Judge Provides Partial Relief to Federal Probationary Workers, Rules Firings Probably Illegal

A district judge in California granted partial relief to some recently terminated probationary federal employees who contended that their dismissals from various agencies were unlawfully directed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under the pretense of performance issues.

On February 27, Senior District Judge William Alsup provided partial relief to the non-union organizational employees, ordering their immediate reinstatement at agencies including the National Parks Service, all entities within the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Small Business Bureau.

He also mandated the cessation and withdrawal of the OPM request due to the potential for additional federal employees to face termination under that request.

All employees who were union-represented and terminated, he ruled, needed to undergo administrative procedures such as those provided by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the National Labor Relations Authority (NLRA).

The courtroom in San Francisco saw the presence of eight attorneys representing ten union and non-union organizations, which collectively represented hundreds of probationary employees. These employees claimed that their terminations were the result of a direct order from Charles Ezell, acting head of OPM, rather than legitimate independent actions taken by their respective agency heads.

They further asserted that the terminations inflicted immediate harm not only upon the plaintiffs but also on others, indicating that the dismissals directly caused national parks to close, endangered species protections to lapse, and left veteran affairs centers short-staffed.

One attorney represented the federal government and contended that OPM’s communications to agency heads—which occurred via email on January 20, by phone on February 13, and again through email on February 14—were unenforceable requests rather than direct orders with associated threats.

He also challenged the court’s jurisdiction over the matter, arguing that the former employees were required to first navigate administrative processes such as those offered by the Merit Systems Protection Board, processes which could allow both union and non-union organizations to advocate on behalf of the individual plaintiffs.

This is a developing story and will be updated.