Photo credit: www.cbsnews.com
Washington — In a notable consequence of the current administration’s directives aimed at reducing the size of the federal workforce, probationary employees have emerged as prime targets. Recent mass terminations affected thousands across various federal agencies, creating a significant employment crisis characterized by subsequent legal disputes that have left many workers in a precarious situation.
Probationary employees are those in their initial two years of federal service, a period that can also include seasoned government workers who transition to new roles, whether through promotions or changes to different agencies.
Sara Nelson, aged 50, found herself on the verge of completing her probationary period after securing a position in February 2024 with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Before this, Nelson had a career at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), part of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Residing in Georgia, Nelson successfully oversaw substantial national campaigns aimed at promoting the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, acknowledging the importance of her work in helping individuals in need of mental health support. “The dedication of federal workers is profound; we are committed to serving our country and the American people,” she remarked. “Our goal is to enhance the effectiveness of government services, even when faced with bureaucratic challenges.”
Despite receiving a favorable performance review in January, Nelson was taken aback by a termination notice from the acting chief human capital officer at Health and Human Services, which stated that her “performance has not been adequate to justify further employment at the agency.”
“Receiving this termination letter was deeply unsettling,” she recounted. “It’s perplexing to know your team values your contributions yet still face dismissal in the face of a pressing need for your role.”
On March 18, just days later, Nelson was surprised by an email notification stating that she had been reinstated in her position, following two court orders mandating the reinstatement of probationary employees who had been fired from over a dozen agencies. The Justice Department has since sought to challenge one of those orders in the Supreme Court, which concerns more than 16,000 probationary workers in six agencies.
The message she received confirmed her restoration to duty, placing her on paid administrative leave until further notice. However, responses to her inquiries regarding back pay and her job’s status have been lacking, resulting in ongoing uncertainty.
The ramifications of the firings were extensive; SAMHSA alone faced potential layoffs affecting up to 10,000 employees, with an additional 10,000 opting for early retirement or leaving voluntarily. Throughout the administration’s push for efficiency, Nelson noted that no specific assessments had been conducted within SAMHSA to identify inefficiencies.
“The stress and confusion around this situation are overwhelming,” Nelson expressed. “We are left in a state of limbo, unsure whether to pursue new job opportunities or hope for reinstatement in roles we cherish. All we know is we must keep moving forward.”
Legal documents indicate that over 24,500 federal workers in their probationary periods were let go in mid-February and have since been brought back to comply with judicial orders. Most of these individuals have been placed on administrative leave, leaving their job security and future roles uncertain.
Michelle Bercovici, an attorney with Alden Law Group representing federal employees, criticized the administration’s actions, asserting that employee terminations must adhere to established legal frameworks. “While federal employees may be held accountable for performance, there is a legal process that needs to be followed,” she noted.
Legal battles related to these mass firings continue, with the U.S. District Judge James Bredar recently issuing a preliminary injunction that halted the firing of probationary workers in 19 states and the District of Columbia. This order expands upon a previous ruling requiring reinstatements across 20 agencies, specifically for employees in those states that filed suit. Some employees have sought assistance from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which oversees federal employee termination reviews.
Among those affected was Isabel Dziak, 30, a lead ranger at the Mendenhall Glacier Visitor Center in Alaska, who was laid off during these government-wide layoffs. She described losing her dream job, a role that involved not just educating thousands of visitors but also handling park safety. Dziak, who had just been promoted, expressed frustration over the abrupt nature of her termination, calling it “unfathomable.”
In February, then-special counsel Hampton Dellinger petitioned the MSPB for a 45-day pause on the terminations of around 6,000 probationary employees at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which includes the Forest Service where Dziak worked. The MSPB granted this request, allowing for the reinstatement of affected employees.
The reasoning provided by Dellinger highlighted potential violations of federal personnel laws during the termination process. The status of the acting special counsel remains unclear, with a request for comment not having been returned. The MSPB is currently unable to issue definitive decisions on petitions due to a lack of quorum, following the removal of a board member by the administration.
Bercovici expressed concern about the integrity of the civil service system amidst these developments. While the administration contends that it is operating within its rights to manage workforce dynamics, it faces backlash as the cases escalate to higher judicial levels.
A senior official from the administration attributed the ongoing turmoil to the courts, labeling judges as “activist” for their roles in reinstating these employees. Claims were also made that many affected workers have already transitioned to private sector jobs. At the USDA, some employees received a “second and final” deferred resignation offer, providing them with an opportunity to secure their career trajectories before changes incited by the ongoing administrative restructuring.
After much deliberation over the new offer, Dziak opted to accept, awaiting agency approval. Meanwhile, she acknowledged receiving initial back pay as mandated by the MSPB, but remains cautious about potential job security in the future.
Dziak’s primary concern involves maintaining her health insurance and navigating the potential impacts of her resignation on her coverage. “This situation is particularly challenging, especially when it comes to securing health benefits,” she admitted, adding her moral dilemma of being “bought out” from a position she was passionate about.
The atmosphere among her peers remains tense, with many expressing apprehensions about their future. Another impacted employee, Alex, a National Park Service worker in New York City, described his experience of receiving a termination notice despite a strong performance review. Faced with uncertainty, he is actively seeking new job opportunities, reflecting a sentiment of anxiety shared among his colleagues.
As these legal proceedings unfold, the fate of these workers and the stability of the federal workforce remain precariously balanced against the backdrop of administrative policy efforts to reshape government operations.
Source
www.cbsnews.com