The Solidarity Docket
June 11, 2026
Schedule Policy/Career took effect in practice this week as the agency submission deadline passed and workers began receiving acknowledgment forms. USDA is pressing ahead with reorganization plans that give some employees less than three weeks to decide whether to relocate or separate. New litigation on disability accommodation and the administration's removal authority over immigration judges adds to an already substantial docket this week!
Schedule Policy/Career: OPM Issues Guidance as Implementation Deadline Passes
June 10 was the deadline for agencies to identify and submit positions being moved into Schedule Policy/Career. OPM issued formal implementation guidance on June 8. The guidance draws a clear line on what federal unions can and cannot do.
OPM states that placement into Schedule Policy/Career is not subject to a contractual grievance. Executive order determinations fall outside any collective bargaining agreement, and position reclassifications that do not reduce an employee's pay are excluded from grievance procedures by statute. Unions also cannot negotiate over whether particular positions should be exempt from placement. After positions are placed, however, agencies may face impact-and-implementation bargaining obligations over the effects on working conditions.
A separate issue affects bargaining unit coverage. OPM advises that many positions moved into Schedule Policy/Career involve policy-making or policy-determining functions and may therefore qualify as management officials under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(11), which are excluded from bargaining units by statute. Agencies are instructed to file unit clarification petitions with the FLRA on an expedited basis to determine the status of affected positions. Current collective bargaining agreements and obligations apply in the meantime.
OPM also confirms that employees in covered positions may still invoke grievance procedures under existing CBAs for discipline and related matters, even though they have lost the statutory protections of chapters 43 and 75. The CBA-based avenue remains available where it exists.
Schedule Policy/Career: What Employees Should Do When They Receive an Acknowledgment Form
Workers in positions moved into Schedule Policy/Career are receivingacknowledgment forms are seeking practical guidance. The professional consensus among practitioners, and our advice at Rise Up, is that signing an acknowledgement form is likely not to impact the legal situation for workers - unless they don’t sign it. Therefore, signing the acknowledgement is the recommended course of action.
The reasoning is straightforward. The executive order and Schedule Policy/Career regulations have already purported to strip the relevant civil service protections. Those actions do not derive their legal force from an employee's signature on an acknowledgment form. Signing does not create or expand the legal reality the administration has already asserted. Refusing to sign, on the other hand, creates an immediate and concrete risk of adverse action while providing no corresponding legal benefit.
The same logic applies to annotating the form. Writing a qualification such as “receipt only, not agreement” on the signature line does not provide meaningful legal protection and may draw exactly the kind of attention an employee wants to avoid. The cleaner course is to sign without qualification.
The question of whether Schedule Policy/Career is lawful will be resolved by the courts, and that outcome will apply regardless of what any individual employee signed.
Return-to-Office Litigation: Rehabilitation Act Class Action Filed Against DOJ
Two attorney-advisors at the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Reviewfiled a class action suit on June 3 alleging that DOJ's return-to-office mandate violates the Rehabilitation Act by denying reasonable telework accommodations to employees with disabilities. The case isPanian v. Blanche (E.D. Va., No. 1:26-cv-01537).
The named plaintiffs are attorneys who are immunocompromised and/or suffering from chronic illness and had telework agreements to complete their work from their home offices. Both received top performance evaluations throughout the period they worked remotely and received successive extensions of their telework arrangements based on documented medical need. Their accommodations were revoked after President Trump ordered federal employees to return to the office full time.
The complaint alleges that DOJ denied their accommodation requests without adequate justification and that the blanket no-telework policy failed to conduct the individualized accommodation analysis the Rehabilitation Act requires. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of disabled EOIR employees who were denied telework requests; the complaint states the class could encompass hundreds of workers. Democracy Forward Foundation represents the plaintiffs.
The case is on our Litigation Tracker. It is one of several suits now pending across the federal government challenging the application of the return-to-office mandate to employees with disabilities, and it may be among the first to develop a substantial record on whether a blanket policy satisfies the individualized assessment standard under the statute.
Return-to-Office: New Arbitration Award Reflects a Broader Pattern of Union Wins
While Panian v. Blanche moves through federal court on a disability accommodation theory, unions have been prevailing on return-to-office challenges at arbitration as well.
This week’s award in Patent Office Professional Association v. United States Patent and Trademark Office is the most recent in a series of decisions holding that agencies violated the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and their negotiated agreements when they implemented the administration's return-to-office directive.
Arbitrator Blanca E. Torres found that USPTO committed multiple violations when it issued a May 19, 2025 notice limiting all non-Patents POPA bargaining unit employees to situational telework only. The telework memoranda of understanding between the parties had been negotiated in 2022, well before the January 20, 2025 presidential return-to-office memorandum. Torres held that the directive violated 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(7), which prohibits an agency from enforcing any rule or regulation that conflicts with a collective bargaining agreement already in effect. The presidential memo itself stated it would be implemented “consistent with applicable law.” Torres found that applicable law includes pre-existing negotiated agreements, and that the directive violated those agreements on its face.
Torres also found that USPTO failed to conduct the individualized, position-by-position assessments its negotiated agreements required before any change in telework eligibility; that USB presented the union with a fait accomplirather than an opportunity to bargain; and that the wholesale elimination of negotiated telework programs constituted repudiation of the parties' agreements. The order requires USPTO to rescind its May 19 notice, restore all affected employees to the telework and remote work status they held before implementation, and comply with its obligations negotiated under 5 U.S.C. § 5711.
