting all telework accommodations for employees with disabilities." The suit seeks relief for a class of EOIR employees denied telework accommodations since January 20, 2025. On July 10, 2026, Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles granted a preliminary injunction ordering the Department to restore both plaintiffs' telework while the case proceeds, as reported by Democracy Forward, the ABA Journal, and Federal News Network. A second suit against the Department, reported by Government Executive the same day, alleges a "systematic, agency-wide practice" of denying telework accommodations and punishing those who ask. One plaintiff, a veteran rated 100 percent disabled, alleges he was demoted from GS-14 to GS-13 and stripped of supervisory duties in November 2025 after requesting accommodation and filing an EEO complaint. The other alleges that after documenting progressive spinal deterioration he was put on an informal performance plan, then proposed for involuntary reassignment, and that a supervisor told him, "It's your body, you can choose not to take the pills." These are allegations. They are also precisely the sequence I see in the accommodation-retaliation cases that come through my firm's door: request, denial, sudden performance concern, adverse action.

The Rulebook

On February 11, 2026, the EEOC and OPM jointly issued "Frequently Asked Questions from the Federal Sector about Telework Accommodations for Disabilities." The press release quotes the EEOC Chair: "President Trump has given a clear directive to the federal workforce to return to in-person work to the maximum extent possible consistent with applicable law." It quotes the OPM Director: "Returning to in-person work and upholding disability rights are not mutually exclusive." The document is more candid than the press release. Question 4 states: "We strongly caution agencies against revoking previously granted telework without first making an individualized determination in each case." That sentence is the government's best evidence of good faith, and I credit it. Then read the rest. Question 3: "the employer providing the accommodation has the ultimate discretion to choose between effective accommodations." Question 5: if reassessment shows telework "is not necessary under the Act, the agency may replace a previously granted recurring or full-time telework accommodation with a reasonable and effective in-office option," and agencies "may find it helpful to reevaluate a significant accommodation such as recurring or full-time telework once a year." Question 7: an agency "may ask a health care professional about such measures and whether they would permit the employee to work in the office." Question 10: "agencies may find that regularly attending work on-site is essential to most jobs, especially the interactive ones." None of those sentences is wrong as a statement of law in isolation. Together they are a manual for converting an existing telework accommodation into an in-office one, issued a year into a campaign in which agencies were already doing exactly that. The caution in Question 4 is real. So is the architecture around it.

The Forums

The last piece of the record concerns where federal employees with disabilities go to enforce their rights. On August 28, 2026, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would rewrite the federal-sector complaint process in 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. Comments are due September 28, 2026. The proposal eliminates the current right to a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge prior to a final agency decision. Under the proposed rule, the agency investigates and issues its own decision, and "A complainant can appeal the final agency decision to the Commission," with an Administrative Judge involved only on appeal and only if the Commission decides one is needed. The proposal also amends 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3)(iii)(D), the provision governing what an agency must tell you when it denies an accommodation, to conform to the new filing model. Consider what that means against everything above. The telework-accommodation cases are being won at hearings, before neutral Administrative Judges, where agency witnesses are cross-examined about "essential functions" they cannot define. Our firm wrote in April about one such Commission decision. The proposed rule removes that stage and leaves the accommodation-denying agency to grade its own homework first. On June 4, 2026, the Commission also approved "clarifying instructions" for agencies' 2026 MD-715 reports, the annual filings that include each agency's Section 501 affirmative action plan for people with disabilities, to ensure "compliance with applicable executive orders," citing Executive Orders 14151, 14168, 14173, and 14281. The Chair described this as a step "toward a modernized directive." What the modernization will do to the disability affirmative-action components remains to be seen. I would not bet on expansion. Outside the federal workforce, the same pattern appears in the enforcement agencies that protect disabled Americans generally. In March 2025 the Department of Education placed most Office for Civil Rights staff on administrative leave and closed seven of twelve regional offices; the GAO found that between March and September 2025, OCR received 9,072 complaints, resolved 7,072, and dismissed 90 percent of those it resolved, while paying up to $38 million in salaries to staff it was not letting work. OCR is where a parent goes when a school denies a child a Section 504 plan. In March 2025, the Justice Department withdrew eleven ADA guidance documents, calling them "unnecessary and outdated."

The Wider Circle

Federal employees are my clients. But intent is judged by the whole course of conduct, and the administration's conduct toward disabled Americans outside the workforce corroborates what happened inside it. On March 27, 2025, HHS announced it would dismantle the Administration for Community Living, the agency that administers independent-living and developmental-disability programs, distributing its functions across three other components as part of a reduction from roughly 82,000 to 62,000 employees. The Secretary's description, reported by Disability Scoop: "We're going to eliminate an entire alphabet soup of departments and agencies while preserving their core functions." In July 2025, Congress enacted roughly $1 trillion in Medicaid reductions over ten years, with work requirements and more frequent eligibility redeterminations. Home- and community-based services are optional under Medicaid, which is why advocates warned they would be cut first. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network's Zoe Gross: "Because states are not required to provide these services to everyone who needs them, states faced with a huge loss of federal funding for Medicaid will cut HCBS first." Then, in June 2026, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum taking the position that federal disability law does not impose an "integration mandate" requiring states to serve people with disabilities in their communities rather than institutions, the principle the Supreme Court recognized in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). The memorandum's own author acknowledged, as NPR reported: "We recognize that this view of Olmstead's import is out of step with the common understanding of that decision within the federal courts." The American Association of People with Disabilities responded that the interpretation "will open the doors for states to revert to warehousing people with disabilities out of sight and out of mind in institutions." A government that tells deaf citizens captions are enough, tells disabled employees the office is essential to most jobs, and tells the courts that community integration was never required is telling a consistent story about where it believes people with disabilities belong.

Part II. Reading the Record as a Case

Here is how I would organize this evidence if I were proving intent. Direct evidence. The FAA documents are the closest thing in this record to a decision-maker announcing a disability-based motive. Two presidential documents, eight days apart, singled out "severe intellectual disabilities" as a hiring problem and ordered a review of "all hiring decisions" with authority to replace "any individuals who do not meet qualification standards," before any investigation had identified a cause. In an individual case, a manager who declares that employees with a particular disability are a safety risk, and orders their files reviewed without an individualized assessment, has handed the complainant a "regarded as" claim and a pretext argument in the same memo. The Secretary of HHS's statement that autistic people will "never hold a job" is the same category of evidence: a decision-maker's stated belief about the capacity of a protected class. Blanket policy versus individualized assessment. Rehabilitation Act law turns on the individualized, interactive process. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3) requires every agency to maintain written accommodation procedures, including processing timeframes, and the Commission's longstanding guidance calls for interim accommodations when a decision is delayed. The senators' letter, the CDC pause memo, the Justice Department complaints, and the preliminary injunction in Panian all describe the opposite: categorical treatment of telework requests, applied to a category of employees defined by disability. A blanket rule against an accommodation is the signature failure the statute was written to prevent. Departure from its own rules. In pretext analysis, an employer's failure to follow its own policies is classic circumstantial evidence. OPM carved out disability on January 22, 2025. OPM told agencies on February 5, 2025 not to terminate accommodations required by law. The EEOC and OPM "strongly caution[ed]" against revocation without individualized determination. The agencies did it anyway, at HHS, at VA, at DOJ, and, per the House letter, wherever interpreters were "no longer a priority." When a defendant's stated rules point one way and its conduct points the other, fact-finders are permitted to infer that the conduct reflects the actual policy. Shifting and contradictory explanations. The OPM Director says in-person work and disability rights "are not mutually exclusive." The FAQ he co-signed says on-site attendance may be "essential to most jobs." Instruction 990-3 is described by its own department as a routine telework policy; five senators read it as a rescission of accommodations, and the department's largest component implemented it as a pause. Justifications that move under scrutiny are evidence. Motive. The OMB Director's stated goal of making federal employees "not want to go to work" and of putting them "in trauma" is motive evidence for the workforce generally. The reasonable inference, and I label it as an inference, is that a strategy of deliberate demoralization falls hardest on the employees who cannot absorb it, and that the people who designed the strategy understood that. An employee with Stage IV cancer does not experience an accommodation revocation as a policy disagreement. Foreseeable, exclusive impact. Telework-accommodation revocations, by definition, fall only on employees with disabilities. In the most recent EEOC federal workforce data I could locate, covering fiscal year 2020, persons with disabilities were 9.45 percent of the federal workforce and persons with targeted disabilities 1.84 percent, below the 12 and 2 percent goals the Commission's regulations set for every agency at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(7). When a policy's burden lands exclusively on a protected class and the decision-makers knew it would, the law does not require them to have said the quiet part aloud. The best case for the defense. Fairness requires it, and it is not trivial. Return-to-office applied to everyone. OPM carved out disability from the start and repeated the carve-out in February 2025. The 2026 FAQs expressly warn against blanket revocation. Agencies articulate facially legitimate reasons, including operational needs and in-person essential functions, and the law does give employers the choice among effective accommodations. The system is also working in the sense that matters most to a lawyer: a federal court enjoined DOJ, a federal court enjoined the White House, and arbitrators at SSA, HHS, HUD, the IRS, and the Forest Service have ordered telework restored under collective bargaining agreements, with the IRS arbitrator calling OPM's guidance an "unqualified overstatement" of the governing labor law. The EPA's response to its adverse award, terminating the bargaining agreement entirely, is not a point in the government's favor. Finally, some of what I have described, Medicaid above all, is fiscal policy with disparate effects rather than a disability policy as such. My assessment. If this were a single-plaintiff case, the defense would say the harms were collateral to lawful, neutral policies on DEIA and office attendance, and that any mistakes were made in good faith at the component level. That defense has a serious problem: the disability-specific evidence does not run through DEIA. The FAA documents are about disabled hires, not diversity officers. Instruction 990-3 and the FAQs are about accommodations, which exist only for people with disabilities. The Olmstead memorandum is about disabled people and no one else. The record shows a government that, given every opportunity to honor a carve-out it wrote itself, chose the reading that removed the accommodation. On this record, intentional targeting is not the only possible conclusion. It is the most reasonable one.

