The Office of Personnel Management is trying to address what it says are concerns from some managers and supervisors who worry they may be held personally liable for disciplining federal employees deemed poor performers.

In response to those concerns, a Nov. 21 memo from OPM clarified that managers and supervisors are generally acting on behalf of an agency when they “manage employees’ job performance and address unacceptable performance.” There is an “extremely limited scope” where managers or supervisors would be held individually responsible for those actions, OPM said.

When a manager puts an employee on a performance improvement plan, demotes an employee or removes an employee from their job for poor performance, that’s technically considered the action of the agency, OPM said, and not the individual manager’s responsibility. If an employee challenges one of those actions, OPM said that the agency, not the manager, would be responsible for responding.

“In the unusual event that a manager or supervisor is sued personally for actions within the scope of their employment, the Department of Justice (DOJ) typically provides representation,” the memo reads.

But if a supervisor or manager misuses their authority — for example through discrimination, harassment or whistleblower-related prohibited personnel practices — OPM said the individual can then be held personally accountable for their actions.

In its memo, OPM also reminded supervisors and managers of the availability of professional liability insurance, which may help protect them in the rare cases where they may be held liable. Supervisors and managers are usually eligible for a government reimbursement amounting to up to half the cost of the insurance.

“But even in these situations Congress did not give employees the right to hold their managers or supervisors personally liable for any performance or conduct-related adverse action,” OPM said.

OPM’s clarification comes after the Trump administration earlier this year set new expectations for measuring federal employees’ job performance. In June, OPM told agencies they don’t have to use “progressive discipline” and that they should not substitute a suspension when a full removal of an employee from their job “would be appropriate.”

The administration’s new performance management standards also attempt to more strictly delineate between different levels of employee performance and encourage agencies to rate fewer employees as high performers.

OPM Director Scott Kupor has repeatedly argued that the government has inflated performance ratings, and has targeted the rating system as a key area for OPM to update.

“In the real world we are not all equally successful and differences in performance from one person to the next are in fact real,” Kupor wrote in a Sept. 15 blog post. “We simply can’t all get A’s because not everyone’s contributions to the success of the organization are the same. Some people simply perform better than others — whether by luck or skill.”

More recently, OPM also announced a new mandatory training program for all federal supervisors, intended to educate supervisors on how to better manage performance of federal employees. The one-hour online course will cover topics including recognition, awards, hiring, firing and discipline of federal employees, according to a memo OPM sent to agencies Wednesday.

“At the end of the training, supervisors will be ready to set clear expectations, deliver quality feedback, document fairly, reward excellence, and take timely action when needed—all while building an engaged, high-performing team through transparency, accountability, and collaboration,” the memo stated.

Federal supervisors are required to complete the training by Feb. 9, 2026, OPM said.

The required supervisor training comes shortly after OPM also launched two optional training programs, designed to educate senior executives in the federal workforce, while incorporating common themes from the Trump administration on “accountability,” performance management and adherence to the president’s priorities.

The post OPM attempts to ease manager concerns in addressing federal employees’ performance first appeared on Federal News Network.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is convening Tuesday morning to mark up a slew of bills, many of which would impact the federal workforce in one way or another.

Tuesday’s meeting will be the first legislative markup session the committee has held in nearly two months, with the last being prior to the 43-day government shutdown. Any bills that the committee approves during the markup will advance to the full House for further consideration.

Lawmakers are expected to consider bills covering everything from whistleblower protections and skills-based hiring for federal contractors, to relocation incentives for federal employees.

Several other legislative changes may be on the horizon as well. Here are three key bills up for the committee’s consideration that may bring significant changes for the federal workforce:

Probationary period, federal workforce changes

One Republican-led bill, introduced by Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) in October, aims to cement many of the changes the Trump administration has made to the government’s rules for the probationary period in the federal workforce.

If enacted, the so-called EQUALS Act would require most new federal employees to serve a two-year probationary period — a time in which employees have limited appeal rights and are easier to remove, before their employment in the federal workforce can be solidified.