The pattern is consistent with what we have seen across the arbitration landscape more broadly. Unions have prevailed in nine out of ten known arbitration decisions on the Return to Office mandate.
The recurring bases for those wins are three: failure to conduct individualized assessments before changing telework status, failure to bargain over impact and implementation before the change was made, and the conflict between the return-to-office directive and pre-existing negotiated agreements. Where the agency prevailed, the award turned on contract language that specifically authorized executive action to eliminate telework.
Immigration Judges Test the Limits of Article II Removal Authority
Two separate legal challenges are moving through the courts over the mass termination of immigration judges, and together they present a broad judicial test of the administration's claim that the president holds unrestricted authority to remove executive branch employees at will.
The first track involves two immigration judges who were terminated after completing their full terms, not at the probationary stage. They appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which ruled that their dismissals were lawful under the president's constitutional authority. They appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in March. That case, Jackler v. DOJ, is now fully briefed on the en banc petition, with amicus support filed by a coalition of federal employee unions including AFGE, AFSCME, IAM, IFPTE, and NFFE, as well as Justice Connection, Whistleblower Aid, the MSPB Professional Association, and six United States Senators. On June 5, the government filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Both motions are pending before the court.
The second track involves a broader and newer wave ofcivil suits filed in federal district courtsby at least eight probationary immigration judges terminated during their two-year probationary period. These plaintiffs were given no reason for their non-retention. The administration is asserting that probationary immigration judges are inferior officers removable at will under Article II and have no recourse under the Constitution or the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs dispute that characterization and allege discrimination on the basis of sex, national origin, age, and sexual orientation. At least one plaintiff says her supervisors recommended she be retained before the termination decision was made. Several plaintiffs also contend the terminations were retaliation for prior advocacy on behalf of immigrant populations or Democratic Party affiliation.
The suits were filed in multiple district courts, including the Northern and Central Districts of California, the District of the District of Columbia, and the District of Massachusetts. Gilbert Employment Law represents the majority of the plaintiffs and has stated publicly that additional suits are expected in the coming weeks.
The Department of Justice has dismissed more than 100 immigration judges since January 2025, roughly half of them probationary. During the same period, the department has hired more than 200 judges with military or ICE enforcement backgrounds. The legal theory the administration is advancing, that it may remove immigration judges without cause and without access to the EEO process, would, if accepted, remove a significant check on the impartiality of the immigration court system.
USDA Presses Reorganization: Employees Face June 30 Decision Deadline
The US Department of Agriculture is accelerating its reorganization timeline, and at least one group of workers is now facing a hard deadline with immediate consequences.
Food Safety and Inspection Service employees flagged for reassignmentreceived notice this week setting a June 30 deadline to decide whether they will relocate to their new duty stations or accept a separation offer. Those who do neither will be removed for failure to accept a reassignment as of September 30, with no right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Workers who decline and are involuntarily separated may be eligible for severance pay.
The changes affect administrative, technical, and support staff as part of USDA's broader plan to relocate more than half of its Washington, D.C.-area workforce to regional hubs. Frontline inspectors, roughly 85 percent of FSIS's workforce, are not affected. More than 20 senators, led by Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar,sent a letter to USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden raising concerns about the scope and rationale of the relocations.
Forest Service Offering VERA/VSIP to Transitioning Employees
TheForest Service is facing a parallel transition. The agency will offer Voluntary Early Retirement Authority and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments to employees affected by its reorganization, which moves headquarters to Salt Lake City, shutters all nine regional offices, and retains only 20 of 77 research facilities. The National Federation of Federal Employees estimates 6,500 employees are affected by the headquarters and regional office changes, with an additional 2,700 affected by research facility closures. VSIP payments are capped at $25,000 under current law.
The reorganization carries an unresolved legal question. The USDA fiscal year 2026 appropriations act prohibits the department from reorganizing or relocating offices or employees without congressional authorization. The agency's general counsel has approved the moves anyway. Democratic members of Congress have signaled a likely legal challenge, though no suit has been filed as of this writing.
Litigation Tracker: Upcoming Deadlines and Open Items
Several significant dates fall in the next two weeks. On June 23, the Northern District of California will hear the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on FEMA workforce cuts and the government's motion to dismiss in AFGE v. Trump (No. 3:25-cv-03698), consolidated for the same hearing. On June 29, the government's opening brief is due in the First Circuit in AFGE v. Department of Veterans Affairs (No. 26-1321), the appeal of the district court's preliminary injunction reinstating the VA Master CBA for more than 300,000 employees.
And finally, about six months have passed since the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in the consolidated collective bargaining cases, National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, American Foreign Service Association v. Trump, and Federal Education Association v. Trump, and no opinion has issued. We are watching and waiting for a decision that will determine whether the administration's executive orders stripping collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal workers can stand, and that will resolve the fate of the stayed district court injunctions and the multiple related matters held in abeyance pending the outcome.
The full Litigation Tracker is maintained at workerslegaldefense.org/litigation-tracker.
In Solidarity,
Suzanne Summerlin
General Counsel,
Rise Up: Federal Workers Legal Defense Network