Part III. What Federal Employees Should Do

None of this is legal advice for your situation, and every case turns on its own facts. But the pattern above tells you where the fights are, and the law tells you how to be ready for them. Get your accommodation in writing and keep it off the agency's servers. If you have an approved telework accommodation, save the approval, the medical documentation you provided, and every message about it in a place you control. Agencies that revoke accommodations also lose the records of having granted them. Know your agency's procedures. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3), every agency must have written reasonable accommodation procedures with processing timeframes, and the Commission's guidance calls for interim accommodations while a request is pending. Ask for the procedures by name and ask for an interim accommodation in writing. If your agency has moved decisions to an assistant secretary or a Senior Executive, the timeframes still apply. An eight-month backlog is not a timeframe. Engage the reassessment; do not boycott it. The 2026 FAQs permit agencies to reassess existing accommodations, and Question 3 gives the agency the choice among effective alternatives. Your leverage is the word "effective." When an agency proposes an in-office alternative, respond in writing explaining, with your provider's support, why the alternative does not address the limitation telework addresses. Ask the agency to identify in writing the essential function that requires your physical presence and the evidence it relied on. Employees who refuse to participate in the process lose cases. Employees who document the agency's refusal to engage win them. Watch the calendar. A denial or revocation of accommodation is a discrete act. Under current 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1), you must contact an EEO counselor within 45 calendar days. The proposed rule would change the filing model, which is one more reason to read the proposal and file a comment before September 28, 2026, particularly if you believe the hearing stage is where accommodation cases get their fair shake. I do. Document what happens after you ask. Requesting an accommodation is protected activity. The Justice Department complaints describe the sequence to watch for: a request, then a new performance concern, then a reassignment or demotion. Keep a dated log of every change in your duties, ratings, or supervision after your request. Retaliation cases are won on chronology. Use your contract if you still have one. The telework arbitration decisions were contract cases, not accommodation cases, but they matter to you in two ways. If your bargaining agreement protects telework, a grievance may restore it faster than an EEO complaint. And if your agency has terminated its agreement, as EPA did, that fact belongs in the record of your accommodation dispute, because it shows what the agency was willing to do to avoid providing telework at all. If you are removed or demoted, you have two forums. An adverse action appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board can be paired with a disability discrimination affirmative defense in a mixed-case appeal under 5 U.S.C. § 7702. The Board's Administrative Judges hear these cases, and a removal for "failure to report" to a worksite you could not reach because your accommodation was revoked is not a routine AWOL case. Deaf and hard-of-hearing employees: an interpreter denial is an accommodation denial. The same procedures, the same 45-day clock, and the same rights apply. The House letter and the National Association of the Deaf decision give you language to quote back. Applicants: Schedule A is still the law. The excepted-service hiring authority for people with disabilities at 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u) was not revoked by any executive order. Agencies that have stopped using it are making a choice, not following a directive. Stewards and HR professionals: hold agencies to OPM's own words. The February 5, 2025 memorandum's instruction that agencies "should not terminate or prohibit accessibility or disability-related accommodations, assistance, or other programs that are required by" law is the administration's document. Quote it in every meeting where someone claims the executive orders required the cut.

Why this Matters to Every Eederal Employee

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 791, has required the federal government to be a model employer of people with disabilities since 1973. No executive order in 2025 or 2026 repealed it, because no executive order can. The statute is still there. What changed is the government's willingness to honor it without being ordered to, and that is a test of the entire merit system, not only of the employees with disabilities inside it. The bargain federal employees accept is lower pay in exchange for a workplace governed by rules rather than by whim. When an administration honors a legal obligation only after a court or an arbitrator compels it, the bargain is being renegotiated one employee at a time. Disabled employees are simply first. If you are living inside these facts, you are not imagining the pattern, and you are not without options. Our firm represents federal employees nationwide in accommodation, discrimination, and retaliation matters before the EEOC, the MSPB, and in federal court. We offer free consultations at attorneysforfederalemployees.com. This post is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Sources and Citations

Statutes and regulations. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 § 501, 29 U.S.C. § 791; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203 (affirmative action and reasonable accommodation in federal employment); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1) (45-day counselor contact); 5 U.S.C. § 7702 (mixed cases); 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102(u) (Schedule A appointing authority for persons with disabilities); Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). Executive actions. Exec. Order No. 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Jan. 20, 2025), text; Presidential Memorandum, Return to In-Person Work (Jan. 20, 2025); Presidential Memorandum, Keeping Americans Safe in Aviation (Jan. 21, 2025) and accompanying fact sheet, as quoted in Gov't Exec. (Jan. 23, 2025); Presidential Memorandum, Immediate Assessment of Aviation Safety (Jan. 30, 2025); Cong. Research Serv., IN12497, Recent Executive Actions on DEI. OPM and EEOC documents. OPM, Further Guidance Regarding Ending DEIA Offices, Programs and Initiatives (Feb. 5, 2025); EEOC & OPM, Frequently Asked Questions from the Federal Sector about Telework Accommodations for Disabilities (… and press release; OPM transmittal memorandum (Feb. 11, 2026); EEOC, Additional Instructions for MD-715 Reporting for 2026 (June 4, 2026); Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 91 Fed. Reg. 55690 (Aug. 28, 2026); EEOC, Two Reports on the Federal Workforce and Disabilities (Mar. 20, 2024). Agency actions. HHS, Instruction 990-3, HHS Telework (Aug. 13, 2025); NPR, CDC pauses remote work arrangements for employees with disabilities, union says (Sept. 18, 2025); Gov't Exec., Trump's return-to-office mandate exempted feds with disabilities. Many are being ordered to work in…; Fed. News Network, arbitrator's decision in NTEU v. HHS (Jan. 2026). Congressional oversight. Letter from eleven Members of Congress to Acting OPM Director Ezell (Mar. 24, 2025); Letter from Sens. Kaine, Warnock, Alsobrooks, Van Hollen, and Warner to Secretary Kennedy (Dec. 15, 2025) and press release (Dec. 16, 2025); U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-26-108320, Department of Education: Full Costs and Savings Estimate Needed for Reduction-in-For…, as reported by K-12 Dive. Litigation. Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Trump, No. 25-cv-01683 (D.D.C.) (preliminary injunction Nov. 5, 2025; order of Nov. 17, 2025), as reported by OPB; Panian v. Blanche (E.D. Va. filed June 3, 2026; preliminary injunction July 10, 2026), case page, ABA Journal (July 13, 2026), Fed. News Network (July 2026); Gov't Exec., Lawsuit claims DOJ is retaliating against employees with disabilities who request telework (June 3,…; Gov't Exec., Arbitrator restores telework for IRS workers (July 20, 2026); Gov't Exec., Arbitrator restores telework and remote work at the Forest Service (July 2026); The Mindful Federal Employee, Telework Arbitration Wins for Federal Unions (Mar. 13, 2026). Statements and broader policy. ProPublica/Documented reporting on Russell Vought's 2023 remarks, as reprinted in Gov't Exec. (Oct. 2024); NPR, RFK Jr.'s comments on autism spark outrage among researchers (Apr. 20, 2025); Disability Scoop, Trump Administration Withdraws ADA Guidance (Mar. 20, 2025); Disability Scoop, Trump Administration To Close Agency Promoting Community Living (Mar. 31, 2025); Disability Scoop, Congress Approves Nearly $1 Trillion In Cuts To Medicaid (July 3, 2025); NPR, Disability advocates say DOJ memo threatens community-based care (June 20, 2026); Center for Economic and Policy Research, Hayley Brown, The Trump Administration Is Attacking Federal Workers with Disabilities (July 28, 2026).

