Photo credit: www.govexec.com
Federal Judge Halts CFPB Layoffs Impacting Workforce
A federal judge has issued a temporary injunction against layoffs at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which would have affected almost 90% of its employees. This significant ruling was announced by District Judge Amy Berman Jackson during a court session, with a formal written order expected to follow.
The core of the legal dispute revolves around the Trump administration’s adherence to a circuit court order issued on April 11. This order permits reductions in force but mandates that a thorough individual assessment be conducted to evaluate whether each employee is essential to the CFPB’s statutory functions.
On the same day, an anonymous whistleblower from the CFPB’s reduction in force (RIF) team claimed that Gavin Kliger, an official from the Department of Government Efficiency, pressured staff into working long hours—reportedly 36 straight hours—to ensure that layoff notices were distributed promptly. The whistleblower alleged that Kliger was vocally critical of employees, accusing them of incompetence as they rushed to meet the enforced timeline.
Kliger, a recent college graduate now at the center of scrutiny, has previously garnered attention for allegedly amplifying extremist views online, according to Reuters.
The same anonymous source claimed they have been sidelined from RIF team meetings following their courtroom testimony and reported that team members were instructed to bypass the required individual assessments. This lack of adherence raises questions about the integrity of the RIF process.
In response to the unfolding situation, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) submitted a request for the Trump administration to demonstrate compliance with the court’s stipulations regarding layoffs. The NTEU criticized the abrupt nature of the proposed staffing cuts, highlighting the potential disruption to the CFPB’s ability to carry out its statutory responsibilities. They argued that such drastic measures, implemented in less than 24 hours and without adequate notice, would fundamentally interfere with the bureau’s functions. Additionally, they asserted the improbability of the defendants fulfilling their legal obligation to assess each employee’s role adequately within the limited timeframe since the appellate court’s ruling.
Source
www.govexec.com