November 4, 2026
This week's Docket leads with NTEU's suit asking a federal court to enforce an arbitration award the IRS has refused to honor, a step that appears to be the first of its kind in the federal sector. It also covers USDA's request to lift the order blocking employee relocations, new filings in the BOP, VA, and Defense Department contract cases, and several shorter developments.
Please check out the postscript for info on our upcoming webinar Q&A on reasonable accommodations.
NTEU Asks a Federal Court to Enforce an Arbitration Award the IRS Ignored
NTEU sued the IRS on October 29 in federal district court in Washington, D.C., seeking enforcement of a July 17 arbitration award that restored telework and remote work arrangements. The suit appears to be a first of its kind. In the federal sector, unions and employees have no independent right to enforce the awards they win. Under the Statute, a party that disagrees with an award may file exceptions with the FLRA within 30 days. If it does not, the award becomes final and binding, and refusing to comply is an unfair labor practice. The FLRA is the enforcement forum.
The arbitrator held that the IRS violated its contract with NTEU when it canceled telework arrangements in 2025 without the individual review the contract required. The IRS did not file exceptions. Six days after the award, it declared the award invalid and kept its restrictions in place. Its position is that Executive Order 14251 removed the IRS from the Statute's coverage, so neither the arbitrator nor the FLRA has jurisdiction, and there was nothing to except to.
That leaves the award with no administrative path to enforcement, since the FLRA held this fall that it lacks jurisdiction over excluded agencies. NTEU argues the award binds the IRS anyway. It filed the grievance in March 2025, while the contract was in force, and in ordinary contract law a party may sue over a breach that occurred during the agreement, even after the agreement ends. Otherwise, either side could breach on the last day without consequence. NTEU asks the court to set aside the IRS directive under the Administrative Procedure Act.
USDA Asks Court to Lift Order Blocking Employee Relocations
The Department of Agriculture asked the federal district court in San Francisco on October 30 to stay, pending appeal, its October 13 order blocking employee relocations and office and laboratory closures. The court ordered the plaintiffs to respond by November 4. The order bars USDA from relocating employees outside their commuting area, including through management directed reassignment letters, and from closing Agricultural Research Service laboratories, including Beltsville, and Forest Service offices. It does not reach moves within the National Capital Region.
USDA argues the order significantly hinders its operations, Government Executive reports. Declarations from Forest Service and Agricultural Research Service leadership say it slows hiring for 25 vacant fire management officer positions and 10 avalanche center director positions, and that about 30 Beltsville employees risk losing their jobs if they cannot relocate. USDA plans to relocate about 2,600 employees.
AFGE, AFSCME, NFFE, NTEU, five local governments, and five nonprofits brought the case. They argue USDA is reprogramming funds for reorganization in violation of the appropriations acts, and the court found USDA is almost certainly doing so. The government has also appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where its opening brief is due November 13. The order remains in effect.
BOP and VA Contract Fights Return to District Court
The Bureau of Prisons and the Department of Veterans Affairs are each back before the district courts over contracts they have tried to end a second time.
At BOP, the agency asked the court on October 20 to clarify whether its September 29 preliminary injunction allows BOP to re-terminate its contract with the National Council of Prison Locals, AFGE, based on a new agency decision. In the alternative, BOP asked the court to modify or dissolve the injunction. The court had already voided BOP's October 7 re-termination as improper self-help. It agreed to decide the clarification question on an expedited basis, but held that any request to modify or dissolve the injunction will follow ordinary briefing. Briefing on clarification closed October 30. The contract remains in effect.
At VA, the First Circuit stayed the district court's enforcement order in October, so VA may treat its master agreement with AFGE as expired while the appeal proceeds. On October 16 the AFGE National VA Council and AFGE Local 2305 asked the district court for an indicative ruling, a statement of how it would modify its injunction if the First Circuit returned the case. VA opposed. VA's First Circuit brief is due November 23.
Defense Department Seeks Dismissal or Transfer of Union Challenge to Contract Terminations
The Department of Defense asked the federal district court in Maryland on October 20 to dismiss a challenge to its termination of collective bargaining agreements covering tens of thousands of civilian employees. The Department's lead argument is that AFGE and NFFE are improperly splitting their claims, because they are already suing the Department over Executive Order 14251 in San Francisco, where the Ninth Circuit vacated their injunction. In the alternative, the Department asks the court to transfer the case to California or stay it until that case and the related D.C. Circuit appeals are resolved. It also argues that the Statute bars district court jurisdiction and that the terminations were discretionary national security decisions not subject to review.
