The mass layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have caused significant stress among employees, with potential legal concerns arising. Experts in federal employment law suggest that aspects of the Reduction-in-Force (RIF) process may not adhere to standard protocols, leading to possible legal action. Employees report inconsistencies in office closures, employee selection criteria, termination notices, and transparency issues within department leadership and unions.
Legal experts believe these discrepancies could form the basis for lawsuits. Unions and employment law firms are actively gathering information from affected employees, preparing for potential appeals or class-action suits. The situation remains unclear regarding how the RIF was conducted, who is responsible, and which employees were targeted, adding to the confusion across all levels of the organization.
Procedural Concerns in the HHS RIF Process
Issues surrounding the execution of the HHS RIF raise questions about adherence to proper procedures. Reports indicate entire offices being shut down without following typical ranking protocols, leading to inconsistencies in employee selection. This approach contrasts with traditional government RIF processes, where specific areas or job types are identified for trimming.
Typically, government agencies assign scores based on seniority, veteran status, performance, and employment type to determine employee retention. However, HHS seems to have bypassed this method by closing entire offices, a strategy allowing quicker implementation but raising legal eyebrows. Some offices received mixed messages; despite being marked as competitive areas slated for separation, not all employees were let go. Employment law specialists highlight this as a potential violation, suggesting the HHS might be attempting to circumvent regulations, likely leading to legal challenges.
Potential Legal Actions and Union Involvement
Besides procedural irregularities, inaccuracies in termination letters add another layer of complexity. These errors, though not inherently illegal, can negatively affect employees' positions on retention registers or severance packages. Employees facing such issues are advised to contact HR and appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). However, challenges arise due to the reduction in HR staff and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission personnel, creating backlogs and hindering discrimination claims.
Law firms and unions are stepping in to address these grievances. Several Washington-based firms are communicating with affected employees, considering class-action lawsuits. The National Treasury Employees Union has filed an institutional grievance against HHS for violating RIF procedures and union contracts. Despite President Trump's executive order potentially undermining collective bargaining rights, unions continue their legal pursuits. While some legal experts see promise in challenging the RIF's legality, others anticipate limited impact given the administration's track record with executive power interpretations.