Attorneys said Thursday they’ve filed class action appeals to a federal board for thousands of workers fired by President Donald Trump.
Several appeals already have been filed against multiple federal agencies, with plans to bring about 15 more on behalf of thousands of fired probationary federal workers, said Christopher Bonk, a partner at Gilbert Employment Law.
While multiple lawsuits have been filed in federal court against Trump’s administration over the mass terminations, the appeals announced Thursday are taking legal actions to a federal board that is an independent agency. The board is responsible for protecting federal government employees from political reprisals or retaliation for whistleblowing.
The appeals, which are seeking to get the employees reinstated to their jobs as well as back pay, contend that the mass firings in recent weeks were not individualized actions but were large-scale terminations conducted for organizational reasons, known as a reduction in force, that have specific regulations to be followed.
For example, regulations require that government agencies consider an employee’s tenure, performance and veteran status when making termination decisions, the attorneys said. Regulations also typically require 60 days’ advance notice of termination in a reduction in force.
“The Trump administration here has willfully ignored the law for these procedures, and we’ve already seen the resulting confusion and damage that’s been done to civil service,” Bonk, whose firm is based in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in a call with journalists.
Trump has said he’s targeting fraud, waste and abuse in a bloated federal government. The president and his adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have fired both new and career workers, telling agency leaders to plan for “large-scale reductions in force.”
Probationary workers have been targeted for layoffs across the federal government because they’re usually new to the job and lack full civil service protection. They were often summarily informed that they were being fired for poor performance.
Daniel Rosenthal, a partner at Washington-based James & Hoffman, said the firings violated numerous regulations, laws and constitutional provisions.
“There was no advance notice, no severance pay and no consideration of their qualifications or their performance on the job,” Rosenthal said.
Allison Keating, who was a probationary employee at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who lost her job last month, said during the call with attorneys that she is among the thousands of fired federal workers now struggling with how to pay bills and a mortgage.
“I’m just one person out of thousands of people that are in this devastating life-altering situation right now, and while this is having a major impact to our lives and our families right now, the loss of so much public service across the country is going to be far reaching and will reach throughout society eventually,” Keating said.
Probationary workers generally have limited recourse before the board, but Rosenthal said it is clear from regulations and board precedent that an “improper reduction in force is something that almost any employee can challenge directly at the MSPB, including a probationary or trial employee.”
“These class actions are about justice for federal employees,” Rosenthal said. “We are standing alongside others who are trying to stop the administration in court — labor unions and nonprofits doing important work.”
The Merit Systems Protection Board’s administrative judges issue approximately 5,000 decisions annually. The board’s three members are nominated by the president and are confirmed by the Senate. Members serve seven-year terms. No more than two of them may come from the same political party.
Trump, a Republican, has tried to remove one of the board members, Cathy Harris, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, a Democrat. However, a federal judge this week ruled that Harris, who is the board’s chair, cannot be fired by Trump “at will.”
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled Tuesday that the attempt to fire her was illegal because Trump didn’t seek to remove her for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”