Federal Employment Lawyers Who Get Results

President Trump’s new mandate ending remote work for most federal employees has recently rocked the federal workforce. Although Trump had long suggested this was a priority for his administration, many federal employees are confused and concerned about what the return to in-person work executive order means in practice.  This blog post will address common questions about the Trump executive order to return to work. We’ll unpack the order’s details, explain the transition timeline, and discuss any exemptions from the mandate. What Does the Return to Work Order Say? On his first day in office in 2025, President Trump issued a mandate directing all federal departments and agencies to take steps to end remote work arrangements. The order specifies that agency leaders should “require employees to return to work in person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis” unless they have legitimate reasons for exemption under existing law. According to a report by the Office of Management and Budget, in May 2024, 1.1 million federal civilian employees were eligible for work arrangements that allowed them to do their jobs partly or entirely away from their work site. Of those employees, around 228,000 occupied remote positions where they were not expected to report to a physical location.  This new directive marks a significant shift from the Biden administration’s approach, which embraced flexible work arrangements and expanded telework options for federal employees.  When Does the Return to In-Person Work Executive Order Take Effect? President Trump’s return to work order officially went into effect on January 20, 2025, when it was issued. According to guidance from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), agencies had until 5:00 p.m. EST on January 24, 2025, to take the following steps toward complying with the mandate: Under OPM’s guidance, agencies will aim to fulfill the order’s requirements within 30 days. However, some flexibility with this timeline is possible for federal employees covered by collective bargaining agreements and other exceptional agency circumstances.  Who Is Included in the Executive Order to Return to Work? The original order specifically addresses employees of “all departments and agencies in the executive branch of Government” engaged in any “remote work” arrangement. This includes any employees who work entirely from an alternative worksite and are not expected to report to agency locations. However, the OPM guidance clarifies that the president’s mandate also applies to federal employees performing “telework.” In the past, OPM allowed employees with telework arrangements to “report to work both at an agency worksite and alternative worksite on a regular and recurring basis each pay period.” Now, federal employees who’d previously had authorization for full—or part-time telework will also be expected to return to in-person duties. Are There Any Exceptions to the Federal Employee Return to Work Executive Order? The president’s mandate does include some exceptions. Certain employees may continue working remotely if they qualify for an exemption under federal law or agency policy. These exemptions include: If you believe you qualify for an exception, it is crucial to communicate with your agency and understand your rights. A lawyer experienced in federal employment law can help assess your situation and ensure the proper handling of your request. Proud Advocates for the Rights of Federal Employees Federal employees are understandably concerned about the impact of this executive order on their careers and personal lives. If you have questions about your rights, exemptions, or potential legal challenges, the Federal Employment Law Firm of Aaron D. Wersing PLLC is here to help. Our team understands the complexities of federal employment law and can help you navigate exemption requests, disability accommodations, and union protections. Additionally, if you experience retaliation for requesting an exemption or challenging the order, you may have legal recourse under federal whistleblower protections and anti-retaliation laws. Contact our office today to learn more about your rights and how we can help. Resources:

For federal employees, preparing your appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) can feel complex and intimidating. Even though it’s your legal right to challenge unfair or unjust adverse employment actions, many employees still feel disadvantaged compared to their agencies. Fortunately, employees can access a powerful tool to help level the playing field: the MSPB discovery process. During discovery, federal workers can obtain crucial evidence that can make a significant difference in the outcome of their appeal.  In this blog post, we’ll explain what federal employees should know about the discovery process in MSPB cases and how they can use it strategically to protect themselves and their careers. What Is the MSPB Discovery Process? Discovery is the legal process where both parties in a dispute exchange information before they meet in a formal hearing. It allows each side to gather and understand the evidence the other side is relying on. In MSPB appeals, discovery allows federal employees to collect documents, records, and testimony that can challenge the legitimacy of their agency’s decision. If you intend to claim that discrimination, retaliation, or procedural errors were behind your agency’s actions, discovery is vital to gathering the concrete evidence you might otherwise not have access to. What Does the MSPB Discovery Process Involve? Under MSPB discovery rules, federal employees must begin making information requests no later than 25 days after the acknowledgment order for the appeal is issued. The scope of federal discovery rules allows employees to request any information that they believe could help prove their case or detract from an agency’s claims. Here are some of the different ways that federal employees can seek information during MSPB discovery: For example, imagine a TSA officer is facing removal based on alleged misconduct. They use discovery to request emails between their supervisor and HR officials discussing the proposed termination. These emails reveal that personal bias motivated by the employee’s religious faith rather than performance issues influenced the decision. This evidence becomes key in proving that the action was unjustified and discriminatory. How to Use MSPB Discovery Effectively Many federal employees assume they already have all relevant information about their situation when they appeal to MSPB. However, this is far from the case.  Although federal agencies must share some relevant information with employees when they deliver the notice of proposed action, they often withhold other documents that could be crucial for your case. Don’t assume you understand the whole picture based on your agency’s initial disclosure. Additionally, the discovery process isn’t just about building your case—it’s also about anticipating the agency’s arguments. Discovery allows you to be proactive and avoid potential claims against you. For example, if you expect the agency to claim that your termination was due to performance issues, you can use discovery to obtain all performance reviews, commendations, and evidence that supports your track record. Discovery is a complex legal process, and navigating it can be challenging for federal employees whose careers may be on the line. The best way to make the most of the discovery process is to seek qualified legal assistance. An experienced federal employment lawyer can help draft information requests, stay on top of deadlines, and prepare a strong legal strategy to increase your chances of a positive outcome. Protect Your Federal Career with Trusted Legal Guidance  If you are facing an MSPB appeal, you need a legal team that understands the complexities of the discovery process and how to use it to your advantage. The Federal Employment Law Firm of Aaron D. Wersing PLLC has years of experience successfully supporting federal employees through their MSPB appeals. Our team can uncover key evidence, challenge agency defenses, and build a compelling case on your behalf. To learn more about how we can help you, contact our office today to schedule a consultation.