Considering a Federal EEO Case? FAQs About the EEOC’s Proposed Changes

2026-08-27T14:00:10Z

If you are facing discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or a disability accommodation problem in federal employment, the news about the EEOC’s proposal may leave you wondering whether you can still act—and whether you should wait. You can still pursue your rights. The proposal has not replaced the current rules, and waiting for it to become final will not protect a deadline. EEOC announcement For the details of what the Commission has proposed, read our overview of the federal EEO changes.

Can I still bring a federal discrimination complaint?

Yes. The proposal has not repealed federal antidiscrimination laws or closed the federal EEO process. Federal employees and applicants can still pursue covered discrimination and retaliation claims under the rules that apply now. EEOC’s explanation of federal employee rights Not every unfair decision is unlawful discrimination. A legal review should examine the facts, any connection to a protected characteristic or activity, evidence, and deadlines. Other workplace problems may involve different rights or procedures.

Should I wait until the EEOC finishes changing the rules?

No. Do not put off protecting a potential claim while the Commission considers its proposal. Rulemaking does not pause the deadlines for an individual case. Seek advice about the rules and options that apply now.

Is the deadline 45 days or 60 days?

Under the current ordinary federal EEO process, you generally must initiate contact with an agency EEO counselor within 45 days of the discriminatory matter or, for a personnel action, its effective date. If counseling does not resolve the matter, a separate 15-day deadline generally applies after you receive the notice of your right to file a formal complaint. Current counseling rule; current formal-complaint rule The proposal’s general 60-day written-complaint deadline is not the rule in effect today. It would require a different step, not simply give everyone 15 more days to contact a counselor. Exceptions, different claim types, and the facts affecting when a deadline starts require individual review. If you think a deadline has passed, seek advice promptly rather than assuming either that your claim is lost or that an exception will save it. Proposed filing rule

Does contacting Southworth PC, HR, or my supervisor preserve my EEO deadline?

Contacting a law firm does not, by itself, initiate agency EEO counseling or extend a deadline. Do not wait for an intake response if a filing or counselor-contact deadline may be approaching. You also should not assume that telling a supervisor or HR about a problem completed the required EEO step. Whether a particular communication qualifies can depend on whom you contacted and what you communicated. Keep a record of those contacts and seek prompt guidance about contacting the agency’s EEO office. Current counselor-contact requirements

I already contacted EEO or filed a complaint. Can I still seek legal help?

Yes. You may seek representation after the process has begun. Tell the firm exactly where your matter stands and provide every notice or order with a deadline. EEOC guidance on representation Starting a complaint or hiring an attorney now does not establish a blanket exemption from every possible future rule. The EEOC has said current complaints would not be affected, but the final transition language will matter. Counseling, a filed complaint, and a new incident are not necessarily the same thing for that analysis. EEOC announcement

Do I need all the evidence before I contact EEO or an attorney?

No. You may not have access to the employer’s internal communications, comparative records, or the reasons behind a decision. Do not wait until you believe you can prove the entire case before addressing a deadline. Start with a clear chronology and the information you lawfully possess. An attorney can assess what the existing evidence shows, what is missing, and how it may be obtained through the procedures available in your case. That does not mean every concern will support a viable claim.

Would the proposal eliminate EEOC judges, mediation, or the right to go to court?

No. Its central hearing change would remove an employee’s election into Administrative Judge proceedings before the agency’s final decision. The agency would ordinarily decide first; the employee could appeal, and the Commission would control referrals for Administrative Judge proceedings. Mediation, administrative appeals, and federal-court rights would remain, subject to their requirements. Today’s procedures remain in force, and even today not every complaint results in a live hearing. For the fuller explanation, see our proposal overview and the proposed referral procedures.

Would I have to take my case to federal court?

Not necessarily. Some matters resolve through settlement or the administrative process. Court can be an option, but it has procedural requirements, deadlines, costs, and strategic consequences. It is not automatically the right route because the EEOC has proposed changes. Current civil-action rules If your situation also involves an MSPB appeal, union grievance, or another complaint process, disclose that before choosing a route. Different procedures can interact, and an election in one process may affect another. Do not assume filing everywhere provides extra protection. Current rules on related procedures

Do I have to hire a lawyer? What can a lawyer add?

You are not required to have an attorney in the administrative EEO process. The EEOC does not provide you with an attorney or act as your personal representative. EEOC representation guidance Legal representation can help identify claims, evaluate deadlines, develop the record, respond to agency positions, and compare settlement and litigation options. An assessment should address weaknesses and costs as well as potential strengths.

Will the agency pay my legal fees? Is the proposal changing that?

Do not assume the agency will pay all your legal bills. Fee recovery depends on the applicable law, the result, and what is awarded or negotiated. The proposal would revise fee-award standards; it does not abolish every right to recover attorney’s fees. Proposed fee provisions Before hiring counsel, ask what the engagement covers, how fees and expenses are handled, and whether a later appeal or court case would require a separate agreement.

What should I have ready for an initial review?

A useful starting point is:

Your agency, position, and a brief timeline of the events.

The dates of personnel actions and any contact with EEO, HR, a union, or another complaint office.

Notices, decisions, and orders, including when you received them and any stated deadline.

The reason you believe discrimination or retaliation occurred, the harm involved, and what you hope to accomplish.

Keep relevant evidence lawfully, and do not remove restricted agency material. Do not send classified information. Ask the firm for instructions before providing other sensitive or protected records. Do not post personal case details in blog or social-media comments.

Why contact Southworth PC now, and what is the next step?

Southworth PC focuses on representing federal employees. We raised concerns about this rulemaking before the Commission’s vote and are examining the released proposal. Our approach is to assess your facts, explain the available options, and discuss the work, costs, and risks involved. If you would like us to evaluate whether we can help, contact Southworth PC through our regular intake process. Identify any approaching deadline when you reach out. You do not need to have every legal question answered before making an inquiry. This page provides general information as of August 27, 2026, not legal advice about an individual matter. Contacting the firm does not by itself establish an attorney-client relationship, mean the firm has accepted your matter, or extend a deadline.

EEOC’s Proposed Changes: FAQs for Current Southworth PC Clients

2026-08-27T13:51:17Z

If Southworth PC represents you in a federal EEO matter, you may be wondering whether the EEOC’s proposed changes affect your case, your next deadline, or the work we are doing together. The August 26 vote did not put new rules into effect. Continue following your existing deadlines and your legal team’s instructions. The EEOC has also stated that its proposal would not affect complaints currently being processed. We are reviewing the proposed language and the protections a final rule would need to provide. EEOC announcement Your case remains our focus. These answers explain what you need to know now. For a broader explanation of the proposal, read our overview of the proposed federal EEO changes.

Did the announcement change anything I need to do in my case today?

The proposal itself did not change your filing deadlines, cancel an order, or require you to restart your case. It did not decide the merits of your claim. Continue preparing for scheduled proceedings, responding to your legal team, and completing the tasks already discussed with your attorney.

Will a future final rule apply to my pending complaint?

The EEOC says the proposal is prospective and would not affect complaints currently being processed. That is reassuring, but a proposal and an agency announcement are not the final transition rules. The proposed text asks for comments about how to handle matters pending when a final rule takes effect, including hearing requests, appeals, and fee petitions. We will examine the final language before advising how it applies to a particular matter. A new incident or claim can raise separate deadlines, even when another complaint is pending. EEOC announcement; proposed transition discussion

I have requested an EEOC hearing, or my case is already before a judge. Should I keep preparing?

Yes. Keep following the Administrative Judge’s orders and your attorney’s instructions. The proposal does not, by itself, cancel a pending hearing request, discovery deadline, or scheduled proceeding. The proposed hearing changes have not taken effect. Under today’s rules, some cases settle or are decided without a live hearing; your team will advise you about the proceedings in your case. Current hearing procedures

What if I am still in counseling, awaiting an investigation, or considering an appeal?

Keep working under the rules and deadlines that apply to your current stage. Do not assume counseling can be skipped, an investigation is paused, or an appeal deadline has been extended. If you receive a notice about filing a formal complaint, requesting a hearing, appealing a decision, or filing in court, send it to your team immediately. Do not substitute the proposal’s new deadlines for the deadlines that apply now. Current EEO process

What should I do if there is new discrimination, retaliation, or an accommodation problem?