Part of the bill would compel agencies to evaluate their employees regularly throughout the federal probationary period. And in the last 30 days of that two-year period, agencies would have to certify — and get the Office of Personnel Management to approve — that the probationary employee “advances the public interest,” before the employee can become tenured.

Any probationary employees who are not actively certified by their agency would be terminated, according to the GOP-led legislation.

The bill also states that when making a decision on whether to keep a probationary employee, agencies can additionally consider performance and conduct; the “needs and interests” of the agency; and whether the employee would advance “organizational goals” or “efficiency.”

The EQUALS Act aligns with efforts from the Trump administration earlier this year to overhaul the rules for the government’s probationary period. In April, President Donald Trump called for the creation of “Civil Service Rule XI,” which similarly required agencies to review and actively sign off on probationary workers’ continued employment before they can be moved out of a probationary period.

Trump’s executive order also expanded the reasons that probationary period employees can be fired. In June, OPM further clarified that probationary employees can be terminated based on broader reasons than the previous limitations set only to performance or conduct.

The House bill also comes after the Trump administration fired tens of thousands of probationary employees earlier this year, stating that the removals were due to “poor performance.” But in September, a federal judge found that OPM unlawfully directed the mass probationary firings. The judge ordered agencies to update employees’ personnel files to reflect that their firings were not due to performance or misconduct.

An eye on official time

A separate bill teed up by Republicans would compel agencies to provide much more detail on federal union representatives’ use of official time to both Congress and the public on an annual basis.

The Official Time Reporting Act from Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) would require all agencies to submit reports on how much official time is used in each fiscal year, and justify any potential increases in official time that may occur.

The legislation would then require OPM and the Office of Management and Budget to create and send a joint report to Congress, and make publicly available online, the details of official time governmentwide. Those reports would have to cover how much official time each federal employee used, as well as provide data on official time hours calculated against the total number of bargaining unit employees for an “official time rate.”

Under the GOP-led legislation, those annual reports would additionally have to detail the specific purpose of all official time, the amount of money withheld for union dues, the cost of pay and benefits for all employees while they are on official time, and the office space and resources union representatives use while on official time.

Generally, official time refers to on-the-clock hours that go toward work such as negotiating union contracts, meeting with management, filing complaints or grievances against an agency, or representing employees who are dealing with disciplinary actions or other management disputes. Federal unions are allotted, by law, specific and limited amounts of agency time and resources to conduct activities on official time.

Official time by union representatives has been a major target of the Trump administration this year. Some agencies have either reduced or fully removed official time options, in response to executive orders from Trump calling for the termination of collective bargaining at the majority of executive branch agencies.

The administration’s actions have received major pushback from federal unions such as the American Federation of Government Employees, which said OPM’s characterization of official time as “taxpayer-funded union time” is false and stigmatizing.

Mandatory executive training

During Tuesday’s markup, Oversight committee lawmakers also plan to consider legislation that would require a mandatory training program all managers and supervisors across the federal workforce would have to take.

Under the Federal Supervisor Education Act, which Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.) introduced in October, agencies would have to work with OPM to create training programs for agency managers, with at least some modules focused on goals like performance management, employee engagement and productivity.

The bill would also require the training programs to cover how supervisors should manage employees who have “unacceptable performance,” as well as how to make use of the probationary period. The bill also mandates that managers and supervisors receive training on how to address reports of harassment, prohibited personnel practices, employee rights, and more.

The legislation emphasizes that agencies should use “instructor-based” training as much as practicable. If enacted, supervisors would have to complete the training within one year of being appointed to a supervisory role, and would have to retake the trainings at least once every three years following that.

The Republican-led effort comes after OPM launched two federal workforce training programs for senior executives in November, incorporating common themes from the Trump administration on “accountability,” performance management and adherence to the president’s priorities.

Although both new programs are optional, OPM still told agencies to “set the expectation” that all career Senior Executive Service members should at least complete training modules on “returning to founding principles” and “implementing administration priorities” within the next year.

In the Oversight committee meeting Tuesday, all three federal workforce bills, along with many others, will be up for consideration and potential advancement in the House.

The post 3 federal workforce bills to watch in House Oversight Committee markup first appeared on Federal News Network.