OPM has finalized a regulation that expands the agency’s ability to remove federal employees governmentwide on “suitability” grounds and shifts key decision-making from individual agencies to OPM—changes that, according to Government Executive, would also narrow many employees’ options to challenge those removals through traditional appeal routes.
- What changed: OPM issued final regulations that broaden OPM’s authority to take suitability-based removal actions across the federal workforce, Government Executive reported.
- Centralization: The rule centralizes suitability determinations at OPM, reducing agencies’ discretion over certain conduct- and suitability-related outcomes.
- Appeals impact: The regulation would limit many employees’ avenues to contest removals, including by constraining access to traditional appeal processes that employees often use in adverse-action disputes, according to Government Executive.
- Scope: The changes apply governmentwide and focus on suitability and conduct-related issues, as described by Government Executive.
- Why it matters: Suitability actions can move faster and follow different procedures than standard adverse actions, and the final rule’s structure may affect how employees defend their jobs when OPM is the deciding authority.
Brief context
Suitability is a long-standing personnel concept used to determine whether an individual is fit for federal employment, often tied to factors such as misconduct, integrity concerns, or other issues that can affect trustworthiness for government service. Traditionally, agencies have handled most removals through established adverse-action procedures, with employees typically able to challenge those actions through negotiated grievance processes (where applicable), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and other channels depending on appointment type and coverage.
Government Executive reported that OPM’s final rule expands the agency’s role in removals tied to suitability and certain conduct-related issues, and that the new framework would reduce the availability of some traditional appeal options. The practical effect is a shift in where key decisions are made—moving from agency-level action to OPM-driven determinations—potentially changing timelines, procedures, and the forum in which employees can seek review.
Employees in competitive service positions, those in excepted service roles, and workers covered by collective bargaining agreements may experience the rule differently depending on their existing procedural rights and whether their positions are covered by MSPB appeal rights or negotiated grievance procedures. Federal employees facing potential removal actions may want to review their appointment type, probationary status, and current appeal/grievance coverage and consult their agency’s HR guidance and any union representation available.
Source: Government Executive