Tell your legal team promptly, even if you believe the new event is part of the same problem. Provide the date, what happened, who was involved, and any notice you received. A pending case does not automatically preserve every later claim. Your attorney can assess whether a new event should be added to an existing complaint, raised through counseling, or addressed in another way. New events can have their own deadlines. Do not wait for the rulemaking to finish before reporting them. Current amendment procedures

Should I withdraw my case, file something new, or move to federal court now?

Do not make those decisions based on the proposal alone. Withdrawing a complaint, choosing another forum, or filing a new matter can have consequences for your rights and deadlines. Federal court remains a potential option, subject to the requirements that apply to your claims and case stage. Whether it is the right option depends on the evidence, available relief, timing, costs, and your goals. Any change in strategy or the scope of representation needs an individual discussion with your attorney. Current civil-action rules

Can we still mediate or settle? What about an agreement already signed?

Mediation and settlement remain available, although participation and resolution depend on the circumstances. The proposal also preserves alternative dispute resolution. There is no reason to abandon a useful settlement discussion solely because the Commission proposed new rules. EEOC announcement The vote does not itself undo a signed settlement. Continue following its terms, and tell your attorney promptly about any possible failure to comply. Do not accept or reject a new offer without discussing its terms and consequences with your team. Current settlement-compliance rule

Does the proposal change what I pay Southworth PC or whether the agency can pay attorney’s fees?

The vote does not itself amend your engagement agreement. Your agreement governs the scope of services and your obligations for fees and costs; ask your team about any provision you do not understand. That is separate from recovering attorney’s fees from the agency. The proposal would change some standards governing fee awards, but it does not eliminate all fee recovery. Whether fees can be recovered, and in what amount, depends on the applicable law and the outcome. An award is not guaranteed. Proposed fee provisions

What is Southworth PC doing in response?

We raised concerns before the Commission’s vote. We are now reviewing the released proposal and preparing a response focused on meaningful access to evidence, fair consideration of claims, and clear protections for pending matters. At the same time, we are continuing our client work and evaluating how any final changes would affect case preparation and strategy. If we recommend a change in your case strategy because of a final rule, we will explain the reason and discuss the options with you. Advocacy about the rules and attention to your case belong together.

What is the most useful thing I can do now?

Keep working with your team. Follow existing instructions and send requested information on time.

Share new developments promptly. Include notices, new incidents, settlement communications, and any approaching deadline.

Preserve evidence lawfully. Do not delete relevant material, but do not remove restricted agency records or transfer protected information to a personal account without legal guidance.

Keep case details private. Use your usual private communication channel with the firm, not blog comments or social media. Public rulemaking comments can also become public records.

You do not need to interpret every headline yourself. Bring the facts and your questions to the people working on your case.

How do I get an answer about my own case?

Contact your assigned Southworth PC legal team through your usual communication channel. You do not need to submit a new prospective-client inquiry. If your question involves a new notice, event, or deadline, identify it clearly and provide the document promptly. Our approach is to keep your case moving, explain developments accurately, and make decisions with you based on the rules that actually apply. This page provides general information as of August 27, 2026. It does not replace advice from your attorney about your specific case, alter an engagement agreement, or extend any deadline.

EEOC’s Proposed Federal EEO Changes: What Federal Employees Need to Know Now

2026-08-27T11:57:50Z

If you have a federal discrimination case—or are deciding whether to bring one—take a breath. The EEOC’s August 26 vote did not change the rules governing your case. The Commission voted to advance a proposed rule. It did not put a final rule into effect. That does not make the proposal small. It would substantially change how federal employees and applicants pursue discrimination complaints, including who controls access to proceedings before an EEOC Administrative Judge. It deserves careful scrutiny and a strong response. Here is what we know, what remains unsettled, and what you should do now.

What happened yesterday?

The EEOC approved a proposal to rewrite significant portions of 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, the rules governing the federal-sector EEO complaint process. The Commission says its aim is to reduce delay and complexity. Its official proposed rule is available to read. A proposal is not a final rule. Public comments and further agency action come before a final rule can take effect. The proposal may change during that process. The current complaint procedures remain in place. EEOC announcement

Will this affect my current case?

Nothing changed in your case because of yesterday’s vote. Keep following your existing deadlines, orders, and your attorney’s advice. The EEOC says its proposal is prospective and would not affect complaints currently being processed. That is an important assurance. There is also a detail we are watching closely: page 76 of the proposal asks whether additional transition provisions are needed for complaints, hearing requests, appeals, class complaints, compliance matters, and fee petitions pending when a final rule takes effect. We want the final regulatory language to protect pending matters expressly. For now, the correct message is reassurance about today’s rules, together with careful attention to whatever transition language the Commission ultimately adopts. A new incident or new complaint may raise different questions from an already pending matter. EEOC announcement; proposal, pp. 75–76

What would change if this proposal became final?

Employees would lose the present choice to enter the EEOC hearing process before a final agency decision

For an ordinary individual EEO complaint, the current rules generally allow an employee to request proceedings before an EEOC Administrative Judge after the investigation, or once the applicable waiting period has passed. That does not mean every case receives a live evidentiary hearing. Cases can settle or be decided without one. The proposal would remove that employee election. Ordinarily, the employing agency would investigate and issue its own final decision first. An employee could then appeal to the EEOC and request Administrative Judge proceedings, but the Commission would decide whether to refer the case or particular issues. Any referral could be limited, including the discovery allowed. The Administrative Judge would generally make recommendations, and the Commission would issue the final decision. Independent EEOC appellate review would remain. What changes is the employee’s control over access to the hearing process and its tools for developing and testing evidence. Current EEOC process overview; proposed §§ 1614.405–.406, pp. 117–125

A written complaint would replace required pre-complaint counseling

The proposal would eliminate mandatory pre-complaint counseling and generally require a written complaint within 60 days. It would also require enough factual allegations to state a plausible discrimination claim and impose new rules for adding claims. That is not simply “15 more days.” Today’s general 45-day deadline is for contacting an EEO counselor; the proposal’s 60-day deadline would require a written complaint meeting the new standard. The proposal does preserve agency technical assistance and alternative dispute resolution, including mediation. It does not abolish mediation. The question is whether the replacement process would give employees enough help and time to identify and present their claims. Proposed §§ 1614.102, .105–.107, pp. 83–92

Administrative class complaints would end

The proposal would eliminate the EEOC’s administrative class-complaint process. It would allow related individual complaints to be processed together and would permit certain class allegations to be presented for exhaustion purposes before a possible court action. Those mechanisms are not the same as administrative class adjudication. And permission to present class allegations administratively does not guarantee that a court will certify a class or find every exhaustion requirement satisfied. Proposed § 1614.204, pp. 100–106

Other changes could affect access to representation and relief

The proposal also revises attorney-fee standards, offers of resolution, enforcement tools, and some burdens governing relief. These details matter: a right can be harder to use if obtaining the evidence, finding representation, or securing a remedy becomes more difficult. Fee awards and discrimination remedies would not disappear. We are examining whether the proposed restrictions would make effective representation and meaningful relief less accessible. Proposed §§ 1614.109 and .501, pp. 95–100, 129–135

Why is Southworth PC concerned?

Federal employees deserve a faster process. They also deserve a fair opportunity to prove what happened. Discrimination cases often turn on evidence employees do not control: comparator records, internal communications, explanations for changing decisions, or testimony that must be tested. The employing agency already has a duty to conduct an impartial investigation. The concern is what happens when that investigation misses material evidence or accepts an explanation the employee needs discovery to challenge. A fresh review of an incomplete record does not, by itself, supply the missing evidence. The proposal allows the EEOC to supplement the record, remand a matter, or refer issues to an Administrative Judge. We will press for safeguards that make those protections effective when they are needed—not merely available in theory. The Commission also needs to explain whether its design would reduce overall delay and cost, or move those burdens to employees, agencies, and federal courts. Counting fewer administrative proceedings is not enough to answer that question. Proposal’s rationale and alternatives, pp. 6–16, 72–76

Would federal court still be available?

Yes. The proposal preserves civil-action rights, subject to the applicable procedural requirements. You would not necessarily have to finish an EEOC appeal before going to court; the available route depends on the claim and case posture. But a court option does not make every administrative safeguard expendable. Federal litigation can require substantial time, expense, and legal work. Court filings are generally public, subject to applicable privacy protections. Some employees may be able to pursue that route; others may face serious barriers. We will assess forum choices with clients individually. This proposal alone is not a reason to withdraw a pending case or rush into court. EEOC civil-action overview; U.S. Courts: access to proceedings and records

What should federal employees do now?

