Unions Challenge OPM's Mass Terminations and "Five Things" Demand

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a lawsuit attempting to block the unlawful mass terminations of probationary federal employees, a coalition of public service unions, small businesses, veterans, and conservation organizations have filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and its Acting Director, Charles Ezell. The plaintiffs, which include the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and others, argue that the mass firings are "one of the most massive employment frauds in the history of this country."

The amended complaint, filed last week and updated yesterday, alleges that OPM's actions violate federal law, including the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutes defining federal employment and OPM's role. The complaint argues that OPM acted unlawfully by directing federal agencies to use a standardized termination notice falsely claiming performance issues, and that Congress, not OPM, controls and authorizes federal employment and related spending by the federal administrative agencies.

The plaintiffs claim that OPM is exploiting and misusing the probationary period to eliminate staff across federal agencies. The amended complaint is the first to target OPM's illegal demand that federal employees enumerate five accomplishments of the previous week. This demand, which has been widely derided, is also a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, as explained in the complaint.

The plaintiffs argue that the mass terminations could have significant consequences for federal agencies and the public they serve. Small business owners rely on the Small Business Administration for access to capital, technical assistance, government contracting, disaster relief, and many other critical services. The mass firings could disrupt these services and harm small businesses across the country. Similarly, the terminations could impact national parks and public lands, as well as the services provided by federal land and wildlife agencies.

The plaintiffs also warn of potential legal challenges and financial implications, as employees may argue that the dismissals were discriminatory or retaliatory, or that the agency failed to follow RIF procedures. The plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Altshuler Berzon LLP and the State Democracy Defenders Fund (SDDF).

Ambassador Norm Eisen, representing the plaintiffs and executive chair of SDDF, said, "SDDF is proud to stand with leading public service unions and others in this critical fight to protect their members, who dedicate their lives to serving our nation. The mass firings ordered by OPM are illegal and betray the trust of countless federal employees. The patronizing demand that federal workers still on the job have to justify themselves by enumerating five accomplishments just adds insult to injury. That too is against the law. We are committed to protecting all these workers."

The TRO motion, memorandum in support of the TRO, proposed TRO order, and amended complaint are available here.

In conclusion, the lawsuit filed by public service unions, small businesses, veterans, and conservation organizations highlights the potential illegality and harmful consequences of OPM's mass terminations and "five things" demand. The plaintiffs argue that these actions violate federal employment laws and regulations, and could have significant impacts on federal agencies and the public they serve. The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order to stop OPM from directing the unlawful firings and protect the rights of federal employees.