The Trump administration’s controversial “deferred resignation” program is on hold for the time being after a federal judge in Massachusetts enjoined the Office of Personnel Management from “taking any further action to implement the so-called Fork Directive.”
Judge George O’Toole issued the order from the bench during a very brief hearing on Thursday afternoon, while emphasizing that he had not yet reached any conclusions about the program. Arguments on the program’s legal merits are scheduled for a separate hearing at 2 p.m. on Monday, also in Judge O’Toole’s courtroom.
Federal employees had faced a deadline today to decide whether or not to accept the administration’s offer to resign and continue to be paid through Sept. 30. As recently as this morning, OPM told federal workers there would be no extensions to the deadline.
However, in this afternoon’s court session, government attorneys said they would work with OPM to send out another round of emails to federal workers, informing them of the court-ordered pause.
The decision came in a lawsuit brought by three public sector labor unions, who argue that the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it implemented the deferred resignation program, and that its claim to be able to promise full salaries to resigned employees until September would violate the Antideficiency Act.
As part of their suit, the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the National Association of Government Employees argued that the short deadline federal employees faced to make a decision about the future of their careers was one of numerous problems with the program.
“Particularly in light of the extremely compressed timeline to participate in the Fork Directive, OPM’s continual changing of the contours of that program — and the rights and obligations of employees under it — reflects the opposite of reasoned decision-making,” union attorneys wrote in the complaint earlier this week. “OPM’s need to broadly and flatly assert that the exploding offer in the Fork in the Road directive was ‘lawful’ and ‘valid’ only demonstrates the agency’s awareness of the tremendous extent of uncertainty surrounding the directive’s validity, and an effort to rush federal employees to make a decision in a matter of days despite that uncertainty.”
In its own filing shortly before the hearing, OPM argued the unions had failed to show that letting Thursday’s deadline come and go would create “irreparable harm” — one of the standards federal courts require in order to impose a temporary restraining order.
“The federal government has clearly and repeatedly informed the federal workforce that they had to accept the deferred resignation offer by today, February 6, 2025,” government attorneys wrote. “Presumably, numerous federal employees have relied upon this representation in making their voluntary decision whether to accept or decline the offer. Extending that deadline on the expiration date would not just engender confusion and upset expectations, but perhaps more importantly, would disrupt a critical priority of the executive branch to reform the federal workforce.”
The unions have argued the program should be put on hold until OPM redesigns its workforce reduction effort in a way that complies with their view of the Administrative Procedure Act, and that once a revised program is rolled out, federal employees should be given at least 60 days to decide whether to tender their resignations.
Recent developments in the U.S. federal government have led to significant changes affecting government attorneys. The Trump administration has implemented policies resulting in the reassignment and termination of numerous attorneys, prompting many to seek alternative employment opportunities.
Key Developments:
- Reassignments and Terminations: The administration has reassigned nearly 20 senior career Justice Department attorneys and terminated others, including officials from the Executive Office of Immigration Review. This restructuring reflects efforts to overhaul departments that have been sources of contention.
- Deferred Resignation Program: A “deferred resignation” program offered to federal employees has been put on hold by a federal court. This program had encouraged employees to resign by February 6, 2025, with compensation through the end of September. The court’s decision has left many employees uncertain about their job security.
- Increased Exodus to Private Sector: Faced with job insecurity, many government attorneys are seeking positions in private law firms. Legal recruiters have noted a significant increase in applications from federal attorneys, particularly in Washington, D.C., and New York. However, the high volume of candidates has led to increased competition for available positions.
Implications:
- Impact on Legal Services: The departure of experienced government attorneys may affect the quality and continuity of legal services provided by federal agencies. The loss of institutional knowledge could lead to challenges in maintaining effective legal operations.
- Private Sector Opportunities: Law firms are presented with an opportunity to recruit seasoned attorneys with government experience. However, integrating these professionals into private practice may require adjustments due to differences in work culture and client expectations.
- Employee Morale: The uncertainty surrounding job security and potential reassignments has led to decreased morale among federal employees. The fear of termination or forced resignation has created a tense work environment.
These developments highlight the dynamic nature of the federal legal workforce and the broader implications for public service and private legal practice.