Keep meeting today’s deadlines. The existing general 45-day EEO counselor-contact requirement has not become 60 days. Exceptions and different claim types require individual analysis.

Keep working with your attorney. Continue responding to orders, preserving evidence lawfully, and preparing your case. Do not remove protected agency information or move it to personal accounts without legal guidance.

Do not wait for rulemaking to protect a new claim. New discrimination or retaliation can create separate deadlines, even when another case is pending.

Protect your privacy. Do not post medical records, personnel records, or identifying case details in social-media comments. Rulemaking comments generally become public too.

What are we doing about it?

Southworth PC raised concerns before the vote. We are now reviewing the released language, testing the Commission’s explanations against the law and the record, and preparing our response to the rulemaking. Our priorities are clear: protect clients under the rules that apply now; demand explicit protection for pending matters; defend meaningful access to evidence and independent adjudication; and assess legal challenges if the final rule warrants them. We will also prepare for practical changes if they occur. That includes evaluating administrative and federal-court strategies without making premature decisions about any client’s case. Our pre-vote explanation

Can employees comment on the proposal?

Yes. The posted proposal calls for comments for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The vote date is not the start of that deadline. The formal notice and Regulations.gov docket will control the submission instructions and closing date. Useful comments explain a specific problem, support it with facts, and identify a better alternative. We encourage participation that protects personal information and addresses how the process actually works. A social-media comment is not a substitute for a submission to the rulemaking docket. Proposal, pp. 1–2 This is a serious proposal. It is also a proposal we can study, challenge, and prepare for. You do not need to panic. You do need accurate information and a plan. That is the work we are doing. This article provides general information about a developing proposal as of August 27, 2026. It is not advice about the deadlines, forum, or strategy in an individual case.

The EEOC Votes August 26 on Rewriting the Federal EEO Process. The Public Still Can’t Read the Plan.

2026-08-25T13:34:51Z

On Wednesday, August 26, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will hold an open meeting to vote on whether to publish a proposed rule titled "Revision and Update to 29 CFR Part 1614" (RIN 3046-AB46). Part 1614 is the regulation that governs how federal employees challenge discrimination, harassment, and retaliation inside their own agencies — the counseling stage, the investigation, the hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge, the appeal. Reports say the proposal would end a federal employee's present right to choose a hearing before an independent EEOC Administrative Judge, eliminate the pre-complaint counseling and mediation stage, and abolish the administrative process for group (class) discrimination complaints. As of the morning of August 25, the public cannot read the proposal. On August 25, our firm sent the Commission a letter opposing any proposal that would do those things — and asking the Commission, before it acts, to release the actual text, take public comment seriously, and protect every pending case. You can read the full letter here: [button link="/wp-content/uploads/sites/1204812/2026/08/Southworth-PC-EEOC-Part-1614-Pre-Vote-Letter_2026-08-25.pdf" type="big" newwindow="yes"] Read Our Letter to the EEOC (PDF)[/button] This post explains what is happening, how we pieced it together from the public record, and what you can do about it — in plain English.

First, take a breath

If you have a pending EEO case, nothing about your case changed this week. The current Part 1614 rules — and every deadline under them — remain fully in force. The August 26 vote is about whether to publish a proposal for public comment. Publishing a proposal changes no one's rights. Nothing changes unless and until a final rule takes effect, and one of our letter's central demands is an express savings clause protecting cases already in the system. So this is not a moment for panic. It is a moment to pay attention.

How we know what we know — and what nobody knows

Because EEOC has not released the proposal, everything the public knows comes from tracing the regulatory paper trail. Here is that trail, with sources:

July 22, 2026 — EEOC submitted the draft rule, RIN 3046-AB46, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the White House office that reviews significant regulations before they are published. That submission is publicly logged on reginfo.gov.
July 27, 2026 — According to public reporting, agency EEO officials received a closed briefing on the plan. The first substantive public descriptions came from the law firm Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch on July 29 and from Bloomberg Law on July 31.
August 19, 2026 — OIRA concluded its review "Consistent with Change," and EEOC dated its notice of the August 26 open meeting.
August 26, 2026 — The Commission is scheduled to deliberate and vote on the draft proposal.

What is not in the public record, as of August 25: the regulatory text, the preamble, a redline against current Part 1614, any workload or cost analysis, any transition plan, any Federal Register filing, and any Regulations.gov docket. That gap matters, and it frames everything below. Descriptions of what the proposal contains are reported, not confirmed. Our letter says this plainly: our objections address the architecture credibly reported from that closed July briefing, not language EEOC has disclosed. If the reports are incomplete or wrong, there is an easy fix — release the text.

The system today, in plain English

Under current Part 1614, a federal employee who believes they faced discrimination starts by contacting an EEO counselor — generally within 45 days. Counseling and optional mediation resolve or narrow many matters early. If the matter isn't resolved, the employee files a formal complaint and the employing agency investigates itself. Then comes the step that matters most: after the investigation, the choice of what happens next generally belongs to the employee. You can request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge — a decision-maker independent of the agency you accused — or ask the agency for a final decision and appeal from there. An Administrative Judge can order discovery, take sworn testimony, make credibility findings, and sanction an agency that withholds evidence. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109. Those hearings are closed to the public, which matters when a case involves harassment, medical conditions, or disability. You may not win. Some cases end without a live hearing. But the agency's version of events is not the last word, and the employee — not the agency — chooses the neutral forum.

What reports say would change

Under the reported architecture, the employing agency would investigate itself, build the record, and issue the first merits decision in every complaint — a final agency decision, reportedly within a 180-day model. An employee could appeal, but a hearing before a judge would happen only if a newly designated EEOC office (a reported "Office of Federal Sector") granted one. Permission-only. No public source identifies the standard that office would apply, whether it must give written reasons, any deadline for deciding, or any way to challenge a denial. Nothing public explains what happens when an agency's investigation is incomplete or late. Reports also say the counseling and mediation stage would be eliminated, and the administrative class-complaint process — the mechanism for group discrimination cases, with its certification, notice, and tolling protections — would be abolished, with no public answer for what happens to certified classes and people relying on them. Every sentence in the two paragraphs above carries the same caveat: reported, not confirmed, because the text is not public.

Why this matters — in EEOC's own numbers

None of the following figures are ours. They come from EEOC's published data, cited in our letter. Federal employees requested 7,175 EEOC hearings in fiscal year 2025. The hearings program resolved 6,178 matters that year and obtained almost $78.1 million in benefits for employees. EEOC's appellate program reversed nearly 35 percent of the procedural dismissals it reviewed — independent review catches real errors at scale. Meanwhile, the agencies that would decide every case first already struggle with the deadlines they have. EEOC's own study found that only 47 percent of merit final agency decisions were issued on time in FY 2021 — and the late ones averaged 178 days past due. In that same year, agencies completed 33,506 counselings, and only 36.5 percent became formal complaints — evidence that the early-resolution stage reports say would be eliminated does substantial screening and settling work. There is also a privacy problem few people are talking about. Administrative hearings are closed. Federal court dockets are public. If neutral administrative adjudication becomes permission-only, more employees face a hard choice: accept the accused agency's decision, or put a harassment, medical, or disability dispute on a public docket. And one more receipt: in March 2026, EEOC's own budget justification to Congress described its hearings program as providing "full, fair, and impartial adjudication" and requested $35.377 million to run it. The draft rule went to OIRA four months later. Our letter asks the obvious question — what evidence changed in between?

What we sent the EEOC, and why a letter matters

Rulemaking runs on records. If a final rule is ever challenged, what matters is what the agency knew, what it was asked, and what it ignored before it acted. A pre-vote letter puts the objections and the unanswered questions in front of the Commission — in writing, with a date on it — so no one can later say the problems were invisible. Our August 25 letter asks the Commission to defer action until the proposal can be examined publicly. If it votes to proceed anyway, the letter demands that it do so in the open: release the approved text with a redline against current Part 1614, the preamble, the cost and workload analyses, and the consultation chronology; provide at least 90 days for public comment (EEOC's own coordination regulation contemplates no less than 60); hold a dedicated public hearing where federal employees, unions, practitioners, agency EEO professionals, and Administrative Judges can be heard; genuinely consider narrower alternatives — including the pilot authority EEOC already gave itself in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.102(f); and adopt an express savings clause protecting pending complaints, requested hearings, appeals, certified classes, settlements, and accrued deadlines. The letter also asks EEOC to circulate it to every Commissioner before the meeting, preserve it in the meeting record, and place it in the rulemaking docket if one opens. It is advocacy before a vote, not a substitute for a docketed comment — when EEOC opens a formal docket, we will file text-specific comments and publish a plain-English breakdown of the actual proposal. [button link="/wp-content/uploads/sites/1204812/2026/08/Southworth-PC-EEOC-Part-1614-Pre-Vote-Letter_2026-08-25.pdf" type="big" newwindow="yes"] Read Our Letter to the EEOC (PDF)[/button]

If you have a pending case right now

Keep working your case. Every current deadline still applies — the 45-day window to contact an EEO counselor, the deadlines to file a formal complaint, to request a hearing, to appeal. Do not abandon a pending case because of a headline about a proposal no one has read. If you are unsure how any of this could eventually touch your situation, talk with a federal-sector employment attorney promptly — that is true this week, and it will be true whatever the Commission does.

