by Steve LewickyTrump Administration Seeks to Void Union Contracts for a Large Portion of the Federal Workforce
On Thursday, March 27, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order seeking to end union representation for a large portion of the federal workforce. Later that day, eight federal agencies brought suit against unions representing a large swath of federal employees, seeking a court order declaring all existing union contracts between those unions and the plaintiff government agencies to be void, in light of the executive order.
In this lawsuit (U.S. Dept. of Defense, et al, v. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, District 10, et al, W. Dist. Tex., Case No. 6:25-cv-00119), the Government asserts that a top priority of the Trump Administration since taking office has been “to improve the efficiency and efficacy of the federal workforce, and to promote the national security of the United States,” and goes on to allege that “[u]nfortunately…departments and agencies have been hamstrung…by restrictive terms of collective bargaining agreements” with government employee unions.” The government then argues that “inflexible [collective bargaining agreements] obstruct presidential and agency head capacity to ensure accountability and improve performance.”
Government employees at some core national security agencies, such as the FBI, CIA, NSA and U.S. Secret Service, have always been excluded from the right to unionize that was granted by Congress in the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act in 1978. Since the late 1970s, however, federal employees outside of those few exempted agencies have had the right to join unions and to engage in collective bargaining (though not the right to strike or to bargain over pay levels). Congress included in the 1978 statue flexibility for a future president to exclude employees of agencies beyond the FBI, CIA, NSA and Secret Service from the right to collectively bargain through unions, but only if the president makes a determination that an agency or department outside of the FBI, CIA, NSA or Secret Service has, as one of its “primary functions,” intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work that would be incompatible with permitting collective bargaining by its workforce. The statute does not define the terms “national security work” or “investigative work.”
In the new lawsuit, the Administration seeks to take away union and collective bargaining rights from employees at a broad range of agencies, including not only the Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security, but also the Departments of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Veterans Affairs and the EPA and Social Security Administration. Notably, none of President Trump’s predecessors since the late 1970s have made such a finding for these other agencies, nor did President Trump do so during his first term.
The new executive order excludes police and firefighter unions from its scope, even though these functions would seem to fit within activities associated with national security. Commentators have noted that these law enforcement unions were the only federal employee unions that endorsed the candidacy of President Trump during the 2024 election campaign.
The Government filed its lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, which is one of the handful of federal courthouses across the country that has only a single judge — a Trump appointee. In Federal District Courts with more than a single judge, judges are assigned to new cases based on random blind assignment to protect against “court-shopping” by plaintiffs. In single-judge Federal courthouses, there is no uncertainty about which judge will be assigned to a newly filed case, since there is only a single judge to assign.
The combined acts of declaring a large portion of the federal workforce to be ineligible for union representation, and then seeking a court order to void all contracts between those employees’ unions and the Government, carry a strong odor of union-busting. Government employee unions have been at the forefront of bringing lawsuits during the first months of the Trump Administration to challenge the legality of a large number of Administration actions. Elections have consequences, however, and one of these is to place in power a new Administration that can exercise discretion granted by Congress in previously enacted statutes. It will be interesting to see what level of review and scrutiny the federal court in Texas (and appellate courts) give to this executive order, and specifically the President’s determination that some agencies with core functions that seem to be outside the national security space are, in fact, performing national security work or investigative work.
by Lisa WhiteYou Established a Guardianship. Now what?
In Maryland, you can be a court-appointed guardian of the person and/or the property of a minor child or a disabled person. Once the court process for seeking a guardianship is complete and a guardianship order is issued, the newly-appointed guardian has rights and responsibilities under the law. All guardians must file an annual or biannual report with the court.
Guardianship of a Person
A court, through issuance of an order, may grant the guardian of a disabled person the same rights, powers, and duties that a parent would have over a minor child. For a disabled person, a guardianship order can allow the guardian to establish the disabled person’s home. Guardians can also be given the authority to make medical decisions, including determining a medical course of treatment. While guardians have powers, they also have responsibilities. Court-appointed guardians have a duty to provide for the disabled person, including ensuring provision of medical care, comfort, and clothing, and fostering friendships. Guardians must keep records and periodically report to the supervising court.
