In a recent ruling, Judge William H. Alsup from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered six federal agencies to rehire thousands of workers with probationary status who had been fired as part of President Trump’s government-gutting initiative. He found that the firings of probationary workers had been done unlawfully by fiat from the Office of Personnel Management and not by the agencies themselves, who have broad hiring and firing powers. The Trump administration’s actions were described as a “gimmick” intended to carry out mass firings that were not based on actual performance.
This order stemmed from a lawsuit brought by federal employee unions challenging the legality of firing probationary workers en masse. Judge Alsup concluded that the government had used a loophole allowing them to fire probationary workers by citing poor performance, regardless of their actual conduct on the job. The unions argued that these actions were part of an effort to ravage the federal government and demoralize its employees. The judge extended his previous restraining order blocking the Office of Personnel Management from orchestrating further mass firings and indicated a willingness to expand his decision to other agencies where harm had not been fully documented.
The government appealed the judge’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as agencies were still pursuing plans for large-scale layoffs. The judge clarified that agencies could proceed with reduction in force plans but must do so in accordance with applicable laws. There was a concern that the government was moving to bypass court decisions and sideline workers through various means. It was noted that despite orders to reinstate probationary workers, some agencies had kept them on paid leave without returning them to their jobs.
The judge had initially planned for Trump administration officials to testify about the process of the layoffs but was informed that the acting head of the Office of Personnel Management would not appear. The judge criticized the government for failing to produce witnesses and noted that he had expected the testimonies to shed light on the conception and execution of the plans. The judge ordered for a lawyer to be deposed in Washington to provide insight into the impetus behind the firings, as he believed that cross-examination would reveal the truth.
The government argued that agencies had acted independently and were not following orders from the Office of Personnel Management. They provided evidence that the decisions to reduce workforces were made by appointed agency leaders in response to the administration’s political agenda, not based on directives from the Office of Personnel Management. The judge grew frustrated with the government’s explanations and felt misled about their actions, questioning their intentions regarding federal workers, and their efforts to avoid top officials testifying. He accused the government of obfuscating their intentions and providing misleading information in the form of press releases and sham documents.