What you can do today

Watch the meeting — it is a public, open Commission meeting on August 26; details are in EEOC's meeting notice. Share this post with federal employees, union stewards, EEO professionals, and civil-rights organizations — the people this system exists for should not learn about its redesign after the fact. And when a docket opens, comment. We will publish exactly how, and what the proposal actually says, at that point. Until then, the asks are simple, and they are the same four we put in writing to the Commission: release the text, hold a real public hearing, give the public at least 90 days, and protect every pending case. This post is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Descriptions of the unreleased proposal are based on public reporting, as explained above.

FAQs

Does the August 26 vote change my rights or deadlines? No. A vote to publish a proposed rule starts a public-comment process; it changes nothing by itself. Current Part 1614 rules and every deadline under them remain fully in force unless and until a final rule takes effect. What is an EEOC Administrative Judge? An adjudicator at the EEOC — independent of the agency you filed against — who can order discovery, take sworn testimony under oath, decide credibility, sanction an agency that withholds evidence, and issue a decision on your case. Under today's rules, after the agency's investigation, the employee generally has the right to elect that hearing. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109. What exactly is being voted on? Whether to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) — a draft regulation — revising 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (RIN 3046-AB46). If published, the public gets a comment period, EEOC must consider the comments, and only afterward can it issue a final rule. Where can I read the proposal? You can't yet — that is the central problem. As of August 25, no text, redline, or analysis has been released and no public docket exists. When it is published, it will appear in the Federal Register and on Regulations.gov, and we will link both here and publish a plain-English breakdown. Could a rule take away my right to sue in federal court? The right to file a civil action is in the statute itself, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), and the Supreme Court held in Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840 (1976), that the case proceeds fresh — de novo. A regulation cannot repeal a statute. The concern is the administrative path: court litigation is public, slower, and more expensive, which is exactly why accessible neutral administrative adjudication matters.

SOURCES

EEOC, Notice of Open Commission Meeting (Aug. 19, 2026) — https://www.eeoc.gov/meetings/notice-open-commission-meeting-August-26
OIRA, RIN 3046-AB46, Revision and Update to 29 CFR Part 1614 — https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=1477811
KCNF, Major Changes Coming to the Federal Sector EEO Process (July 29, 2026) — https://kcnfdc.com/blog/major-changes-coming-to-the-federal-sector-eeo-process/
Bloomberg Law, Federal Worker EEO Process Eyed for Major Overhaul in Trump Plan (July 31, 2026) — https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/federal-worker-eeo-process-eyed-for-major-overhaul…
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (current) — https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XIV/part-1614
EEOC, FY 2021 Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, Part I — https://www.eeoc.gov/fy-2021-annual-report-federal-workforce-part-1-eeo-complaint-processing-activi…
EEOC, Timeliness of Merit Final Agency Decisions in the Federal Sector — https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports/timeliness-merit-final-agency-decisions-federal-sector
EEOC, Fiscal Year 2027 Congressional Budget Justification — https://www.eeoc.gov/fiscal-year-2027-congressional-budget-justification
EEOC, FY 2027 Agency Performance Plan and FY 2025 Agency Performance Report — https://www.eeoc.gov/fy-2027-agency-performance-plan-app-and-fy-2025-agency-performance-report-apr
Southworth PC, Letter to the Commission re RIN 3046-AB46 (Aug. 25, 2026) — https://www.attorneysforfederalemployees.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1204812/2026/08/Southworth-PC-EEOC-Part-1614-Pre-Vote-Letter_2026-08-25.pdf

We Filed a 52-Page Objection to the New Federal Discipline Rule. You Have Until Monday to File Yours.

2026-07-30T11:28:07Z

The short version: On July 2, the Office of Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board jointly proposed a rule called "Promoting Employee Accountability," 91 Fed. Reg. 40444. It rewrites nearly every procedure federal employees use to defend their careers. It is not final — and the public comment period closes Monday, August 3, 2026. Our firm filed a 52-page opposition today. You can read it here: 20260723_Southworth_PC_Opposition_Comment_Docket_2025-OPM-0012_FINALFS. And you can file your own comment, in about ten minutes, here: regulations.gov comment page.

What this rule would actually do

We read all 81 pages — more than once. In plain English, the proposal would:

Give you as little as one business day to answer a proposed short suspension. Proposed Friday afternoon, due Monday.
Cut the answer window for proposed removals to 7–10 calendar days — and if a medical condition affected your performance, failing to raise it in that answer "would be considered a waiver."
Cap performance improvement periods at 30 days, with extensions left to the agency's "sole and exclusive discretion" — a phrase that appears twenty-one times in the proposed regulatory text.
Treat 10 consecutive calendar days of absence without approved leave as "voluntary" job abandonment — separation without a proposal notice, without a reply, and without the procedures Congress wrote into the law.
Ban clean-record settlements, the tool both sides use to resolve disputes. OPM's own analysis concedes this will make cases harder to resolve.
Retire required review of the Douglas factors — the twelve considerations (your years of service, your record, how others were treated for the same conduct) that have disciplined penalty decisions for 45 years — replacing them with a standard under which "no particular set of factors must be considered in every case."

One more number worth knowing: the government's own cost analysis projects roughly 599 more removals a year, 366 more MSPB appeals, and about $21 million a year in new agency litigation-defense costs. That is the rule's math, not ours.

What we did about it

Today our firm filed a 52-page formal opposition — a section-by-section legal analysis covering the reply deadlines, the medical-issue waiver, the abandonment rule, the settlement ban, and a factor-by-factor defense of all twelve Douglas factors, which the Board specifically invited the public to address. We wrote it the way we would write a brief: verified citations, the rule's own text quoted back to it, and thirteen specific requested changes, beginning with withdrawal of the rule.

Read the full letter here: 20260723_Southworth_PC_Opposition_Comment_Docket_2025-OPM-0012_FINALFS. Share it, quote it, borrow from it. That is what it is for.

Why your comment matters — really

Some federal employees assume public comments disappear into a void. They do not, and the reason is legal, not sentimental.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency that issues a final rule must consider and respond to the significant comments it receives. Comments that raise specific problems — a statutory conflict, a factual error, a real-world consequence the agency never analyzed — become part of the official record. If the agency ignores them, that failure itself can become a basis for a court to set the final rule aside. In other words: every specific, substantive comment either improves the rule or builds the record for challenging it. Either outcome serves you.

And in this rulemaking, the Board did something unusual — it asked. The proposal specifically requests public comment on whether to keep "all or some" of the Douglas factors, factor by factor. When the adjudicator that will decide federal employees' appeals asks the public which protections to keep, silence is an answer too. As of late July, the docket had drawn only a few hundred comments — from a workforce of more than two million people.

How to comment (about ten minutes)

Go to the official comment page
Write your comment in the box or attach a document. You do not need to be a lawyer, and you do not need to address the whole rule — one provision, addressed concretely, is a real comment.
Submit before Monday, August 3, 2026. Comments must be received by that date. Do not wait for the weekend.

A few practical notes. Comment in your personal capacity — on your own time, on your own device, speaking for yourself and not your agency. You are not required to identify your agency or position, and the form does not require you to prove your identity; many federal employees comment without full identifying details. Remember that comments are public: do not include sensitive agency information, details of pending cases, or anything you would not want published. And specific beats angry — a concrete account of how a provision would work in a real office outweighs a page of adjectives.

