Whiplashing the Federal Workforce
A federal judge in the District of Columbia has denied a motion for a preliminary injunction sought by eight former probationary federal employees The employees contended their terminations violated their constitutional and statutory rights. The case, Jessica Gober, et al. v. Douglas Collins, et al., Civil Action No. 25-714 (RC), highlights the increasingly complex legal landscape governing federal employment, especially for probationary workers.
In this case, the judge noted:
Unsurprisingly, many lawsuits have been filed challenging the mass terminations of government workers. Some of these were brought by unions that represent federal employees…Other suits targeted terminations at specific agencies…One high-profile suit was brought by nineteen states and the District of Columbia.
Whiplash ensued.
Background
This case was filed by probationary employees from various federal agencies. They were terminated in early 2025 during a sweeping effort by the Trump administration to reduce the federal workforce, particularly targeting employees in their probationary period.
The former employees alleged their terminations were not based on documented performance or conduct deficiencies. Instead, they claimed the firings were politically motivated and that public statements by government officials falsely characterized them as poor performers, damaging their reputations and future job prospects.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the named individuals and a class of similarly situated former employees. They were seeking reinstatement and a public correction of the record regarding the reasons for their termination.
Claims and Relief Sought
They raised four main issues:
- Violation of their Fifth Amendment due process rights through public defamation and “false light” statements by government officials.
- Violation of due process by failing to provide notice of performance deficiencies as required by federal regulations.
- Arbitrary and capricious action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for characterizing their performance as poor without a factual basis.
- Request for a writ of mandamus to order reinstatement and correction of the public record. (A writ of mandamus is a court order directing a public official or government organization to perform a specific act it is obligated to perform. It amounts to a command from a higher court to a lower court or an official to fulfill their legal duty.)
The plaintiffs asked for a preliminary injunction to require the government to publicly clarify that performance was not the reason for the terminations and to reinstate the employees.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The primary reason given for denying the request for an injunction was a lack of jurisdiction by the court. The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) provides a comprehensive and exclusive framework for federal employment disputes, including terminations.
Under the CSRA, probationary employees have limited rights to challenge their removals, typically only if the termination was based on marital status, political affiliation, or pre-appointment conditions—not for general performance disputes.
The court concluded the former employees had not exhausted their administrative remedies, specifically by failing to pursue their claims through the Office of Special Counsel, as required under the CSRA before seeking judicial relief.
The court emphasized that the futility of going through the established process or the presence of constitutional claims does not allow plaintiffs to bypass the CSRA’s administrative process.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits of the Case
The court concluded the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims for the following reasons:
- APA Claims: The Administrative Procedures Act does not provide a separate avenue for review when the CSRA governs the employment action in question.
- Constitutional Claims: The court noted that constitutional claims related to federal employment must also be channeled through the CSRA process.
- Defamation and Due Process: The plaintiffs did not demonstrate that any defendant made false statements directly about them, nor did they show concrete harm resulting from such statements.
- Mandamus Relief: The plaintiffs failed to show a clear and compelling duty owed by the government that would justify the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
Comparison to Other Cases
Plaintiffs pointed to nationwide injunctions issued in similar cases in California and Maryland. However, the court distinguished those cases, noting they involved different plaintiffs (such as states and unions) and different legal theories. Neither injunction was currently in effect at the time of this decision.
Conclusion
The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs must first exhaust their administrative remedies under the CSRA and that their claims were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court reserved judgment on class certification for future proceedings.
This decision highlights the limited legal recourse available to probationary federal employees and the strict procedural requirements imposed by the CSRA. It also highlights the ongoing legal and political battles over mass federal workforce reductions and the reputational consequences for those affected.
There are numerous cases now pending in court. Some have been appealed. Some of the decisions have been contradictory. Often, different issues have been raised even though the underlying events are the same. As the cases proceed on appeal, the whiplash is likely to continue.
As predicted early on in this process, the underlying issues are likely to arrive at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. Employees and agencies are going to be whiplashed until that happens with different decisions from a wide variety of district court judges in with different jurisdictions seeking to put their personal imprimatur on this nationwide issue.
