Arguments regarding the cases of fired probationary federal employees to be discussed in the courtroom
The mass termination of federal probationary employees in 2021, including actions by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), has been a subject of contention, with unions challenging the legality of these terminations.
In a significant move, Judge William Alsup issued an injunction ordering agencies to rehire those employees, stating that termination under the false pretense of performance is an injury that will persist for the working life of each civil servant. However, no definitive court ruling from the Northern District of California has been found directly addressing a large-scale challenge to the legality of these terminations.
The case is centered around whether federal agencies were acting at the direction of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the mass terminations and whether it's legal for agencies to use probationary periods for mass layoffs. The administration argues that the case should be resolved in their favor without considering the issues of when probationary employees can be fired.
Federal agencies are generally allowed to terminate probationary employees more easily than permanent employees because probationary status means the employee is still in a trial period with fewer procedural protections. However, investigative reports and watchdog reviews have revealed procedural violations in the IRS's handling of the layoffs, raising questions about compliance but not the legality per se.
The President has directed agencies to optimize the federal workforce, and they may make employment decisions against this policy choice. The government argues that the letter for the mass terminations may have been drafted by OPM as part of its role in advising federal agencies, but the agencies themselves had the final call on who to fire.
The administration previously attempted to cut back the ranks of federal workers by conducting mass terminations of federal agencies' probationary employees. This move, however, has led to a series of legal challenges, with unions arguing that probationary periods are designed for assessing individual employee performance, not for workforce shaping.
A court hearing on a coalition of unions' motion for summary judgment regarding the legality of the mass terminations will take place in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California later this month. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in an appeal brought by the government nine days after the first court hearing.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has ruled that one of Judge Alsup's injunctions overstepped the court's legal authority due to harms to a group of plaintiffs who rely on government services impacted by the firings. Judge Alsup later issued another similar injunction based on damage suffered by the union plaintiffs, which still stands.
The federal government is currently facing an employment issue involving the use of reductions in force (RIFs) to downsize the federal workforce. The upcoming virtual event, Accelerate Together: Secure by AI 2025, presented by Amazon Web Services (AWS), is focusing on securing systems and data as the federal threat landscape rapidly evolves, especially with the rise of AI and cloud.
As the legal battle unfolds, it remains to be seen whether the mass terminations of federal probationary employees will stand or if the court will rule in favour of the unions challenging the legality of these actions.
[1] Relevant case: National Treasury Employees Union v. Office of Personnel Management, No. 3:19-cv-01458 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
- The ongoing legal case, National Treasury Employees Union v. Office of Personnel Management in the Northern District of California, centers around the legality of federal agencies' large-scale terminations of probationary employees and their compliance with policy-and-legislation regarding probationary periods.
- The political implications of the federal workforce's future are subjects of discussion in the general news, as the mass terminations of probationary employees and the subsequent legal challenges pose questions about the role of the Office of Personnel Management in federal politics.
