I have seen federal employees recently attacked and written up for trivial items, and these are people who have never been written up for anything in any job their entire lives. Yes, it is happening. The White House wants federal employees who are boot lickers, yes men, and, and they want you to be disposable, so you can be disposed of very easily. You must have extraordinary loyalty and be subordinate, just like a storm trooper in the movie Star Wars (or Return of the Jedi, or Empire strikes Back).
The character addition is very distressing to me. It is extremely easy to make up lies about a employee’s work. It is now written that these narratives can get you fired! You can now, as a federal supervisor or leader, add these into a little package and get a federal employee fired. Federal workers make sure you use every available route (grievance, ask your commander, ask your congressman) for fighting the lies made up about you because they NOW CAN GET YOU FIRED!!!!
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States – Wikipedia The recent US governments attacks on protections of executive leadership will cause strife and weakness in our government, as the best people will think twice before joining government service. With little protection from being fired instantly by the leadership, why work in the federal service? If we make it so easy to fire department leaders, we need to make it very easy to fire congress people, the president and his cabinet. The President and many congress people have way too many job protections, making it impossible to fire them even as they develop alzheimers disease, like Joe Biden did in his last years of Presidency. These federal workers who are called our leaders? These leaders, Right now, they feel safe and secure creating an empire. A friend told me the United States was never a democracy, ok, well its becoming a total doctorship at this point in time.
Will the people, the citizens, and the federal employees standby while the executive branch dismantles the systems that allow federal workers make the government better? If you want to whistle blow on fraud, waste and abuse, what happens now? The outlook is not good if federal worker protections are removed.
Remember also many federal workers lose rights while doing their jobs. They have always lost some freedom of speech, some rights most citizens have. To make it trivial to fire government workers based on bias and lies, we will have a weak federal workforce, is my prediction.
Copyright 2026 Rod Deluhery
References:
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled that the U.S. Congress may limit the power of the President of the United States to fire certain government officials, even though the president is the chief executive of the U.S. government.[2] The Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to restrict the President’s authority to dismiss the leaders of independent agencies that are “quasi-legislative” or “quasi-judicial” in nature.
Trump admin reshaping federal employee discipline, firing rules | Federal News Network
Jules Torti, counsel at Protect Democracy, told Federal News Network that she sees the Trump administration’s personnel process changes, taken together, as a “complete revolution” in internal government operations.
“Together these changes mean more control by political leadership, fewer substantive protections and much more limited availability to seek outside neutral review of the government’s personnel-related decisions,” Torti told Federal News Network. “One major concern is how this increases risk of bias or selective application of the rules — which could mean political bias, bias against certain work or simply personal bias.”
NEED career help? Let me coach you!
<div id="paypal-container-P3WRB3RR8RJYL"></div><script> paypal.HostedButtons({ hostedButtonId: "P3WRB3RR8RJYL", }).render("#paypal-container-P3WRB3RR8RJYL")</script>
Eeoc hearing proposed changes, comments that I found:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EEOC-2026-0067-0563
TtttI respectfully request that the Commission provide formal, written responses to the following legal and operational interrogatories before finalizing these regulations.
- Under the proposed modifications to 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, federal employees will no longer possess an automatic, guaranteed right to a hearing before an independent EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), transitioning instead to a “targeted referral model.” Because the initial determination of whether a case warrants a hearing will heavily rely on the employing agency’s own reporting, how does the Commission ensure fundamental due process under Title VII? What legal and procedural firewalls will the EEOC implement to prevent an agency—such as the Department of Defense or its components—from effectively screening out valid discrimination claims to shield its own management structure from independent oversight?
- The proposed elimination of administrative class actions strips federal workers of the ability to collectively challenge pattern-or-practice discrimination. In a highly structured, standardized operational environment like DFAS Cleveland, workplace policies, algorithmic performance metrics, or localized management directives impact large clusters of employees uniformly. By forcing workers to file exclusively as individuals, the EEOC heavily tilts the scales in favor of the agency’s vast legal counsel.
What empirical data or human capital analysis did the EEOC rely upon to conclude that forcing individual, fractured litigation is more efficient than resolving systemic, agency-wide discrimination through a single administrative class action?
- The traditional 45-day informal pre-complaint counseling stage has long served as a vital, low-stakes mechanism for alternative dispute resolution (ADR), allowing line employees and managers to resolve misunderstandings before formal legal battle lines are drawn. Replacing this collaborative window with an immediate, adversarial written complaint coupled with a heightened “plausibility standard” forces employees to litigate prematurely. How does the EEOC reconcile the elimination of early, informal resolution with its statutory mission to prevent and eliminate workplace discrimination efficiently?
- The proposed rules introduce a strict “plausibility standard” requiring an employee to provide exact, detailed evidence of discriminatory intent upfront before an investigation is authorized. In an organization like DFAS, which handles sensitive defense financial operations, key pieces of evidence—such as comparative promotion metrics, internal email chains, and localized hiring panel notes—are restricted and locked behind secure agency networks.