Federal workers facing potential suspension, demotion, or removal often feel like the deck is stacked against them. Fortunately, federal law offers civil servants some key tools for challenging unfair agency actions, including the right to assert an affirmative defense before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). An affirmative defense can overturn or mitigate an agency’s disciplinary decision if successfully argued.  Read on to learn more about how affirmative defenses work, MSPB’s evolving approach to handling them, and how federal employees can use them to protect their job security. What Is an Affirmative Defense? An affirmative defense is a legal argument that federal employees can use to negate a federal agency’s adverse employment action. In an MSPB affirmative defense, an employee doesn’t just argue that an agency misinterpreted facts or lacked evidence for their decision. Instead, an affirmative defense tries to show that an agency’s action violated an employee’s rights or federal law.  Common affirmative defenses federal employees use when appealing to the MPSB include: Showing the MSPB that an agency engaged in misconduct in one of these acts is one of the most effective ways for federal employees to challenge and avoid career-damaging adverse actions.  How Do Affirmative Defenses Work? Raising an affirmative defense is not just about making allegations—it requires evidence and legal arguments. The federal employee has the burden of proof to show that their agency’s action was improper by “a preponderance of the evidence.” Put simply, they need enough evidence to show the agency violated relevant laws and regulations. This typically involves: For example, imagine a federal employee faces removal after reporting agency fraud to a law enforcement authority. This employee might build an affirmative defense based on whistleblower retaliation with emails establishing that the adverse action happened shortly after their report and testimony from coworkers confirming the agency’s hostile response. If the employee presents enough evidence to demonstrate the agency was motivated by retaliation, they could have their removal reversed. How Has the MSPB’s Approach to Affirmative Defenses Changed? Recent decisions have altered how the MSPB evaluates affirmative defenses.  In a 2022 ruling, the MPSB revised certain procedural standards that had provided some advantages to federal employees pursuing these defenses. For example, in the past, if an administrative judge made an error in ruling on a case involving an affirmative defense, the employee could automatically have their case reconsidered, even if their claim lacked substantive evidence or effort. Under the MSPB’s new guidelines, employees must make a more intentional effort to pursue affirmative defense cases. Otherwise, the MSPB has much more flexibility to dismiss a defense that doesn’t meet procedural requirements or lacks legal backing. Ultimately, federal employees must be careful and prepared when using affirmative defenses. Having the support of experienced legal counsel is essential for federal employees to ensure their case is presented correctly and given a fair chance. Dedicated Defenders of Federal Employee Rights Successfully asserting an affirmative defense before the MSPB requires deep knowledge of federal employment laws, procedural rules, and legal strategy. Fortunately, federal employees don’t have to take on the burden of building an affirmative defense alone. The Federal Employment Law Firm of Aaron D. Wersing has provided dedicated and personalized service to federal employees and their families for years. Our team has extensive experience with MSPB cases and employee affirmative defenses, from harmful procedural errors to whistleblower retaliation claims. If you are facing an adverse action, contact our office today to schedule a consultation and learn more about how we can help. Resources: 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(2)(A), link.