Judge rules OPM unlawfully directed agencies to dismiss 'probationary' federal employees
The judge stated that he lacked the authority to order the reinstatement of any terminated employees, and therefore did not issue such an order.
TroibNews 
A judge ruled on Thursday that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the primary human resources office for the federal government, violated the law by directing other federal agencies to terminate thousands of probationary employees.
This decision presents a challenge for the Trump administration's ongoing attempts to reduce the federal workforce significantly. However, it does not provide immediate relief to federal workers who have already been laid off.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup did not order the reinstatement of the terminated employees or prevent additional firings, stating that he lacks the authority to do so at this time.
Judge Alsup did mandate that OPM revoke directives requiring mass terminations and inform multiple agencies that it cannot dictate firing processes within the federal workforce. “OPM does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees within another agency,” the judge remarked.
While the exact number of probationary federal employees dismissed under the Trump administration remains unclear, reports suggest it exceeds 16,000 individuals.
Alsup, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, concluded that OPM had encouraged agencies to falsely state that employees were terminated for “performance” issues. “That’s just not right in our country, is it, that we would run our agencies with lies like that and stain somebody’s record for the rest of their life?” he expressed during his ruling following a court hearing in response to a lawsuit brought by labor unions and organizations impacted by the mass layoffs. “Who’s going to want to work in a government that would do that?”
The case revolves around a February 14 memo from OPM that instructed agencies to “separate probationary employees you have not identified as mission-critical.” This memo was part of earlier communications implying that OPM mandated agencies to dismiss nearly all of their probationary staff, according to lawyers representing the plaintiffs. Many agencies acted on this apparent directive within days.
While Judge Alsup recognized that heads of federal departments have significant authority to fire probationary workers within their own agencies, he emphasized that OPM cannot instruct them to do so.
At this juncture, he stated he could not prevent future firings of probationary employees, including upcoming mass terminations of Pentagon staff expected to be enacted on Friday, and encouraged the government to reconsider such actions.
He also explained that he could not mandate reinstatement for previously terminated workers because OPM was the only named defendant in the lawsuit. The groups involved may have chosen not to name the individual agencies as defendants to avoid having their case sent through specific out-of-court channels used for handling grievances regarding unlawful agency dismissals.
In the federal workforce, many newly hired employees hold a “probationary status” for a designated period that varies by agency, and this status is also applied to individuals immediately following promotions. Probationary workers enjoy fewer civil-service protections compared to other federal employees. “Probationary employees are the lifeblood of our government,” Alsup stated. “They come in at the low level and work their way up. That’s how we renew ourselves.”
The judge announced plans to call acting OPM director Charles Ezell to testify under oath at a hearing in San Francisco next month as the lawsuit progresses.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelsey Helland, representing the Trump administration, contended that OPM did not explicitly instruct agencies to fire employees but instead requested the dismissal of probationary workers deemed non-essential. He described it as a “request” that agencies had no obligation to follow. “Asking is not ordering someone to do something,” Helland argued from the defense table.
However, attorneys for the unions and organizations countered OPM’s characterization of the communication. “It is simply not credible, your honor,” lawyer Danielle Leonard stated, referencing sworn congressional testimony from agency officials and remarks made to employees that indicated termination decisions were influenced by OPM.
Judge Alsup suggested that the rapid succession of firings provided evidence supporting the notion that it was more of an order than a mere suggestion. “How could so much of the workforce be amputated suddenly overnight?” he posed rhetorically. “It’s so irregular and so widespread and so aberrant from the history of our country. How could that all happen …? Each agency decided on its own to do something so aberrational? I don’t believe it. I believe they were ordered to do so. That’s the way the evidence points.”
Debra A Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
This decision presents a challenge for the Trump administration's ongoing attempts to reduce the federal workforce significantly. However, it does not provide immediate relief to federal workers who have already been laid off.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup did not order the reinstatement of the terminated employees or prevent additional firings, stating that he lacks the authority to do so at this time.
Judge Alsup did mandate that OPM revoke directives requiring mass terminations and inform multiple agencies that it cannot dictate firing processes within the federal workforce. “OPM does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees within another agency,” the judge remarked.
While the exact number of probationary federal employees dismissed under the Trump administration remains unclear, reports suggest it exceeds 16,000 individuals.
Alsup, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, concluded that OPM had encouraged agencies to falsely state that employees were terminated for “performance” issues. “That’s just not right in our country, is it, that we would run our agencies with lies like that and stain somebody’s record for the rest of their life?” he expressed during his ruling following a court hearing in response to a lawsuit brought by labor unions and organizations impacted by the mass layoffs. “Who’s going to want to work in a government that would do that?”
The case revolves around a February 14 memo from OPM that instructed agencies to “separate probationary employees you have not identified as mission-critical.” This memo was part of earlier communications implying that OPM mandated agencies to dismiss nearly all of their probationary staff, according to lawyers representing the plaintiffs. Many agencies acted on this apparent directive within days.
While Judge Alsup recognized that heads of federal departments have significant authority to fire probationary workers within their own agencies, he emphasized that OPM cannot instruct them to do so.
At this juncture, he stated he could not prevent future firings of probationary employees, including upcoming mass terminations of Pentagon staff expected to be enacted on Friday, and encouraged the government to reconsider such actions.
He also explained that he could not mandate reinstatement for previously terminated workers because OPM was the only named defendant in the lawsuit. The groups involved may have chosen not to name the individual agencies as defendants to avoid having their case sent through specific out-of-court channels used for handling grievances regarding unlawful agency dismissals.
In the federal workforce, many newly hired employees hold a “probationary status” for a designated period that varies by agency, and this status is also applied to individuals immediately following promotions. Probationary workers enjoy fewer civil-service protections compared to other federal employees. “Probationary employees are the lifeblood of our government,” Alsup stated. “They come in at the low level and work their way up. That’s how we renew ourselves.”
The judge announced plans to call acting OPM director Charles Ezell to testify under oath at a hearing in San Francisco next month as the lawsuit progresses.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelsey Helland, representing the Trump administration, contended that OPM did not explicitly instruct agencies to fire employees but instead requested the dismissal of probationary workers deemed non-essential. He described it as a “request” that agencies had no obligation to follow. “Asking is not ordering someone to do something,” Helland argued from the defense table.
However, attorneys for the unions and organizations countered OPM’s characterization of the communication. “It is simply not credible, your honor,” lawyer Danielle Leonard stated, referencing sworn congressional testimony from agency officials and remarks made to employees that indicated termination decisions were influenced by OPM.
Judge Alsup suggested that the rapid succession of firings provided evidence supporting the notion that it was more of an order than a mere suggestion. “How could so much of the workforce be amputated suddenly overnight?” he posed rhetorically. “It’s so irregular and so widespread and so aberrant from the history of our country. How could that all happen …? Each agency decided on its own to do something so aberrational? I don’t believe it. I believe they were ordered to do so. That’s the way the evidence points.”
Debra A Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
