Posted on 02/27/2025 7:06:56 PM PST by kevcol
In his ruling, Alsup ordered OPM to rescind a January 20 memo and a February 14 email directing agencies to identify probationary employees who are not "mission-critical" and terminate them.
.
.
"Probationary employees are the lifeblood of our government. They come in at a low level and work their way up. That's how we renew ourselves," said Alsup, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
These judges think they are divine. They overstep their constitutional limits all the time. Impeach these people, they are destroying our country.
Oh, really?
Hope you are right about a “booming economy” but keep in mind that FedGov spending accounts for 23.2% of US GDP and GDP annual growth over the last 10 years has averaged 4.4%. DOGE/the administration is reducing govt. spending which will be a hit (2%, 3%, 4%??) to GDP that private business will have to make up to avoid a recession. Hope you are right...I have my doubts.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-gross-domestic-product
Get to work, SCOTUS!
AND send us a report of what you did last week!
Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”
Two things can be true at the same time. Both Ripper and those who enabled him were necessary for the potential end of the world. In terms of today, we hate those judges, but Dem and RINO politicians, plus the bureaucrats, are part of the problem.
The federal deficit is the reason.
The judge has not ruled on the impoundment issue—so it is irrelevant to this case.
Btw your analysis of probationary employees is wrong as well.
Read and learn:
https://www.mspb.gov/appeals/infosheets/Probationary_Employees.pdf
Here is the punchline from the document link:
“the Board’s
jurisdiction over such a termination is limited to allegations that it was based on
partisan political reasons or marital status. 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(b).”
Game.
Set.
Match.
The firings stand.
Pray that the budget is not passed and the government is forced to shut down. Trump can then require RIFs throughout all agencies. That might be the quicker solution.
The judge can ignore the CFR but he better be able to cite a big pile of legal justification for it.
The CFRs exist because federal agencies (and an army of very smart lawyers) believed that was the intent of the relevant legislation.
This judge is way out of his league.
If the agency terminates the individual for reasons arising during the probationaryperiod, the individual is entitled to a written notice stating the basis and the effective date of the termination. 5 C.F.R. § 315.804. However, the Board’s jurisdiction over such a termination is limited to allegations that it was based on partisan political reasons or marital status. 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(b). In determining jurisdiction, the Board will consider only allegations of marital status or partisan political discrimination and may not decide whether the stated reasons why the agency terminated the appointment were correct.
But note this is before the U.S. District Court, not the Merit Systems Protection Board.
“Probationary employees are the lifeblood of our government.”
A purely philosophical statement, not based in law. This judge is a hack, and will be struck down shortly.
Those federal employees hired on merit cannot be fired simply because the previous administration hired them, which is what this judge has determined.
I see nothing to support the claim that the judge made such a determination. I see him declaring that it was a RIF by another name and did not comply with requirements for a RIF. I see no claim that they were fired merely because the previous administration hired them.
https://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/022_statutes_at_large.pdf
The Pendleton Act, 22 Stat. 403 (1883)
Act runs from pg. 403-407.
The Office of Personnel Management asked agencies to review and determine whether employees on probation were fit for continued employment.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
pg. 2
INTRODUCTION1. On February 13, 2025, Defendant OPM and its newly appointed Acting Director, Defendant Charles Ezell, ordered federal agencies across the country to terminate tens of thousands of federal employees by sending them standardized notices of termination, drafted by OPM, that falsely state that the terminations are for performance reasons.
And what is the evidence that Charles Ezell ordered federal agencies to fire employees? Dunno. But wait, there's more.
Pp. 14-15
II. OPM’s Unlawful February 13, 2025 Order to Fire Probationary Employees Across the Nation
58. On February 11, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14210, entitled “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.”7 The Executive Order instructed that “Agency Heads shall promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force (RIFs).” 859. OPM did not wait for agencies to plan for or initiate any RIF.
60. On February 13, 2025, OPM officials met with agency leaders across the federal government and directed them to begin firing their probationary employees without following RIF procedures. 9
61. CBS News has reported that: “The decision on probationary workers, who generally have less than a year on the job, came from the Office of Personnel Management, which serves as a human resources department for the federal government. The notification was confirmed by a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss it publicly.” (Boldface added.) 10
62. On information and belief, as of February 13, 2025, prior to the order from OPM, no federal agency intended to terminate its probationary employees en masse, and no agency intended to terminate probationary employees (other than on an individualized basis for actual performance or conduct reasons) without complying with RIF procedures.
