The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has quietly revised a memo concerning the termination of probationary federal employees. The updated document clarifies that OPM does not have the authority to fire workers in other agencies, aligning with a recent court ruling. This change raises questions about the fate of thousands of probationary employees who have already been dismissed. The memo, initially published on January 20th, has undergone significant revisions, particularly in its directives and language regarding employee assessments and staffing management.

In light of a federal court's decision, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has made subtle but critical adjustments to its guidelines. A federal judge ruled that OPM had overstepped its legal boundaries by directing the termination of employees in other agencies. Consequently, OPM issued an updated memo emphasizing that individual agencies, not OPM, are responsible for making decisions about terminating probationary employees. This clarification comes after the original memo suggested that probationary periods could be used as tools for workforce reductions, a notion now omitted from the revised version.

The revised memo no longer includes instructions to send lists of probationary employees to both a general OPM email and Amanda Scales, OPM’s chief of staff. Instead, it only directs agencies to send these lists to the general email address. Furthermore, the updated memo describes probationary periods solely as a means to ensure employees will contribute positively to the government, rather than using them for managing staffing levels. The changes reflect a shift in focus from workforce reduction to employee performance assessment.

Chief Human Capital Officers received an email from OPM stating awareness of ongoing litigation challenging the terminations of various probationary employees across different federal departments. The memo explicitly states that OPM has not directed, nor is directing, any agency to take specific actions against probationary employees based on performance. This update aims to clarify the role of OPM and reduce confusion among federal agencies.

The implications of this revision remain uncertain, especially for the thousands of probationary employees who have already faced termination. While the new guidance may provide clarity on OPM's role, it leaves open the question of whether those previously dismissed will have the opportunity to return to their positions. The situation underscores the importance of clear communication and adherence to legal boundaries within federal agencies.