Revised OPM Memo on Federal Probationary Employees Fired: In a significant shift, the Trump administration has updated a January 20 memo, which had directed federal agencies to provide a list of all probationary employees to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The revised memo, issued on March 4, adds a disclaimer clarifying that OPM is not instructing agencies to take specific actions regarding these employees.
However, despite this change, the updated memo does not order the reinstatement of the tens of thousands of probationary workers who were fired. Probationary employees typically serve their first or second year in a federal position and are often considered vulnerable when it comes to job security.
The Revised Memo: A Subtle but Important Change
The most notable revision in the updated memo is a new paragraph that directly addresses concerns about employee firings. The added text states: “Please note that, by this memorandum, OPM is not directing agencies to take any specific performance-based actions regarding probationary employees. Agencies have ultimate decision-making authority over, and responsibility for, such personnel actions.” This update provides clarity, especially after a recent court ruling, which challenged the legality of such firings.
While this revision brings some relief, it doesn’t go as far as rescinding the terminations or calling for the reinstatement of those fired. Many of these employees were let go under controversial directives issued earlier this year, which raised concerns about fairness and legality.
A Call for Justice: Reinstating Fired Employees
On the same day the updated memo was released, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), representing over 800,000 civil servants, took a bold stance, urging federal agencies to act swiftly. In a statement, AFGE National President Everett Kelley demanded that “every agency should immediately rescind these unlawful terminations and reinstate everyone who was illegally fired.”
This call for action echoes the sentiment of many affected workers who are now fighting for their jobs back. They argue that their dismissals were not based on any solid performance evaluations, but rather on political motivations. The situation highlights how probationary employees, who are often in the early stages of their careers, can be vulnerable to abrupt and unjust actions.
The Court’s Intervention: What Does It Mean for Future Firings?
In a pivotal ruling, U.S. District Judge William Alsup from San Francisco found that OPM’s previous actions likely violated several statutes, including restrictions on its authority to direct other agencies to terminate employees. Alsup ruled that OPM should rescind its January 20 memo, along with a subsequent memo from February 14.
Judge Alsup’s ruling is a significant development, as it underscores the lack of legal basis for the mass firings that took place. “No statute—anywhere, ever—has granted OPM the authority to direct the termination of employees in other agencies,” Alsup stated. His conclusion that OPM had essentially “ordered” these firings rather than merely requesting them marks a critical moment in the case.
Real-World Repercussions: Restoring the Workforce
After the court’s ruling, some agencies have already begun to reverse the decisions made under the original memo. The National Science Foundation, for example, confirmed that it reinstated 86 probationary employees who had been dismissed, issuing them back pay as well.
At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), employees who had received termination letters are starting to receive notifications that their firings are being rescinded. This is a clear example of how, when agencies and organizations are guided by court rulings and clearer directives, a more fair and just workplace can be achieved.
Clarifying Probationary Periods: A Change in How Performance is Measured
Another important aspect of the updated memo is its revision of how probationary periods should be used. Originally, the January memo stated that probationary periods serve as an “essential tool” for assessing employee performance and managing staffing levels. The new version, however, adds that probationary periods are necessary to ensure that an employee’s “conduct and performance have established that the individual will be an asset to the Government.”
This updated language highlights the importance of considering not only an employee’s performance but also how their conduct aligns with the broader goals of the agency. It’s a subtle shift that emphasizes fairness, suggesting that decisions about probationary employees should be based on a comprehensive understanding of their work rather than arbitrary or politically-motivated dismissals.
How This Affects Productivity and Efficiency in Federal Agencies
For any organization—particularly government agencies—maintaining an efficient, fair, and productive workforce is essential. Federal agencies must ensure that the people they employ are competent, engaged, and aligned with their mission. Probationary periods are a valuable tool for assessing performance and potential, but they need to be used judiciously.
In an ideal scenario, probationary periods would be an opportunity for both the employee and the agency to assess whether they’re a good fit for one another. If employees are treated fairly, given the support and feedback they need, and provided with a chance to improve, agencies will likely see higher productivity in the long run.
The issue of mass firings is not just a matter of individual workers losing their jobs—it also affects overall productivity. The loss of skilled employees, particularly when done unjustly, disrupts the workflow, causes delays, and ultimately lowers morale. It’s critical for federal agencies to rethink how they approach probationary periods, ensuring they are seen as an opportunity for growth rather than as a punitive measure.
Human Rights Perspective on Probationary Employee Firings
When we discuss probationary employees in the context of federal employment, it’s crucial to consider the human rights perspective—an approach that emphasizes dignity, fairness, and equal treatment for all workers. Employees, regardless of their probationary status, should not be subjected to arbitrary dismissals or unfair treatment, and their rights to job security, just cause for termination, and protection from discrimination should be safeguarded.
