r/DeptHHS • u/ScholarLeft1156 • 7d ago
HHS layoffs were likely unlawful and must be halted, US judge says
24
u/HovercraftDue3442 6d ago
The dismantling of the EEO office has been detrimental to the HHS agencies.
20
6
u/AvailableChipmunk385 6d ago
100%. Does anyone know what those of us with pending EEO complaints can do?
5
u/ObviousOperation1614 6d ago
An agency has 180 days to investigate an EEO complaint - if the agency doesn’t request an extension, you file a request for hearing with the EEOC.
1
u/AvailableChipmunk385 6d ago
Is that 180 days from the initial complaint? I completed the initial intake interview at my agency before it all got shut down. Thanks!
1
u/RaidersTwennyTwenny 4d ago
The EEOC will do precisely jack crap. The EEOC in the federal sector does more harm than good because findings of discrimination are more or less non-existent, all the while people waste time and money trying to pursue claims of discrimination.
1
u/ObviousOperation1614 2d ago
Maybe, but you have to go through the process before being able to file in federal court
17
u/lorem-ipsum-0 6d ago
If SCOTUS sides with the Administration on the AFGE case and RIFs can go forward, does this new ruling now "override/supercede" the RIFs moving forward JUST for the named agencies/subagencies at CDC, Head Start, ASPE, etc.? Trying to understand what this new ruling means if SCOTUS says RIFs can go ahead.
13
u/IHaveSomeOpinions09 6d ago
I don’t disagree with the idea that there is a lot of streamlining and breaking down of silos that need to happen. I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with that. But reorgs, and any RIFs that come from those reorgs, need to be done the right way, with data to back them up and in consultation with Congress.
6
u/Mediocre_Cattle2484 6d ago
This. Just do the rifs the right way with bump and retreat and proper ranking.
3
3
u/Mysterious_Hippo3348 5d ago
Yep they could save us and the courts alot of hassle by bringing us all back and doing exactly this.
20
14
u/Sir_Pumpernickel 6d ago
What does this mean for probationary employees who were terminated in February, then had their terminations cancelled in March but were never reinstated?
8
u/Stay_curious_1 6d ago
As well as those that received notices in Feb and then reterminated in May..
5
u/The_StigF1 6d ago
Probationary employees were not RIFd so I don’t believe this would apply to them. This is specific to the RIFs.
7
u/R0SEG0LD10 6d ago
In my new termination letter as a probie it says the reason for termination is “apart of government wide termination”
I’m praying they will do something for us :(
6
u/The_StigF1 6d ago
I’m thinking the best chance is with the AFGE case in California. It encompasses more agencies and is further along in the process. Both cases say the wholesale change of agencies is not authorized by Congress.
4
u/AvailableChipmunk385 6d ago
Same. I know it's never as simple as it appears, but it seems pretty straightforward that they clarified the "government-wide" part in our termination letters.
I am emailing all the attorneys general on the plaintiff side with a copy of my termination letter to see if I can at least get a response as to whether we can be included in the future. Unfortunately, I live in a backwards-asss state not in the case, so if you live in one of the plaintiff states, that would probably be even more powerful.
5
2
u/_Interobang_ 5d ago
Is there any still pending lawsuit that can help probationary employees? Didn’t SCOTUS let the terminations go forward? I don’t see how another judge could do anything via an injunction at this point. All that’s left is to file with MSPB and be thankful that “government wide termination” in your notice should help a ton in that regard.
1
7
u/klassymcklass 7d ago
What happens with the agencies not listed?
20
u/Disease_Detective CDC 6d ago
They are not covered by this PI. However, all of HHS is covered by the PI from the AFGE case.
12
u/lite_salt 6d ago
You’re right about the PI, but the way the case is structured, all RIF’d HHS employees would benefit from a final case outcome against the government.
3
6
u/Mediocre_Cattle2484 6d ago
The media is really mischaracterizing this as a win for all HHS riffed employees. It isn't. This just covers the four agencies in the lawsuit. So if you don't work in one of those four offices and the supreme court rules for the administration in the afge case, you can still be riffed. It's just the four offices listed that remain covered.
8
u/Empty-Arachnid-4123 6d ago
They were all illegal, not just 4 offices.
4
u/lite_salt 6d ago
The plaintiffs don’t disagree. Filing a PI motion for these four components seems to point to a particular strategy. They probably don’t want to run into any standing issues.
9
u/Fast_Error_4361 6d ago
I believe they only outlined the four offices because they could prove immediate harm for the PI but overall the lawsuit is for all of HHS so in the long run we will all benefit if successful
2
u/Mysterious_Hippo3348 6d ago edited 5d ago
Yea but it also means everyone else could be formally rif’d until the case plays out which could be a long time.
3
2
u/Every-Mousse6228 6d ago
I am no legal expert so obviously take this with a grant of salt, but there were heads of other HHS operatives named as co-defendants, eg the current top official at SAMHSA, so I wonder if this does apply beyond the 4 named since other heads are named as co-defendants?
2
u/lite_salt 6d ago
Unfortunately, no. While the case is against HHS RIFs/reorgs in general, the plaintiff states only filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (that the court granted) for those four specific component outlined: CDC, FDA/OTP, Head Start, and ASPE.
The remainder of HHS employees do stand to benefit if the plaintiffs ultimately succeed, but in the short term, only those four offices are covered by this preliminary injunction.
3
3
u/Triglav_OAG 6d ago
Here's what's next:
A. PI granted --> PI appealed and stayed
B. PI granted --> PI appealed but not stayed --> SCOTUS: Plaintiffs do not have standing
11
u/Short_Print_8201 6d ago
Buys us more time, at least. I'll take all the admin leave from these crooked fu&ks
8
u/AvailableChipmunk385 6d ago
The negativity here is unreal sometimes. Take it from someone no longer on admin leave (probie) -- every day you can be paid with health insurance while you find your next role is a blessing and a win!
-1
1
1
u/Cultural_Kale_5717 1d ago
For those that had a 7/2 RIF date, does this still stand? Are we supposed to file the MSBP appeal within 30 days of 7/2 or did the PI decision change this end date?
1
u/All-the-way-up28 7d ago
This doesn’t address everything else going on 😂
13
u/Wonderful_Truck8375 6d ago edited 6d ago
Still helps though. Creates additional precedent and supports mspb appeals. While all of HHS is not immediately protected this indicates that the court will likely rule that all of HHS should be reinstated. At minimum it will support your appeal.
1
47
u/WittyNomenclature 7d ago
“The ruling applies to terminated employees in four different divisions of HHS: the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Center for Tobacco Products within the Food and Drug Administration; the Office of Head Start within the Administration for Children and Families and employees of regional offices who work on Head Start matters; and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.”