The sweeping layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have caused chaos and stress among employees. However, recent reports suggest that these layoffs may also be illegal, raising concerns among lawyers and federal employment experts. Healthcare Dive conducted interviews with current and former HHS employees who shed light on the reduction-in-force (RIF) process and highlighted several irregularities that could potentially violate employment laws.
One major issue is the closure of entire offices within the HHS, some of which are mandated by law. Additionally, there are discrepancies in how the HHS determined which employees would be laid off, incorrect information on termination letters, and a lack of transparency with department heads and HHS unions. Legal experts agree that these factors could provide grounds for a lawsuit, and unions and employment law firms are actively reaching out to impacted employees to gather information.
A virtual town hall for HHS staff organized by Gilbert Employment Law quickly reached capacity due to the high number of attendees. Another firm, Federal Practice Group, plans to appeal the layoffs on behalf of government employees. The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents HHS workers, has filed an institutional grievance, initiating an internal complaint process that could lead to arbitration.
Two weeks after the initial RIF notices were sent out on April 1, there is still confusion surrounding how the layoffs were conducted, who was responsible for the process, and how employees were selected for termination. The HHS is cutting its staff by approximately 10,000 employees, and the process has been marked by confusion and uncertainty at all levels of the organization, including Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who admitted he was unaware of the full extent of the cuts.
In a typical government RIF, agency officials identify specific areas or offices to trim, establish competitive areas, and rank employees based on various criteria to determine who will be retained or let go. However, at the HHS, officials have opted to shut down entire offices rather than follow the traditional RIF process. This unconventional approach allows for quicker decisions but may circumvent established ranking requirements.
The legality of the HHS layoffs hinges on how competitive areas were defined and whether the process followed established guidelines. While the situation remains uncertain, the potential for legal action and appeals from affected employees and unions suggests that the fallout from these layoffs is far from over.
The recent layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have raised questions about the legality of the process. Employees in multiple offices within the NIH, CMS, and the Administration for Children and Families have received Reduction in Force (RIF) letters designating their entire office as their competitive area, leading to confusion and uncertainty among the workforce.
One employee at the NIH expressed concern that the department is not following proper procedures by separating entire competitive areas without letting go of everyone in that area. Legal experts, including Tamara Slater from Alan Lescht and Associates, believe that these actions may violate the law and could lead to legal challenges.
Despite claims from the HHS that retention registers were prepared to conduct the RIF, former employees have pointed out discrepancies in the process. Some individuals with more seniority than others who were not let go question the fairness of the selection criteria.
While the government does have some flexibility in how it implements a RIF, lawyers suggest that the HHS may be trying to circumvent regulations by defining competitive areas narrowly and laying off employees without proper ranking. This has led to calls for legal action to address potential violations of federal employment laws.
Issues with inaccurate information in termination letters and paperwork errors have further complicated the situation. Employees are advised to notify HR and appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, although challenges may arise due to staffing shortages and backlogs in processing requests.
Unions and law firms have stepped in to assist affected employees, with some exploring the possibility of a class-action lawsuit against the HHS. The leadership turmoil at the MSPB and the surge in appeals from federal employees facing termination add to the complexity of the situation.
As employees navigate the aftermath of the layoffs, legal challenges and advocacy efforts are likely to play a significant role in addressing the concerns raised by the recent RIFs at the HHS. The outcome of these actions could have far-reaching implications for federal workers and the implementation of future workforce reductions within government agencies.
Filing Class Action MSPB Appeals Against HHS RIF Notices
FPG, a legal advocacy group, is gearing up to file class action appeals on behalf of employees affected by the recent Reduction in Force (RIF) notices issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). According to D’Agostino, a representative from FPG, the RIF notices are riddled with errors, and it appears that HHS HR offices did not follow proper procedures in creating retention registers as mandated by law.
The HHS unions have also raised concerns about the handling of the RIFs, alleging that the department has violated collective bargaining agreements. The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) has taken a stand against HHS, filing an institutional grievance for failing to adhere to RIF procedures and not giving proper notice to the union as required by the contract.
The challenge against HHS may lead to a legal battle that could ultimately end up before an independent arbiter. However, President Trump’s executive order, which eliminated collective bargaining rights for federal employees, including those within HHS, could provide legal cover for the department’s actions. Unions have challenged the executive order in court, but its implications could impact the outcome of the legal proceedings.
Despite the potential legal challenges, some employees remain skeptical about the effectiveness of the appeals process. A staff member from the Food and Drug Administration expressed doubts about the administration’s willingness to adhere to court decisions, citing past instances where the Trump administration has disregarded judicial rulings.
As the situation unfolds, FPG remains committed to advocating for the rights of impacted employees and ensuring that proper procedures are followed in addressing the RIFs. Stay tuned for updates on the legal proceedings and the outcome of the class action appeals filed by FPG on behalf of HHS employees.