The Right to Fair Treatment
Human rights are foundational to how we interact with one another, and this includes in the workplace. According to international human rights frameworks, all employees—whether permanent or probationary—are entitled to fair and respectful treatment. A core component of this is the right to a fair trial or, in employment terms, due process. This means that decisions regarding employment should not be made based on political bias, arbitrary criteria, or without proper evaluation of an individual’s actual performance.
In the case of probationary employees who were fired under the Trump administration’s directives, these firings raise serious human rights concerns. Many employees were dismissed without clear, justifiable reasons, and they were not provided an opportunity to contest their termination in a meaningful way. This violates the right to just and favorable conditions of work, as enshrined in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states, “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.”
The Right to Job Security
Another fundamental human right in the employment context is the right to job security. For probationary employees, this right is often under threat, as they are in their first or second year on the job and can be more easily dismissed than permanent staff. However, this should not translate into vulnerability to unjust terminations. Probationary employees should have the same protection against wrongful termination as any other worker.
The blanket firings of probationary employees by the administration directly conflict with these rights. In many cases, terminations seemed to be based on political considerations rather than job performance, which further exacerbates the injustice. The right to a fair process is essential here. Probationary periods are designed to assess employee fit and performance, not to punish workers based on subjective judgments or political motives.
Discrimination and Equal Treatment
The human rights perspective also insists on equality and non-discrimination in the workplace. Discriminatory practices in federal agencies can take many forms—whether that’s based on political beliefs, gender, race, or any other characteristic that should never influence employment decisions.
Firing probationary employees based on ideological beliefs or a perceived lack of alignment with political views undermines non-discrimination principles and contributes to a toxic work environment. Every employee, regardless of their probationary status, deserves to be evaluated based on merit, not their political associations or external pressures.
International Human Rights Law
International human rights law upholds the right to work, freedom from discrimination, and fair treatment in the workplace. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), for example, underscores the right to work under just and favorable conditions, which includes job security. When the government mass-fires employees based on political decisions or vague performance metrics, they violate these international agreements.
The International Labour Organization (ILO), a United Nations agency, also highlights the importance of job security and the right to a fair and transparent process when it comes to employment decisions. Under these frameworks, termination decisions must be made according to clear rules and based on an objective and fair assessment of the employee’s capabilities.
Call for Reinstatement and Accountability
The most pressing issue for those who were unjustly terminated is the call for reinstatement and accountability. Restoring these workers to their positions is not only a step toward protecting their rights but also sending a clear message that the federal workforce should remain a space for fairness, equal treatment, and legal compliance.
Reinstating terminated probationary employees would not only correct individual wrongs, but also ensure that agencies are held accountable for the way they conduct personnel management. This is especially vital in a federal system where millions of taxpayer dollars fund public service roles. If workers can be arbitrarily fired, it erodes trust in public institutions.
Increasing Productivity and Upholding Human Rights
In the broader context of workplace productivity, creating a culture that values human rights actually promotes better outcomes. When employees feel secure, respected, and valued, their motivation and engagement increase. This, in turn, enhances organizational productivity. When agencies uphold workers’ human rights—by ensuring due process, fair treatment, and job security—they create a positive and effective working environment.
As we see in this case, when employees are wrongfully terminated, it disrupts not only their lives but also the efficiency of the agency and ultimately reduces overall productivity. A more just, transparent, and human-rights-oriented approach to employment would result in higher morale, better retention rates, and more effective government services. Ultimately, valuing human rights in employment strengthens the public sector by fostering a workforce that is motivated and aligned with the agency’s mission.
Conclusion:
The treatment of probationary employees in this context should not be viewed through a narrow lens of efficiency or political power. At its core, human rights must be the guiding principle in any workplace, including federal employment. Employees have the right to fair treatment, protection from arbitrary decisions, and transparency in the decision-making process.
By reinstating those wrongfully fired, ensuring job security, and adhering to international human rights standards, we can foster a more ethical and productive federal workforce. After all, respecting and protecting human rights doesn’t just help individuals—it strengthens institutions and benefits society as a whole.
While the revised memo does not mandate the reinstatement of fired probationary employees, it does reflect a shift toward more transparent and fair employment practices. The involvement of the courts and the actions of agencies like the CDC and National Science Foundation suggest that there may be a path forward for those wrongfully terminated.
For federal agencies, this is an opportunity to reassess their approach to probationary employees. By adopting more compassionate and performance-focused evaluation methods, they can increase productivity and efficiency in a way that benefits both the employees and the agency as a whole.
Ultimately, this issue highlights the importance of treating employees with dignity and respect—especially those in probationary periods—who are often at the mercy of political shifts. As we move forward, it’s crucial to ensure that fairness, legality, and human rights remain at the heart of all personnel decisions.