Judge Mandates Reinstatement of Terminated Federal Workers on Probation

A federal judge has extended a temporary restraining order that prevents the Trump administration from terminating thousands of federal employees. The ruling requires the reinstatement of probationary workers dismissed from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Pentagon, and various other federal agencies, following directives from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

During a hearing on Thursday, Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup expressed concerns over the government’s transparency, specifically noting the absence of Charles Ezell, the acting director of OPM, who was not made available to testify.

Previously, Alsup ruled that OPM lacked the authority to instruct federal agencies to dismiss employees. He emphasized that terminations must be decided within agencies themselves, rather than through OPM directives.

Alsup expressed frustration regarding Ezell’s refusal to appear at the hearing, which was initially intended to be evidentiary. He aimed to ascertain whether Ezell had encouraged agency heads to terminate employees under the false pretense of performance issues.

“You’re not helping me get at the truth,” Alsup told Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelsey Helland, criticizing the government’s actions as an obstruction to judicial inquiry. “The government has attempted to frustrate the court’s ability to uncover the truth,” he added, referring to the submission and subsequent withdrawal of dubious declarations by government officials.

Alsup highlighted that while Congress can enact changes to reduce the size of federal agencies, the current administration is attempting to bypass legislative oversight in its efforts to downsize.

He remarked, “This case seeks to covertly implement a reduction in force by having OPM direct agencies to terminate probationary employees.” Alsup condemned the rationale behind these dismissals, asserting that characterizing them as performance-based is misleading and unjust.

Danielle Leonard, representing the plaintiffs, argued that these terminations were targeted, particularly against those without appeal rights and included workers recently promoted. “OPM has communicated to agencies that they should fire employees who cannot appeal,” she stated, labeling OPM’s directives as “profoundly unlawful.”

Leonard estimated that over 10,000 employees may have been terminated, noting that most have not been reinstated. “It appears they have not yet restored any of these employees to actual service,” she told the court.

In a previous ruling, Alsup suggested that union plaintiffs might not have standing until claims are addressed through administrative channels. However, Leonard contended that union employees are left with no viable recourse due to detrimental changes within the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

Alsup expressed willingness to revisit this aspect of the case, acknowledging the possibility that government attorneys may have misled him regarding the plaintiffs’ standing. The case is now open for discovery, allowing both sides to pursue depositions and document requests, while Alsup cautioned against overly broad inquiries.

The plaintiffs initiated their legal challenge in February, asserting that OPM’s guidance led to unlawful terminations. Following earlier hearings, Alsup ordered OPM to revoke any prior directives pertaining to the dismissal of probationary employees across several federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation.