Photo credit: www.yahoo.com

Justice Department Blocks Testimony in Key Employment Case

The Justice Department informed a federal judge that Charles Ezell, the acting director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), will not provide testimony at an upcoming hearing concerning a significant legal challenge against the federal government’s workforce reduction initiatives. The judge had previously denied a DOJ request to cancel this hearing.

According to DOJ lawyers, the withdrawal of Ezell’s declaration—a document submitted in support of the government’s stance—is intended to preclude his testimony at the scheduled hearing in San Francisco on Thursday. This declaration had previously represented the government’s only evidence in the case.

In their court filing, attorneys noted, “Since the Court’s purpose for bringing Mr. Ezell to testify was to discuss the specifics of his declaration, it is now unnecessary for him to attend the hearing because this declaration has been withdrawn.”

Ezell’s earlier declaration claimed that the OPM did not instruct other agencies to terminate probationary employees—a crucial point in a case initiated by labor unions and various parties over alleged mass firings. However, the presiding judge emphasized that for the declaration to remain valid, the plaintiffs would require the opportunity to cross-examine Ezell.

This development followed U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s refusal to acquiesce to the government’s request to cancel the hearing entirely. The judge had previously stated he would not allow such a cancellation and declined to revoke subpoenas directed at Ezell and other officials for depositions or court appearances.

Judge Alsup had mandated Ezell’s appearance at the hearing last month. In a notable turn of events, on Monday, DOJ lawyers petitioned the judge to stop the hearing altogether.

Expressing concerns, Alsup noted, “The issue lies in the fact that Acting Director Ezell submitted a sworn declaration to support the defendants’ position but now refuses to testify under cross-examination or participate in a deposition.”

This case signifies the administration’s initial explicit attempt to prevent its officials from delivering sworn testimonies. The proceedings hold considerable importance as they scrutinize the Trump administration’s efforts to enforce policies aimed at reducing the federal workforce via the central management entity. The judge previously warned that it would be unlawful for OPM to direct federal agencies to implement sweeping firings of civil servants based solely on performance evaluations.

The Justice Department argued that forcing Ezell to testify could lead to significant separation-of-powers issues, particularly at this early stage of litigation, and stated he possesses limited evidentiary relevance regarding whether his agency mandated mass firings of probationary employees.

In their court documents, the DOJ maintained, “The interests of justice, resource management, and judicial efficiency do not justify creating an inter-branch constitutional dispute by compelling testimony under the current circumstances.”

The attorneys indicated that they would consider converting a temporary restraining order issued by the judge into a preliminary injunction, thereby facilitating a more structured resolution of the matters raised in this litigation. Such a change would also make the preliminary injunction eligible for appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last month, Judge Alsup’s temporary order mandated OPM to notify specific federal agencies that it lacked the authority to command the termination of probationary employees—those who have held their positions for approximately one year or less.

The response from labor union attorneys was swift, criticizing the administration’s request made on Monday. They contended that the government created a false sense of urgency over Ezell’s potential testimony following the judge’s firm stance requiring his presence at the hearing.

“The Government cannot excuse its own delays to claim insufficient time to prepare for this hearing,” they remarked. “Furthermore, it should not be permitted to contest whether the hearing should proceed at all, especially since the Court has already deemed it essential to resolve the factual disputes introduced by the Government.”

This article has been updated with new developments.

Source
www.yahoo.com