Courts 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.