By Associated Press’s Jeanie Har
San Francisco On Thursday, a federal judge in San Francisco granted interim relief to a coalition of labor unions and organizations that have filed to halt the Trump administration’s vast dismantling of the federal workforce, ruling that the mass terminations of probationary employees were probably illegal.
The Office of Personnel Management was directed by U.S. District Judge William Alsup to notify the Department of Defense and other federal agencies that it lacked the power to order the termination of probationary employees.
According to Alsup, OPM is not authorized by any law in the universe’s history to hire or fire anyone other than its own staff.
Trump has criticized the administration’s efforts to reduce the federal workforce as being bloated and careless, and the case from five labor unions and five nonprofit organizations is one of several lawsuits challenging those efforts. After firing thousands of probationary staff, his administration is now targeting civil service-protected career officials.
Government attorneys concur that the office does not have the power to hire or fire workers from other agencies.
However, they claim that the Office of Personnel Management requested that agencies examine and assess probationary employees to see if they were suitable for further employment. Additionally, they assert that only the best and most important workers should be hired, and probationary staff are not assured jobs.
Although the injunction does not guarantee that fired employees would be rehired or that there will be no other firings, coalition attorneys applauded it.
Danielle Leonard, a coalition lawyer, stated following the hearing that the court’s warning that the order was illegal should be heeded by the federal government’s agencies.
Attorneys involved in the case and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment on Thursday.
Alsup directed the personnel office to notify a select group of federal agencies, including defense, parks, veterans, and small businesses, that are represented by the five nonprofit plaintiffs in the case. He seems especially concerned about anticipated layoffs at the Department of Defense.
Additionally, he mandated that Charles Ezell, the acting head of the personnel office, appear in court regarding the contents of a phone conversation on February 13 in which agency heads were instructed to terminate probationary staff.
If it’s guidance, the agencies can ignore OPM, but if it’s an order or appears to be an order, they might feel compelled to follow it, he added.
Across all federal departments, there are an estimated 200,000 probationary employees, who are typically individuals with less than a year of experience. According to the complaint, there are over 15,000 workers in California who offer services ranging from veterans’ care to fire prevention.
With a flurry of requests, including a Saturday email issued through the personnel office telling employees to identify five things they performed last week or risk termination, Elon Musk has spearheaded the purge through the recently established Department of Government Efficiency. Although employees may encounter similar solicitations in the future, the Office of Personnel Management subsequently stated that the directive was voluntary.
According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, many agencies notified employees that the personnel office had issued the orders, directing them to use a template email to explain that their termination was due to poor performance.
According to the complaint, probationary employees of the National Science Foundation, for instance, were informed by the foundation that it had made the decision to keep its personnel, but the Office of Personnel Management overruled this decision.
Two additional federal judges have recently been targeted by unions.
Last Monday, a judge in Washington, D.C., decided that their complaint should be reviewed in federal labor court and temporarily stopped layoffs. A Massachusetts judge ruled earlier this month that unions suing over a postponed resignation offer had legal standing to contest it because they were not directly impacted.
“Nonprofit organizations probably have cause because their members will be denied government services resulting from the loss of workers, such as the enjoyment of parks, mental health services for veterans, and loans for small businesses,” Alsup said, adding that labor unions probably lack the legal standing to sue.
The fact that probationary staff were discharged with a mark against them for subpar work horrified him.
Our government relies heavily on probationary staff. According to him, they start at the bottom and work their way up.
Alsup intends to issue a formal directive. On March 13, there will be an evidentiary hearing.
