The Solidarity Docket
A federal appeals court has allowed the Department of Veterans Affairs to treat its master agreement with AFGE as expired while an appeal proceeds. The court pause on USDA relocations has been extended while the judge considers an injunction. At EPA, unions have sued over the contract termination, and an arbitrator has overturned the suspension of more employees who signed a dissent letter. Here is what federal workers and their advocates need to know:
Appeals Court Lets VA Treat the AFGE Master Agreement as Expired While the Appeal Proceeds
On October 2 the First Circuit stayed an enforcement order from the district court in AFGE Local 2305 v. Department of Veterans Affairs. For now, the Department may treat its master agreement with AFGE as expired, as it announced in August.
The district court's March preliminary injunction restored the master agreement after the Department's 2025 termination. When the Department declared the agreement re-terminated effective August 8, the district court held on August 11 that the agreement's duration clause had extended it and that the Department's announcement violated the injunction.
The First Circuit held that the question of whether the agreement was extended is distinct from the question the injunction resolved, which was whether the initial termination was unlawful. The March injunction itself has not been stayed, and the appeals continue. The Department's opening brief is due October 26.
Our September 22 edition reported that the master agreement remained in effect. That is no longer the case while the stay is in place. AFGE-represented VA employees with pending grievances or arbitrations should check with their local about the status of those matters.
USDA Relocation Pause Extended to October 13, Court Weighs an Injunction
A federal court heard argument on the preliminary injunction motion in AFGE v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 3:26-cv-09976 (N.D. Cal.), brought by AFGE, AFSCME, NFFE, NTEU, five local governments, and five nonprofit organizations. The court directed the parties to submit proposed language for an injunction, and extended its administrative stay through October 13.
Until then, USDA may not enforce reassignment or relocation deadlines at the eight covered components. It also may not separate, discipline, or place employees on AWOL status for declining to relocate or not responding. Moves within the National Capital Region are not covered.
The central legal question is whether appropriations language bars USDA from relocating offices or employees without advance approval from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. In a September 29 order, the court stated that the plaintiffs' position on severability is supported by the provision's text and history. It noted that Congress added the approval requirement in fiscal year 2015 to what had long been a notice-and-wait provision. Supplemental briefing closed October 6, and proposed injunction language is due this week as well. According to the hearing transcript, as reported, the court said it would not stay an injunction if it issues one.
EPA Unions Sue Over Contract Termination, First Amendment Violations
AFGE Local 3428 and AFGE Council 238 filed suit on September 29 in AFGE Local 3428 v. Zeldin, No. 1:26-cv-14436 (D. Mass.). They challenge EPA's August 8, 2025 termination of their collective bargaining agreement. The agreement was signed and agreed to run through June 2028 and included a scientific integrity article protecting employees who report political interference with scientific work.
The unions do not challenge Executive Order 14251 itself. They argue that EPA gave no reasoned explanation for terminating the agreement more than four months after the order issued, considered no alternatives, and ignored employees' reliance on the contract, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
They also allege that the termination retaliated against protected speech, including the June 2025 Declaration of Dissent signed by more than 100 bargaining unit employees, in violation of the First Amendment. The complaint alleges that 139 employees were later disciplined for signing the letter, without union representation or access to the grievance procedure.
The unions ask the court to vacate the termination and permanently enjoin it. They have not moved for preliminary relief, so the termination remains in effect.
Second Arbitrator Overturns EPA Suspension for Signing Dissent Letter
On September 14 an arbitrator sustained an NTEU grievance over a 14-day suspension EPA imposed on an employee for signing a Declaration of Dissent. This new award follows a September 9 award, covered in a recent edition, that rescinded the 14-day suspensions of four EPA employees represented by AFGE Local 704 for signing the same letter. In both cases EPA refused to participate, and the arbitrators proceeded ex parte. EPA terminated its agreement with NTEU on March 10, 2026, after the suspension and grievance had already arisen.
The arbitrator found that EPA offered no evidence of misconduct beyond the signature itself. EPA's own Office of General Counsel had advised that the letter appeared to be protected speech under the Pickering test and that discipline carried significant legal risk. The award also held that EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy protects employees' personal expression. EPA must clear the grievant's personnel file and make her whole, including back pay.
Compliance is the open question. After a separate September 2 award ordered EPA to reinstate employees separated in its reduction in force, the agency said it “is not bound by the arbitrator's decision.” The FLRA's Marine Corps ruling, also covered last week, suggests the union's usual enforcement route may be closed.
Court Orders EEOC Discovery to Proceed on Class Complaint Pause
On October 3 the court denied the EEOC’s motion to stay discovery in AFGE v. EEOC, No. 1:26-cv-02640 (D.D.C.). The Commission moved to dismiss on September 28, arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing. It asked the court to halt discovery until it ruled on that motion and until the Commission finished an internal inquiry.
The court held that limited discovery will help it determine whether the alleged policy of pausing federal sector class complaints existed and how far it reached, which bears directly on standing. The court noted that an administrative judge had ordered all case processing paused in a class case and stated that the pause applied to all federal sector class cases.
The Commission has since denied ordering any pause, and the court found that the record does not show why the administrative judge believed it applied so broadly. The Commission had also told the court that no administrative record exists because no policy exists. Discovery now proceeds, and class complaint processing has resumed while the case continues.
Also This Week:
The Ninth Circuit docketed the government's appeal in AFGE v. Noem, No. 26-6312 (9th Cir.), the challenge to the termination of the Transportation Security Officers' 2024 union contract. The government's opening brief is due October 26 and AFGE's answering brief November 23. The preliminary injunction protecting the agreement remains in effect.
The parties in AFGE v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.), are still in settlement talks as of the time of this drafting. A joint statement on outstanding relief for DHS and FEMA employees is due October 9.
The court granted the joint motion to hold AFGE v. OMB, No. 3:25-cv-08302 (N.D. Cal.), in abeyance under the shutdown RIF settlement described last week. A joint status report is due December 4, and a status conference is set for December 11. OPM and OMB's memorandum confirming the rescission of the shutdown RIF guidance is due by late October.
Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer moved for partial summary judgment on October 1 in Oyer v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-03092 (D.D.C.), her challenge to her removal.
ProPublica's Paper Trail podcast examines the role of OMB Director Russell Vought in the administration's approach to the federal workforce and federal spending. It draws on recordings ProPublica obtained, including Vought's statement that he wanted federal employees to be "traumatically affected." Vought is a named defendant in several cases on our tracker.
Our Litigation Tracker
Our new and more comprehensive Litigation Tracker is available as a searchable spreadsheet and as a PDF. Questions, comments, or concerns? Reach out and let us know what you would like to see changed or improved: info@workerslegaldefense.org
In Solidarity,
Suzanne Summerlin
General Counsel
Rise Up: Federal Workers Legal Defense Network