What the most effective comments say

The comments agencies must grapple with are the ones that add something to the record. Ideas, keyed to the rule's provisions:

The one-business-day answer. Describe what gathering medical documentation, finding a representative, and writing a defense actually requires where you work. Could anyone in your office do it in one business day?
The medical-issue waiver. How long does it take to get a specialist appointment where you live? What happens to an employee whose diagnosis is real but whose paperwork takes three weeks?
The 10-day abandonment rule. If you have ever seen a leave request sit unanswered in an inbox, or a hospitalization outrun the paperwork, describe it. Ten calendar days includes weekends.
The 30-day improvement period. If you have ever been on either side of a PIP, say what 30 days is — and is not — enough time to demonstrate.
The Douglas factors — answer the Board's own question. Tell the Board which factors should stay and why: years of service, a clean record, consistency with how others were treated. This is the single most direct invitation in the rule.
The settlement ban. If you have ever resolved a dispute rather than litigated one, explain what happens when that exit no longer exists.
Veterans. The federal government recruits veterans, including those with service-connected conditions, and federal law promises them robust protection. Explain how compressed medical deadlines and automatic abandonment separations land on that population.

Sample language you can adapt

Use these as starting points — then make them yours. A personalized paragraph is worth more than a pasted one.

I am a federal employee with ___ years of service. I oppose the proposed rule. A one-business-day deadline to answer a proposed suspension is not a real opportunity to respond. In my experience, obtaining medical records alone takes weeks, and finding a representative takes days. I ask that employees receive no fewer than seven calendar days to answer any proposed action.

I oppose proposed § 715.203. Leave requests where I work are not always processed quickly, and a hospitalized employee cannot always reach the right office. Treating ten calendar days of absence as a "voluntary" resignation — with no notice and no chance to respond — will separate employees who never intended to resign. Any absence rule should require written notice and an opportunity to explain before separation.

The Board asked which Douglas factors should be retained. I ask the Board to retain all twelve. An employee's years of service, prior record, and the penalties given to others for the same conduct are what make a penalty fair rather than arbitrary. A standard under which "no particular set of factors must be considered in every case" tells employees that nothing about their record is guaranteed to count.

I oppose the prohibition on clean-record settlements. Settlement is how most workplace disputes end without years of litigation. OPM's own analysis admits the ban will make resolution harder. Removing the main reason employees and agencies settle will produce more litigation, not more accountability.

As a veteran with a service-connected condition, I am concerned that the rule's compressed medical deadlines and its waiver provision will fall hardest on veterans the federal government recruited because of our service. The government cannot be the "model employer" federal regulations require while making medical conditions a procedural trap.

What happens after Monday

The agencies must review the comments and decide whether to withdraw, revise, or finalize the rule; a final rule must respond to the significant objections raised. We will read whatever they publish — every page — and we will report back. If the final rule keeps its worst provisions, expect legal challenges, and expect this firm to be paying close attention.

This post is general information about a pending rulemaking, not legal advice about any individual situation.

Shaun Southworth Published in Law360 Expert Analysis on Federal Employee DEI Layoff Class Action

2026-06-24T11:58:39Z

Southworth PC is proud to share that our CEO, attorney Shaun Southworth, was published in Law360’s Expert Analysis section on Monday, June 22, 2026. Shaun’s article, “Why Private Sector Should Watch Gov’t DEI Firing Class Bid,” examines Fell v. Trump, a class action brought by former federal employees challenging layoffs connected to the shutdown of DEI offices. The case matters because it raises a question federal employees should be watching closely: when a large group of employees is affected by a centralized government decision, can they challenge that action together as a class?

Read the Article

The authorized article PDF here: [button link="/wp-content/uploads/sites/1204812/2026/06/Law360-WhyPrivateSectorShouldWatchGovtDEIFiringClassBid.pdf" newwindow="yes"] Download Here[/button] Read the article on Law360 here: https://www.law360.com/articles/2488879/why-private-sector-should-watch-gov-t-dei-firing-class-bid Please note: the Law360 link may require a subscription.

Why This Matters for Federal Employees

Federal employees are facing a changing employment landscape, including RIFs, reorganizations, restructuring, and employment actions that may be directed from the top rather than made office-by-office. Shaun’s article explains why Fell v. Trump could matter beyond one set of layoffs. The case may influence how courts evaluate class actions involving federal employees, especially where many workers are affected by the same governmentwide policy or directive. For federal employees, this is not an abstract legal issue. Class certification can affect whether employees are able to proceed together, how claims are litigated, and what kind of evidence matters when challenging broad employment actions.

Why Law360 Matters

Law360 is a national legal news platform read by attorneys, judges, in-house counsel, government lawyers, and legal professionals across the country. Its Expert Analysis section publishes commentary from practitioners on significant legal developments in their fields. Shaun’s publication reflects Southworth PC’s continued commitment to bringing federal employee issues into the national legal conversation.

About Southworth PC

Southworth PC represents federal employees nationwide in EEO, MSPB, whistleblower, RIF, discipline, removal, and related federal employment matters.

Civil Rights for Civil Servants

2026-09-04T14:44:27Z

A biweekly podcast for federal employees — from the attorneys who represent them. For the last year and a half, the federal workforce has lived through hiring freezes, deferred resignations, probationary firings, and RIFs. Too many federal employees have had to figure out their rights alone — in real time, under pressure, with no one in their corner. That's why we built this show. Civil Rights for Civil Servants is a biweekly podcast hosted by Shaun Southworth and Lydia Taylor, the founding partners of Southworth PC — a firm that represents federal employees, and only federal employees, nationwide. It's calm, factual, and practical. No spin. No fearmongering. Just two attorneys who do this work every day, telling you what's actually happening to the federal workforce and what it means for you.

Listen and Subscribe — Wherever You Get Your Podcasts:

Hit follow or subscribe now, and the next episode lands in your feed the moment it drops.

Why We Made This

If you already follow us on social media, you know our videos run two or three minutes — enough to flag what's happening, rarely enough to really explain it. The podcast is where we finally get room to go deep: walk through a legal strategy start to finish, give a real case the time it deserves, and answer the questions a 60-second clip never could.

What You'll Hear Every Episode

The Docket — the federal workforce news people are actually talking about, in plain English, and what it means for you.
The Case File — one legal strategy per episode: the steps, the deadlines, and the protections you need to know before you need them.
Guests Worth Hearing From — people with something real to say about the federal workforce.
Ask Shaun and Lydia Anything — your questions, answered on the show. Send them to advocate@southworthpc.com anytime.

Proudly Ad-Free

The show is sponsored entirely by Southworth PC. No ads, no gimmicks — just two attorneys for federal employees, in your corner every other week.

Start Listening

Your career deserves a defense, and your peace of mind deserves a plan. Subscribe to Civil Rights for Civil Servants today — on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Amazon Music — and share it with a coworker who needs it. Want more between episodes? Get our free Federal Employee Briefing — three stories that matter to your job, in plain English, every weekday — at fedlegalhelp.com/newsletter. Civil Rights for Civil Servants offers general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

OPM’s Proposed Federal Employee NDA Is Missing Words the Law Requires. We Filed a Formal Comment Asking OPM to Withdraw It.

2026-06-10T13:03:23Z

The Office of Personnel Management is proposing something new: a single, governmentwide nondisclosure agreement that federal agencies could require employees to sign — at hiring, during onboarding, or at any point in your career. Under the draft, refusing to sign could mean removal from federal service. The form would live permanently in your eOPF. We read the draft. It has a problem that goes to its legal foundation: it omits words that Congress requires, word for word, in every federal nondisclosure agreement. So on June 9, 2026, Southworth PC filed a formal public comment asking OPM to withdraw the draft, fix it, and start the comment process over. The complete filed comment is below. [button link="/wp-content/uploads/sites/1204812/2026/06/Southworth_PC_Comment_OPM-2026-0100_FINAL.pdf" type="big" color="teal" newwindow="yes"] Click Here to Download Southworth PC's Comment[/button]

What the Law Requires

After agencies were caught using gag agreements to silence whistleblowers, Congress did something unusual. Instead of telling agencies to draft their own disclaimers, Congress wrote the exact language itself. Under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(13)(A), every federal nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement must contain a specific statement — verbatim — telling you that the agreement does not override your rights relating to classified information, communications to Congress, whistleblower protections, and reports of wrongdoing. In 2021, Congress amended that mandatory statement to add something important: your right to report violations of law, gross waste, abuse of authority, or dangers to public health and safety to the Office of Special Counsel. OSC is the independent federal agency where whistleblowers actually file disclosures and where prohibited personnel practice complaints go. Congress wanted every employee who signs an NDA to see that, in the document itself, before signing. And the statute has teeth. Implementing or enforcing an NDA without the required statement is itself a prohibited personnel practice — the same category of unlawful conduct as whistleblower retaliation.

What OPM's Draft Says Instead

Paragraph 3 of the draft NDA reproduces the required statement — but it reproduces the old version, the one Congress replaced in 2021. Here is the comparison: What the law requires: "...the reporting to an Inspector General or the Office of Special Counsel of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation..." What the draft says: "...the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation..." The Office of Special Counsel — the whistleblower agency — is gone. The same omission appears in OPM's Federal Register notice describing the proposal. The draft appears to have been built from a pre-2021 template rather than from the current United States Code.