How can a DFAS employee realistically meet a heightened plausibility pleading standard when the very evidence required to satisfy that standard is legally classified, internal to the agency, or entirely inaccessible to the worker prior to formal administrative discovery?
- Escalation of Retaliation Risks and Compounding Impacts with OPM Rule Changes Statistically, reprisal remains the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector. Simultaneously, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has implemented rules stripping the independent Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) of appellate jurisdiction over Reductions in Force (RIFs) and suitability removals.
By concurrently restricting EEOC hearing guarantees and eliminating independent MSPB channels, the federal government is creating an environment where a financial watchdog or whistleblower can be subjected to retaliatory removal with severely diminished legal recourse. What specific inter-agency risk assessment did the EEOC conduct alongside OPM to ensure that these overlapping rollbacks do not strip federal financial and defense personnel of the psychological safety required to report internal fraud, waste, abuse, or prohibited personnel practices?
A fair, transparent, and completely independent EEO process is not an administrative burden; it is an essential safeguard for the integrity of the federal civil service. For a critical defense support component like DFAS Cleveland, the stakes of dismantling these workplace protections are far too high. The EEOC should withdraw this proposed rule, preserve guaranteed hearing and class-action rights, and maintain an equitable framework for the public servants who keep our nation’s defense infrastructure running.
××××××
Another
September 19, 2026
Re: Federal Sector EEO, Docket No. EEOC-2026-0067, RIN 3046-AB46, 91 Fed. Reg. 55690
I oppose eliminating the right to request an EEOC Administrative Judge, discovery, and class complaints; screening plausibility before access to agency evidence; and making the accused agency the ordinary decision-maker.
As a federal employee and Navy veteran with EEO experience, I support fixing delays and incomplete investigations, not weakening independent review. The agency would control the investigation, record, and first decision. EEOC previously found that the agency’s power to alter a judge’s findings creates an unavoidable conflict and appearance of unfairness. 64 Fed. Reg. 37644, 37647-48 (July 12, 1999).
The proposal also raises Fifth Amendment concerns. By allowing the respondent agency to control the investigation, evidentiary record, and initial liability determination while eliminating discovery and neutral adjudication as of right, the rule creates a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976); Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428-33 (1982). Although combining investigative and adjudicative functions is not automatically unconstitutional, due process still requires protection against an intolerable risk of institutional bias. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 578-79 (1973). The plausibility standard, 21-day amendment limit, loss of counseling, and discretionary hearing referral also burden meaningful access to the administrative process and the First Amendment right to petition for redress. These concerns warrant independent adjudication, access to necessary evidence, referral standards, good-cause exceptions, and preservation of existing procedures.
The Cummings Act does not cure the conflict. EEOC Management Directive 110 requires a firewall between investigation and agency defense. Yet employees must justify judicial proceedings without discovery while evidence of pretext, unequal treatment, motive, or retaliation remains agency-controlled. Proposed section 1614.406 makes referral discretionary, limits discovery to referrals, and generally makes the judge advisory. This is clearly an erosion of moral and ethical institutional fairness of an already unbalanced adjudication process.
Low hearing and liability percentages do not prove that claims lack merit. From fiscal years 2017-2025, 27.1 percent settled in the Administrative Judge process, averaging 2,283 settlements yearly. In fiscal year 2024, hearings secured about $181.4 million in relief. Federal court is no substitute. A de novo action exists under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c), Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840 (1976), but costs and risk make court inaccessible to many. West v. Gibson, 527 U.S. 212, 219 (1999), recognized the administrative process as quicker, less formal, and less expensive.
Counselors explain deadlines, identify claims, and assist unrepresented employees. Requiring a plausible complaint within 60 days without counseling or agency evidence is not more protective. Because proof often emerges during investigation, the 21-day amendment limit should yield to good cause absent unfair prejudice.
Ending class complaints removes notice, class-wide discovery, settlement review, tolling, and common relief. Rule 23 litigation shifts costs and creates exhaustion uncertainty. EEOC’s 1999 rulemaking recognized class actions’ vital role.
EEOC should withdraw or revise these provisions. Retain judge access and proportionate discovery, class processing, optional counselor assistance, good-cause amendments, definite referral standards, and existing rules for pending matters. Address delay through staffing, deadlines, focused discovery, settlement, and case management, not by letting the accused institution control the record and decide its liability.
If the author(s) of this proposal genuinely care about justice and integrity of process, consider:
- Finalize the Cummings Act transparency, tracking, discipline reporting, and EEO independence provisions separately and promptly.
- Retain each complainant’s right to request an EEOC Administrative Judge after investigation, when the complainant knowingly elects it.
- Use firm case management, presumptive discovery limits, and enforceable decision milestones rather than abolishing discovery and hearings as of right.
- Replace the 21-day amendment cutoff with a good cause and no prejudice standard that prevents strategic delay without forfeiting claims.
- Use section 1614.102(f) pilots, independent evaluation, public data, and a sunset date before adopting a nationwide referral-only system.
- Make federal officials who commit EEO violations personally pay their own court costs and attorney fees, without government assistance of any kind.
Taxpayers should not finance the violator’s defense. See Attached