Guardianship of Property
A guardian of the property of a minor or of a disabled person has the powers of a fiduciary. A fiduciary is a trustee who may make decisions on behalf of the minor child or disabled person, including decisions regarding investments, mortgages, leases, or borrowing money, for the purpose of protecting the minor or disabled person’s property. A fiduciary may retain the assets of the minor or disabled person, and may receive assets from any sources on the person’s behalf. Guardians of the property may also make charitable contributions, protect the minor’s or disabled person’s property from damage, loss, and liability, and may pay taxes. Guardians may also employ attorneys, as needed.
None of the information provided in this article constitutes legal advice. Every situation is different and should be thoroughly reviewed by and discussed with your legal advisors. Please do not rely on the contents of this article as a basis for making decisions regarding your particular situation. If you are a court-appointed guardian and have questions, or wish to petition the court to establish a guardianship, Lewicky, O’Connor, Hunt & Meiser stands ready to provide legal support to you. Please call us to schedule a consultation at (410) 489-1996.
by Steve LewickyCourts order reinstatement of federal employees, but the Administration moves forward with future reduction in force plans
It’s a stressful and confusing time for federal employees. In recent days, two U.S. District Court judges – one in Maryland and the other in California – issued sweeping nationwide injunctions compelling the Government to pause employee terminations and to reinstate a large number of recently terminated federal employees. In both cases, the courts found that recent terminations of probationary employees were unlawful because they were undertaken by the Office of Personnel Management (#OPM) (the government’s human resources office) and not by the federal agencies where the employees actually worked, and because the Government did not adhere to notice and timing requirements.
In the Maryland case, Maryland v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, et al, U.S. Dist. Ct. Md., Case No. 1:25-cv-00748, Judge James Bredar entered a Temporary Restraining Order (#TRO) on March 13, 2025, ordering the covered cabinet agencies to reinstate all employees, throughout the United States, who were previously employed by the covered agencies and were “purportedly terminated” by the Government on or after January 20, 2025. Eighteen U.S. Government agencies and departments are covered by this TRO. The covered agencies were also ordered to undertake no further reductions in force (#RIFs), “whether formally labeled as such or not,” except in compliance with notice requirements established by federal statute and regulations. In order ensure compliance by the Government, Judge Bredar ordered the government agencies and departments to submit a detailed status report to the court by mid-day next Monday, March 17, setting forth the number of employees reinstated by the Government, broken down by agency. The court also scheduled a hearing for March 26, to determine whether a longer-duration preliminary injunction will be entered. The TRO does not prohibit the Government “from conducting lawful terminations of probationary federal employees – whether pursuant to a proper RIF or else for cause, on the basis of good-faith, individualized determinations,” but may not do so “as part of a mass termination.”
In a 56 page memorandum opinion accompanying the TRO, Judge Bredar noted that, under Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), civil service employees are considered to be under probationary status during the first year or two of their employment, and a probationary employee may lawfully be terminated if his or her work performance or conduct fails to demonstrate fitness or qualification for continued employment, or for reasons based on conditions arising prior to his or her employment. If the Government decides to terminate a probationary employee, however, Title 5 of the CFR requires the Government to notify the employee in writing as to why the decision to terminate was made, including a statement of the agency’s conclusions as to the inadequacies of the employee’s performance or conduct. The only other way properly to terminate a probationary civil service employee is as part of a reduction in force (RIF) – but federal statutes and regulations establish detailed procedures that must be followed by federal agencies when conducting a RIF. The Title 5 regulations include a requirement that, when conducting a RIF, an agency follow certain retention preferences that are set forth in Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which create priorities such as by length of service, military service preferences, and performance ratings. The regulations also require, in a RIF, that the agency establish “competitive areas” in which employees compete for retention, and rank employees for intention based on the retention factors discussed above. In most circumstances, an agency conducting a RIF must provide employees at least sixty days written notice before termination, and even in extraordinary circumstances must provide thirty days prior written notice. For larger scale RIFs, notice also must be provided to affected states, so that state governments have an opportunity to carry out “rapid response activities” to assist dislocated employees in obtaining new employment.
Judge Bredar noted that, on February 11 and 12, various agencies of the U.S. Government terminated large numbers of probationary employees, with further terminations occurring in the weeks thereafter. The court determined that these terminations were not based upon qualifications or performance, noting that the termination notices did not even cursorily identify any issues with the individual’s performance, but instead explained that the termination was “in the public interest” or “due to the priorities of the current administration.” The court found that the Government’s actions reflected that these terminations were in fact RIFs – but did not adhere to statutory RIF requirements.