Why This Matters to You

This is not a technicality. If this form is finalized as drafted, every agency that administers it would be implementing a nondisclosure form that fails the one statute written specifically to govern its contents. Every federal employee asked to sign it would be reading a legally inaccurate description of their whistleblower rights — one that omits the principal forum Congress created to protect them. And because the draft warns that refusing to sign may result in removal, employees could face career-ending consequences over a form that, as written, no agency could lawfully implement or enforce at all. Our comment makes the full legal argument: the statute does not permit "close enough" compliance; the omitted words reflect a deliberate Act of Congress; general references to the Whistleblower Protection Act elsewhere in the form cannot cure the defect; and the only adequate fix is for OPM to withdraw the draft, correct it, and republish it for a fresh round of public comment so federal employees can evaluate the form the law actually permits.

What You Can Do

OPM is accepting public comments through June 26, 2026. You do not need a lawyer to file one. Go to regulations.gov, search Docket ID OPM-2026-0100, and submit your comment — about this defect, about the consequences of refusing to sign, or about any of the ten questions OPM asked the public. Agencies are required to consider every comment they receive. Notice-and-comment is one of the few formal channels where individual federal employees can speak directly to the policies that govern their careers, and it works best when employees actually use it.

If You're Asked to Sign a Nondisclosure Form

Whether or not this draft becomes final, the rule it violates already protects you today: any federal nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement you are asked to sign must contain the statement Congress prescribed. If you have been asked to sign an NDA that doesn't, if you have faced discipline connected to a nondisclosure form, or if you believe you have experienced retaliation for protected whistleblowing, those are situations worth taking seriously and getting advice on early. Southworth PC represents federal employees nationwide before the MSPB, EEOC, the Office of Special Counsel, and related forums. This post is general legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation.

Schedule Policy/Career: Tips for Federal Employees Impacted by the June 3, 2026 Executive Order

2026-06-04T13:16:04Z

Quick read: On June 3, 2026, the President signed an executive order placing approximately 8,000 federal positions into a new excepted-service category called Schedule Policy/Career — the renamed Schedule F. For positions covered by the order, the Chapter 75 adverse action procedures that ordinarily apply to career federal employees no longer apply. No advance notice. No reply right. No appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on a removal. Positions can be removed at will. The order is being challenged in federal court. If you may be on the list, the next two weeks matter. This post lays out, in plain English, what the order does, what it does not do, and the practical steps you should take now. Check out the order and the appendix yourself at Implementing Schedule Policy/Career in the Excepted Service – The White House and 2026SchedulePolicyCareer.eo_.APPENDIX.pdf

What the Order Does

The June 3, 2026 executive order — titled Implementing Schedule Policy/Career in the Excepted Service — does four things: First, it places the specific positions identified in the order's appendix into Schedule Policy/Career of the excepted service. The appendix runs more than 200 pages and lists positions by agency and by position description (PD) number. Second, it amends the Civil Service Rules and Regulations (5 C.F.R. Parts 1, 3, 6, 11, and 550) so that an employee in a Schedule Policy/Career position can be separated for "unacceptable performance or misconduct" on the agency's written notice — without the procedural protections of 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75. Third, it directs each affected agency to notify the encumbering officer or employee of the placement within 7 days and to conform agency records to reflect the change. Fourth, it tells OPM to continue the broader transfer process — meaning more positions may follow. The administration estimates that about 97 percent of the positions covered by this round are at or above the GS-15 level.

What the Order Does Not Do — At Least On Its Face

OPM Director Scott Kupor stated publicly that whistleblower protections are preserved. We note that the practical access to the Office of Special Counsel and the Individual Right of Action (IRA) framework for Schedule Policy/Career employees is still being litigated; treat that as an open question, not a settled one. OPM might be wrong on this one. The order does not by itself extinguish EEO statutes. Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, the ADEA, and the EPA continue to apply, and EEOC's 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 process for federal-sector complaints remains available. The order does not retroactively change the procedural rights attached to any adverse action already initiated against you before your position was placed in Schedule Policy/Career.

What is Being Challenged in Court

A coalition of federal employee unions and good-government organizations — including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFSCME, the AFL-CIO, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), and Democracy Forward — has active litigation challenging the underlying OPM rulemaking and the Schedule Policy/Career framework. The legal theories include exceeding the President's authority under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, violating the Administrative Procedure Act, and depriving covered employees of constitutionally protected property and due-process interests in their positions. Courts have not yet ruled on the merits of the June 3, 2026 order. We do not know how the litigation will come out. We do know that the procedural protections Congress codified in Title 5 do not vanish because an executive order says they do. The courts will weigh in. Until they do, treat your situation as legally contested, not legally settled.

What To Do Right Now — Practical Checklist

1. Confirm whether your position is actually on the list. Pull up the appendix to the executive order. Find your agency. Find your position description (PD) number — it is on your SF-50 in box 22 ("Position Title and Number"). If your PD number appears in the appendix under your agency, your position is covered. If your PD number is not listed, your position is not covered by this round — but a subsequent round could include it. The order itself states that subsequent renumbering or organizational realignment of a listed PD does not remove it from Schedule Policy/Career. If your PD is on the list and your agency later renumbers or moves it, the coverage follows the position. 2. Get the notice in writing. Your agency is directed to notify you within 7 days of placement in Schedule Policy/Career. Get the notice in writing — email is fine. Save it. Save the date and time it arrived. Save who sent it. Do not rely on a verbal conversation with a supervisor. 3. Do not sign anything reclassifying you without learning more. If your agency asks you to sign a document acknowledging placement in Schedule Policy/Career, or any document waiving rights, do not sign it without first speaking with your union, your representative, or counsel if you want. Acknowledging receipt of a notice is one thing; signing a waiver is something else. Read what you are being asked to sign. If you are unsure which it is, ask for time to review and consider getting advice. Although we will provide information, we do not plan to offer a paid consultation for this advice. Our free consultations would be focused on whether you want us to pursue EEO claims, whistleblowing claims, or defend against proposed or actual discipline. A few other firms, however, provide for paid consultations which my be useful. 4. Document everything now — before anything happens. Build a file. Include:

Your current SF-50 and the SF-50 you receive reflecting placement in Schedule Policy/Career.
Your most recent performance appraisals and any awards or commendations.
Emails reflecting praise for your work, successful projects, or favorable feedback.
Any complaint, EEO contact, whistleblower disclosure, or protected activity you have engaged in — with dates.
Your position description as currently written.

The goal is to be able to demonstrate, if needed, the actual character of your position and the actual quality of your service. Do this now, while you have access to your systems and email. 5. Engage your union or representative. If you are in a bargaining unit, talk to your steward and your local. Even if your position itself is unclassified or excepted, your union may still have a role in negotiating the agency's implementation. If you have a personal representative, loop them in. 6. Keep doing your job — and keep records of it. Continue to perform. Continue to follow lawful directives. The order does not change the bar on adverse actions for protected reasons — race, sex, national origin, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, prior EEO activity, whistleblower disclosures, union activity, and political affiliation. If you are removed, the reason matters. Keep your work product, your communications, and your performance record clean and well-documented. 7. Watch the litigation. The federal court challenge is the single most important variable for the next several months. We will post updates as they come. If you are not on our daily newsletter, you might want to join at fedlegalhelp.com/newsletter. 8. Know your timelines if something happens. If you are removed and you believe the removal is based on a protected reason — discrimination, retaliation, whistleblower reprisal, USERRA, political affiliation — there are deadlines, and they are short. EEO contact for discrimination or retaliation is 45 days from the action. Whistleblower disclosures and IRA framework filings with OSC have their own timelines. Do not let a deadline run. Consider contacting counsel for a consultation.

Who Can the Firm Help

Southworth PC focuses on federal employment law. We represent federal employees nationwide and worldwide. The cases this order tends to generate adverse actions where the procedural shield is gone but the substantive prohibitions remain — retaliation for protected EEO activity, whistleblower reprisal under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), prohibited personnel practices, USERRA, mixed cases at the intersection of MSPB and EEO — are core firm work. We do free consultations to see if you have a litigation case we can help your pursue. If you are facing discipline, harassment or discrimination, or if you have already received a separation notice, you might consider reaching out. This post is general information about a developing legal situation. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Federal employment matters are fact-specific. If you believe you are affected by the executive order, the right next step is a consultation with an attorney who can evaluate your specific situation against the actual record.