Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—2d Cir.: NLRB erred in invalidating Starbucks dress code policies
    • AGENCY NEWS—OPM guidance adds practical details to federal RIF overhaul
    • DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Mo.: Corrections officer, accommodated despite not being regarded as disabled, cannot advance claim
    • DISCRIMINATION—N.D. Ill.: Senior living facility secures dismissal of dishwasher’s sexual orientation, disability bias, and retaliation claims
    • DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—N.D. Miss.: Summary judgment denied in pregnant employee’s Title VII case, sufficient evidence of pretext on all claims
    • EVIDENCE, DISCOVERY—D.P.R.: EEOC may compel supervised employer document searches, forensic employee manual inspection
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—AI is making phishing scams almost impossible to spot – 5 steps employers should take to combat latest threat
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—AI vendor liability after Mobley v. Workday: when risk doesn't follow control
    • IMMIGRATION NEWS—DOL tells H-2A employers to preserve records as agency implements court order on AEWR rule
    • LABOR—ORGANIZING, ELECTIONS—NLRB.: Regional director erred in dismissing decertification petition without administrative investigation
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Court denies AFGE’s bid for immediate order against EEOC over class complaint freeze, allows limited discovery
    • REPORTS—Researcher considered whether firms that maintained DEI programs experienced different returns than firms that dismantled them
    • USERRA, VETERANS—D. Colo.: Contemporaneous records undercut employer’s reasons for firing Guard member physician, retaliation and reemployment claims advance
    • WHISTLEBLOWERS—11th Cir.: False Claims Act whistleblowers survive Appointments Clause challenge
    • WHISTLEBLOWERS—D.D.C.: Employee fails on FCA claim, but whistleblower claim survives
    • WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving disability discrimination
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, AGENCY NEWS—OPM guidance adds practical details to federal RIF overhaul, (Sep 3, 2026)

    Organizations Mentioned:Office of Personnel Management

    By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

    New OPM guidance offers agencies detailed instructions, examples, and FAQs on how to implement the new rules.

    The Office of Personnel Management’s new guidance on reductions in force does not substantially alter the agency’s recently fin ...

    By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

    New OPM guidance offers agencies detailed instructions, examples, and FAQs on how to implement the new rules.

    The Office of Personnel Management’s new guidance on reductions in force does not substantially alter the agency’s recently finalized RIF regulations, but it provides agencies with extensive implementation direction on how to carry out the changes, including worked examples, detailed FAQs, and explanations of new procedures that are only briefly addressed in the rule itself.

    OPM issued the memorandum September 2, 2026, the same day its revised RIF regulations took effect. The underlying final rule, published August 3, represents one of the most significant revisions to federal layoff procedures in decades, shifting the retention system toward employee performance and away from tenure and length of service. The guidance package, however, focuses less on announcing new policy and more on helping agencies implement that policy consistently.

    The guidance includes a series of attachments explaining how agencies should apply the new rules in practice. While the final rule establishes a framework under which employees are ranked primarily by performance credit, supplemented by veterans’ preference points, the memorandum provides explanations of how those calculations work in practice and how agencies should handle situations such as missing performance ratings.

    Retention standing. For example, OPM’s guidance explains how agencies should calculate retention standing when an employee has fewer than three ratings of record within the applicable four-year period. The memo outlines specific formulas for employees with one or two ratings and describes how agencies should use modal ratings when no ratings exist during the lookback period.

    The memorandum also includes a calculated retention-standing example showing how employees would be ranked under the new performance-focused system. The example illustrates how performance scores, veterans’ preference points, tenure subgroup status, and service computation dates interact when determining retention order.

    Assignment rights. Another area where the guidance expands on the final rule involves assignment rights. The regulations eliminate the longstanding “bump” and “retreat” procedures and replace them with a new assignment-right framework. While the final rule establishes that change, the memorandum further explains how agencies should assess employee qualifications, when a formal qualification analysis is required, and when agencies may rely on exceptions for employees who recently performed substantially the same work.

    Competitive-area rules. The guidance also provides agencies with additional direction on using the new competitive-area rules. The final rule permits agencies to define competitive areas using official organizational units or geographic locations and requires OPM approval when agencies establish or materially modify a competitive area within 90 days before issuing RIF notices. The memorandum expands on those provisions with practical explanations of what constitutes a competitive area and how remote employees should be treated for competition purposes. According to the guidance, employees working from approved alternate locations remain assigned to their official organizational unit rather than competing based on where they physically perform their work.

    Probationary employees, exclusions. Similarly, the memorandum provides extensive discussion of employee categories that are excluded from RIF competition under the revised regulations. The guidance outlines how agencies may retain or release probationary employees, trial-period employees, Schedule C and Schedule G employees, and certain temporary appointees without conducting traditional retention-standing analyses. It also explains when agencies must still provide written notice to such employees even though they are excluded from competition.

    The guidance further addresses procedures for notices, records access, appeals, and transition programs.

    OPM also included an attachment to explaining the new procedures governing the abolishment of an entire competitive area.

    Timing. In the memo, OPM emphasized that agencies must apply the old regulations to any RIF notice issued before September 2, 2026, while notices issued on or after that date are governed by the revised framework. The agency highlighted that retention standing is generally fixed as of the date an employee receives a specific RIF notice, underscoring the importance of timing as agencies prepare workforce restructuring actions.

    News: AgencyNews PublicEmployees Layoffs FederalRegulations GCNNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use