The TRO issued by Maryland federal court was broadly consistent with a TRO entered at almost the same time by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which ordered the Government to pause firings and to reinstate probationary employees at six government agencies. Earlier, on March 5, a similar decision was handed down by the Merit Systems Protection Board (#MSPB), ordering reinstatement of probationary employees that were terminated at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
As of the time of this post, it appears that at least some agencies are moving forward with reinstatement and payment of back pay in response to the court orders, but it is not clear if all covered agencies are doing so. More clarity should be forthcoming on Monday, March 17.
The two TROs are being appealed by the Government, and issuance of a TRO does not necessarily mean that the same relief will be granted by the court later at the preliminary injunction stage, or after a trial on the merits. Beyond the possibility that these TROs may be overturned on appeal or modified by the issuing courts at the preliminary injunction stage, it’s also important to recognize that the legal reasoning set forth in these two emergency orders does not preclude the Government from reducing the size of the federal workforce using the RIF procedures set forth in federal law. The Government just needs to follow the rules, procedures and timetables that are mandatory in RIFs. News outlets have reported in recent days that agencies have already been given guidance by OPM to plan for RIFs, so presumably the agencies and OPM intend to pursue RIFs down the road even if the firings of probationary employees during late February and early March are reversed due to the Government’s failure to comply with RIF requirements when taking those actions.
by Elizabeth BoweryStarting a New Business: Drafting Governing Documents
Once business founders decide on the type of business entity to establish (for example, a limited liability company, corporation, partnership, etc.), specific “governing” documents need to be prepared for the new company. In Maryland, a limited liability company must file articles of organization with the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation to establish the entity, and in many cases will also wish to have a written Operating Agreement (though Maryland law does not require a written Operating Agreement). Similarly, a new corporation must file Articles of Incorporation to come into existence and must also have corporate Bylaws. Shareholder or “Buy-Sell” Agreements also are sometimes a good idea, especially in closely held corporations. Partnerships often benefit from having a written Partnership Agreement. For more details on each entity type and their requirements, see my previous article, “Starting a New Business: Deciding the Type of Business Entity to Establish.”
Founders may be tempted to prepare governing documents without legal counsel, using forms or template documents found on the Internet. Despite the time and financial pressure to move quickly and efficiently, the legal issues involved in forming a new entity and putting it on the right path can be more complicated than they first appear. Investing in qualified legal support early on can provide significant benefits by both creating governing documents that protect the interests of all owners or shareholders and establishing a foundation for good governance moving forward. Below are a few things that should be considered for inclusion in most limited liability company operating agreements. These same concepts may apply in a written partnership agreement or in a corporate shareholders’ agreement, as well.
Protecting the Business Owners’ Interests If a Dispute Arises
An Operating Agreement for a limited liability company that has more than a single member should include provisions that safeguard the members’ interests if disputes arise. A poorly drafted “disputes” provision might remain unnoticed until a conflict arises but then cause real difficulty when the members try to determine their legal rights, methods of dispute resolution, and available remedies. For example, a “generic” Operating Agreement template may provide for an equal division of assets among three members upon dissolution if a dispute arises, which is unlikely to be fair or equitable if one of the three members contributed significantly more time and capital to the venture (or under any number of other circumstances). A well thought out and drafted agreement would include a provision for dispute resolution that protects the interests of all members.
Protecting the Company’s Interests If a Dispute Arises
An Operating Agreement can also be tailored to provide flexibility for the company’s growth while minimizing unnecessary risk. At the outset of a business venture, optimism often abounds, which can lead members to give short shrift to clauses that address membership changes. For example, the members might overlook boilerplate provisions regarding restrictions on transferring membership interests, leaving the business vulnerable to unwanted external interference by a third party. Or, if a member decides to exit the company, the remaining members may find it difficult to quickly raise the necessary capital to buy out the departing member’s interest. To prevent this, a carefully drafted agreement can provide a right of first refusal, giving the remaining members the opportunity to buy out the exiting member’s interest before it can be sold to a third party and establish flexible payment terms to purchase the departing member’s interest over time.
Consult a Business Lawyer to Customize Your Governing Documents
Drafting governing documents is one of the most important steps in building and protecting a business. As business lawyers, we assist business owners at every stage of ownership, offering guidance in selecting the best entity, drafting customized governing documents, and providing ongoing business counsel. We can help you navigate legal complexities so you can focus on growing your business.