63. Agencies across the federal government began acting on OPM’s February 13 directive immediately through chaotic mass terminations of their probationary employees. 11
__________
8 Id.
9 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5144113-federal-probationary-employees-fired/
10 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-layoffs-probationary-workers-warnings-bigger-cuts-on-way/
Note that the sources regarding the so-called order or directive are The Hill, CBS News, and WAPO. If obtained from one of those, it must be true.
However,
(1) OPM did not fire anyone but employees of OPM.
(2) All other employees were fired by their respective agencies.
(3) Lawyers for the government said OPM asked agencies to review and determine whether employees on probation were fit for continued employment.
CBS "confirmed" the oral "order" by attributing the claim to a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity. In The Hill article, it seemed to have just descended from the ether.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued his ruling orally with a written ruling to follow.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.444883/gov.uscourts.cand.444883.37.1.pdf
The ORDER from OPM? Here is Document 37-1, Attachment B, filed 02/26/2025. Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council.
Underlined portions were links. I have highlighted one sentence with blue font.
From: CHCO Council Sent: Friday, February 14,202512:48 PM Subject: Follow up: CHCO Council Special SessionCHCOs and Deputy CHCOs,
Thank you for your time today.
This message clarifies immediate next steps for probationary employees.
Over the past several days, agencies have worked to review, clean up, and finalize their lists of probationary employees they wish to keep, and wish to terminate, and begin taking action.
We have asked that you separate probationary employees that you have not identified as mission critical no later than end of the day Monday, 2/17. We have attached a template letter. The separation date should be as soon as possible that is consistent with applicable agency policies (including those in CBAs).
Guidance from the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") states, "An appointment is not final until the probationary period is over," and the probationary period is part of "the hiring process for employees." A probationer is still an applicant for a finalized appointment to a particular position as well as to the Federal service. "Until the probationary period has been completed," a probationer has "the burden to demonstrate why it is in the public interest for the Government to finalize an appointment to the civil service for this particular individual." Thus, the probationary period is part of the federal hiring process; there is currently a hiring freeze; and a probationer has no right to continued employment in the federal government.
An employee's performance must be measured in light of the existing needs and interests of government. OPM has emphasized that individual employee performance measurement should be "aligned with and support organizational goals" and "focus[] employee efforts on achieving organizational and group goals." An employee's performance must be viewed through the current needs and best interest of the government, in light of the President's directive to dramatically reduce the size of the federal workforce.
Through the exemptions process, agencies have identified the highest-performing probationers in mission critical areas. Regulations on probationary periods state: "The agency shall utilize the probationary period as fully as possible to determine the fitness of the employee and shall terminate his or her services during this period if the employee fails to demonstrate fully his or her qualifications for continued employment." 5 CFR 315.803. OPM believes "qualifications for continued employment" in the current context means that only the highest-performing probationers in mission critical areas should be retained.
After actioning, please update the previous probationary employee spreadsheet you've sent us to include the information below. Please resend the updated version to tracking@opm.gov with Amanda Scales and Jamie Sullivan on cc by 8:00pm EST Monday. This tracker should include:
• Which probationary employees have been terminated and which you plan to keep. For those you plan to keep, provide an explanation of why.
• For each probationary employee, indicate if they have opted into the deferred resignation program or not. This can be done by cross-checking the latest submissions sent to you via tracking@opm.gov. Please also indicate whether you have signed a written deferred resignation agreement with them or not.
• Probation end date.
Please continue providing these reports daily through at least the end of next week.
We have also attached a template Probationary tracker for your reports today.
Thank you,
OPM
The one Presidential Executive Order did not order any firings.
Your points in this thread are on correct.
As much as we all want to see the swamp drained, probationary employees are not at-will and cannot be fired en masse for no reason, as has clearly been done. There need to be individual instances of poor performance or misconduct.
The bottom line is that this probationary purge was ham-handed, is likely to bog the administration down in court, and may very well wind up with a Supreme Court loss. (Most of the other TROs will get rightfully slapped down, as Roberts already signaled this week).
Starting with legal RIFs would have been a better approach, and that is where this will all likely wind up. This supposed “short cut” is going to be anything but.
The CFR is directly relevant for two main reasons.
(1) The Pendleton Act was in effect when the CFR was written. The CFR could have added additional protections to conform to that act if the army of lawyers concluded it was relevant. They chose not to do so.
(2) Aside from the specific language of the CFR there is a very lengthy record of debate on all associated legal issues because each CFR has a public comment process that includes a detailed discussion—all public information.
In short, these issues have been debated ad nauseum and your views lost.
In addition the judge totally ignored that vast public record—gross judicial negligence and incompetence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.