RIFs Would be Appealed to OPM Rather than MSPB Under Proposed Rule

People rally outside of the U.S. Department of State headquarters in Washington, D.C. on July 11, 2025 in support of employees who were laid off by the agency. Roughly 1,300 State Department staff were laid off as part of a reorganization plan at the agency which aligns with President Donald Trump’s agenda to downsize the federal government. Image: Bryan Dozier/NurPhoto/Shutterstock
By: FEDweek Staff

OPM has proposed to require that challenges to reductions in force be filed there, and not at the MSPB, in its latest move to centralize control over more federal personnel decisions there.

The proposal in the February 10 Federal Register would apply to employees who have been furloughed more than 30 days, separated, or demoted by a RIF action, saying the current MSPB appeals process—which involves courtroom-type procedures before a hearing officer, and then potential appeals to the governing board and from there into federal court—is “antiquated and no longer reflect the needs of agencies operating in the twenty-first century.”

The notice argues that “no statutory right to an administrative or judicial review pertaining to RIF actions exists” in the Civil Service Reform Act apart from certain veterans’ preference protections. The MSPB’s “authority to hear RIF appeals is provided for in OPM regulation, not statute,” and can be revoked by overriding regulations—which the proposed regs would do—it says, while “the CSRA prescribes in precise detail the types of actions regarding which there is eventual judicial review—and it does not provide for such review of RIFs.”

The rules propose to replace MSPB appeals with a process similar to what OPM’s Merit System Accountability and Compliance office uses in deciding appeals of job classification and Fair Labor Standards Act overtime claims. That process would supersede any internal agency processes or negotiated processes, further ending any rights to bring challenges through negotiated grievance procedures.

The employee would have “the burden of proving that the RIF action subject to appeal was conducted inconsistent with either statute or OPM regulations such that the employee would not have suffered the same or another RIF action if properly conducted.” Decisions would be based on the written record, although OPM would have authority to “investigate or audit the RIF action to ascertain facts” or to conduct a hearing at its discretion.

OPM could reconsider decisions at its discretion and there would be no right to appeal elsewhere, such as into federal court. Employees who prevail would have the same rights, including to reinstatement and back pay, that they currently have, it said.

That would “return the focus of RIF appeals to the administrative record, with discretion provided to the presiding official to investigate or audit the RIF action. OPM believes this is a more efficient and streamlined process than is provided for under the current regulations,” it says.

“While employees may lack some procedural mechanisms if appeals are transferred to MASC as contemplated by this rule, OPM believes streamlining the process will not have a consequential impact upon the substantive outcomes of the appeals, while improving the efficiency and consistency of the process,” it says.

Employees could continue to “pursue collateral claims under statutes administered by other entities,” such as bringing a claim of discrimination to the EEOC or a claim of political retaliation to the Office of Special Counsel, it adds.

The proposal follows others now pending for OPM to take over from the MSPB authority to hear appeals of firings of probationary employees and firings based on “suitability” grounds (see related story).

“Eliminating independent review of federal RIF actions would not only make it harder for employees to challenge their proposed terminations, but would essentially give the administration free rein to terminate huge swaths of the federal workforce without meaningful independent oversight,” the AFGE union said.

“This is all part of a deliberate attempt to dismantle the nonpartisan civil service. On their own, and taken together, these actions unlawfully concentrate removal authority in OPM and directly undermine the statutory framework Congress established to ensure an independent, professional, and nonpartisan civil service,” it said.

OPM Describes Next Steps for Agencies as Schedule P/C Takes Effect

Final Rules Issued for New At-Will ‘Schedule Policy/Career’ that Could Affect 50K Positions

House Committee Approves Boost in Value of Buyout Incentives

Forced Distributions for All Coming for Current Ratings Cycle, Kupor Says

Average TSP Account Up about $20,000 in 2025; Roth Conversion Option Launching

Large Monetary Settlement Reached in High-Profile Whistleblower Case

Higher Raise Extended to More LEO; Controllers Might Benefit, Too