AFGE Local 1410, more than twenty other AFGE councils and locals, and three NFFE locals brought the case in July. They do not challenge the executive order itself. They argue the Department ended its agreements without the reasoned decision-making the Administrative Procedure Act requires. The Secretary of Defense replaced the original termination memorandum on August 24 with one directing terminations within seven days, with exemptions for certain police, security guard, and firefighter units. The unions amended their complaint to challenge it and renewed their request for an injunction. No relief has been granted, and the terminations remain in effect.
Other Developments
NFFE v. USDA. The federal district court in San Francisco heard argument October 27 on NFFE's challenge to the Secretary of Agriculture's religious messages to the USDA workforce, and took both the preliminary injunction motion and the government's motion to dismiss under submission. Before the hearing, the court asked the parties to address coercion under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (freedom of religion), whether past Secretaries invoked specific religions in official correspondence, and whether one plaintiff's claims are moot.
New NTEU arbitration awards. NTEU reports that an arbitrator held the IRS violated their contract by refusing employees' requests to withdraw resignations or retirements. Affected employees may choose reinstatement to their former or an equivalent position, with back pay and interest. A second award restores credit hours for employees on flexitour schedules. Both awards are subject to FLRA exceptions.
EEOC class complaint processing. In AFGE's challenge to the EEOC's pause on federal sector class complaints, the Commission's revised discovery responses and document production were filed with the court on October 27, and a motion to compel followed on November 2.
OPM and DOGE data access. Following the October 20 ruling that OPM violated the Privacy Act, the parties in the case brought by AFGE, the Association of Administrative Law Judges, and IFPTE must propose a schedule for deciding relief by November 6. The plaintiffs seek deletion of OPM data DOGE agents still hold.
Schedule Policy/Career. The Government Accountability Project and NARFE opposed the government's motion to dismiss on October 23 and asked to identify seven career employee declarants by pseudonym. Justice Connection filed an amicus brief supporting them on November 2.
Former Pardon Attorney. The Department of Justice's response to Elizabeth Oyer's complaint was due November 3. A pro se litigant has moved to intervene, and the Department opposed.
Dates We’re Watching
November 6: Hearing on remedies in Comans v. Executive Office of the President.
November 6: Proposed schedule for deciding relief in AFGE v. OPM (DOGE data access).
November 9: Briefing on the First Amendment claim in Comey v. Department of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y.).
November 9: Government's opening brief in the TSA contract appeal, AFGE v. Noem.
November 9: Plaintiffs' response on mootness in Widakuswara v. Lake and Abramowitz v. Lake.
November 12: BOP's response to the unions' motion to file a supplemental complaint in NCPL v. Bureau of Prisons.
November 13: FMCS cross-motion for summary judgment in AFGE v. FMC.
November 13: Joint statement on relief and fee application in the FEMA claims in AFGE v. Trump.
November 13: Government's opening brief in the USDA relocation appeal, AFGE v. USDA.
November 19: Status conference on discovery in AFGE's challenge to Executive Order 14251, AFGE v. Trump.
November 20: Case management conference in the FEMA claims in AFGE v. Trump.
November 23: VA's opening brief in the First Circuit appeal of AFGE Local 2305 v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
December 10: En banc argument on removal of immigration judges in Jackler v. MSPB.
December 10: Hearing on USDA's motion for a stay pending appeal in AFGE v. USDA.
December 11: The continuing resolution (budget funding most of the government) expires.
Follow these and other cases on the Rise Up Litigation Tracker, which is updated weekly and available to search or download as a PDF or spreadsheet.
In Solidarity,
Suzanne Summerlin
General Counsel
Rise Up: Federal Workers Legal Defense Network
P.S.: Join me for a webinar with AFGE assistant general counsel Julia Dykstra and Rise Up executive director Laura Padin where we will share how federal workers can make a compelling reasonable accommodation request under the Rehabilitation Act.
We will discuss how to make the strongest RA case, including what type of documentation federal workers should provide and pitfalls federal workers should avoid. We'll also have time for Q&A from the audience. Register here.
