On a Monday evening in early February, a close aide to President Donald Trump sent out an email terminating the leader of a board responsible for addressing certain grievances raised by federal workers’ labor unions. Shortly after, a nearly identical email was sent to a member of another board safeguarding federal civil service employees from political interference, also ending her role “effective immediately.” “Thank you for your service,” expressed White House personnel aide Trent Morse to both individuals.
In a mere three and a half minutes, Trump dismantled the main avenues available to federal workers to contest labor relations issues that arose following his inauguration. Just days earlier, Trump had dismissed the head of an office that serves as the workers’ third avenue for recourse. These fired officials, appointed by Democrat Joe Biden and approved by the Senate for fixed terms, have filed lawsuits against Trump and his administration in an attempt to be reinstated, arguing that their dismissals are unlawful. Two of them have been temporarily reinstated by judges.
These officials oversee independent agencies established by Congress as the sole entities where federal workers can challenge dismissals. The terminations coincided with Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency laying off numerous probationary employees. A federal judge in California has temporarily halted the Trump administration from instructing agencies to dismiss probationary workers, but has not mandated the rehiring of those already let go. The resolution of this case, initiated by unions and nonprofit organizations, is pending while Trump and Musk are contemplating a significant downsizing that could commence in a fortnight.
Labor attorney Richard Hirn, who has represented federal worker unions, posited that Trump ousted these officials to impede workers from challenging dismissals. In three separate instances, when unions pursued legal action, the courts redirected them to follow the appropriate channels. “He’s resorting to illegal measures to deprive federal employees of their right to have their cases adjudicated by the administrative bodies designated by Congress to safeguard their rights,” Hirn remarked.
Thomas Berry, director of constitutional studies at the conservative Cato Institute, suggested that Trump might be aiming to accelerate a legal challenge to the Supreme Court to revoke established legal protections shielding heads of independent agencies from presidential oversight. Anna Kelly, White House deputy press secretary, stated, “President Trump is focused on assembling a team dedicated to advancing his America-First agenda.”
Elon Musk is pictured alongside U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on February 11, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
The Hurdle for Dismissed Federal Workers Seeking Legal Redress
A federal legislation enacted during the administration of former President Jimmy Carter established a convoluted system of boards and agencies as the avenue for workers to contest their dismissals. They are prohibited from directly litigating against the government in a court of law.
This law, instituted by Carter, builds upon earlier
The Office of Special Counsel is an independent agency with its leader, the Special Counsel, appointed by the president and approved by the Senate for a fixed term. The Special Counsel cannot be arbitrarily removed. This agency serves as a primary resource for federal employees who believe they have been unlawfully terminated, particularly due to whistleblowing activities.
The Special Counsel can advocate on behalf of employees to the Merit Systems Protection Board, comparable to a prosecutor presenting a case to a judge. The three-member board then determines if a termination was unjust. Board members are nominated by presidents and confirmed by the Senate, aiming for a system insulated from political influences.
While permanent workers can directly seek redress from the Merit Systems Protection Board for wrongful terminations, probationary employees require the representation of the Office of Special Counsel. Without this assistance, probationary employees face challenges in swiftly reinstating their positions, possibly leading to prolonged legal battles.
In situations where workers contest workplace issues through their labor unions, they typically proceed to arbitration with the federal government as per union contract terms. If dissatisfied with the arbitration outcome, they can appeal to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, a three-member board established under the Carter-era law.
Probationary employees dismissed around Valentine’s Day are relying on the Office of Special Counsel to seek reinstatement. Representing a group of these employees from various agencies, they have requested the current Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger, to advocate on their behalf. Federal law stipulates that probationary employees can only be dismissed for documented poor performance, yet the Trump administration terminated them using generic emails citing performance issues.
Dismissed by a single-sentence email, Dellinger contested his removal, asserting that the president lacked grounds to dismiss him prematurely. The Department of Justice, representing the administration, argued that the president had the authority to dismiss Dellinger as he is a sole executive agency head. This case has sparked a debate on the extent of presidential power over independent agencies and boards.
A court temporarily reinstated Dellinger, prompting him to seek a halt to the dismissals of the six probationary employees at various agencies through the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Dellinger reinstated the employees while he looked into their cases, asserting that he would continue investigating claims of illegal personnel actions against others. Melanie Stratton, an attorney with the Workplace Justice Lab at Northwestern University, emphasized the importance of Dellinger’s temporary reinstatement, stating that had he been permanently removed, the affected employees would have been left without recourse. Dellinger’s job status remains uncertain, and there is a possibility of him being removed in the future.
A labor lawyer, Hirn, highlighted the potential impact on a large number of employees who were in their positions for less than a year when the probationary firings began. The decision regarding the employment status of approximately 200,000 individuals rests with the Special Counsel’s office. The Trump administration expressed interest in appointing Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins to assume Dellinger’s duties. The Department of Veterans Affairs accounted for the largest portion of the Special Counsel’s caseload in 2023.
Criticism arose from Devine, the lawyer representing whistleblowers, who raised concerns about the potential conflict of interest in having the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs assume additional responsibilities. The Merit Systems Protection Board’s ability to function effectively relies on having a quorum of members.
Recently, the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled in favor of Dellinger’s request to temporarily halt the terminations of six employees and reinstate them in various government departments. Dellinger warned agency leaders that he would continue to investigate unlawful personnel actions and seek relief for affected employees. However, Trump’s dismissal of board members and subsequent legal challenges have created uncertainty in the board’s operations.
The importance of maintaining a quorum at the Merit Systems Protection Board, particularly in cases where recusals may occur, was emphasized. The absence of a quorum can lead to delays in addressing cases, as evidenced by the backlog that accumulated in previous years due to a lack of sufficient board members. Approximately 2.1 million federal workers under union contracts may rely on the board for assistance in addressing labor disputes.
Their first stop would be arbitration, but if either side wants to appeal an arbiter’s decision, the issue goes to the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Trump fired its chair, Susan Grundmann, on the night of Feb. 10, three and a half minutes before he fired Cathy Harris. She’s suing to be reinstated, but for now, Trump named Colleen Kiko, a Republican member, as chair, along with Democrat Anne Wagner. The Justice Department argued that Trump has the sole authority to fire those who assist him. The union lawyer believes the two remaining members will deadlock, leaving appeals in limbo. This could lead to cases sitting undecided, and agencies not having to comply with employee awards.
A federal judge in Massachusetts rejected labor unions’ attempts to block the Trump administration’s resignation program, stating he lacked jurisdiction. Judges in Washington, D.C., also directed unions to seek resolution with the FLRA. In San Francisco, a judge ordered the administration to rescind memos leading to mass terminations, deeming them likely unlawful. The Justice Department argued that unions should take their claims to the FLRA or MSPB. The article highlights the challenges faced by employees navigating the changing landscape of labor boards under the Trump administration.
Please rephrase the provided text while maintaining its original meaning. Please ensure that the text remains lengthy and do not cut it short. Adhere to proper spelling rules and complete each sentence.
