Six former employees of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have filed a legal challenge against their terminations, which they claim were politically motivated. The employees, who were dismissed earlier this year, assert that their firings were in retaliation for criticizing the Trump administration’s environmental policies. This action was officially submitted to the US Merit Systems Protection Board on March 15, 2024.
The six individuals were part of a larger group of 160 employees who expressed dissent in June. They signed a declaration against EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, alleging he was “recklessly undermining” the agency’s mission and prioritizing the interests of polluters over scientific consensus. Their lawsuit cites violations of their First Amendment rights to free speech, contending that their terminations were retaliatory actions based on their political affiliations.
In their claim, the employees highlight that they received harsher consequences compared to others who also signed the dissent letter. While some were placed on unpaid suspension for two weeks, the six were outright terminated. According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a group advocating for the former employees, many had distinguished careers within federal service. For instance, John Darling, a senior research biologist, dedicated over two decades to protecting endangered aquatic species. Similarly, Tom Luben, an environmental epidemiologist, had spent 18 years at the EPA, earning 14 National Honor Awards for his work on air pollution and its effects on pregnancy. Another former employee, Missy Haniewicz, was involved in hazardous waste cleanup projects at multiple sites in Utah at the time of her dismissal.
The termination notices issued to the employees have raised questions about the agency’s motives. While the notices cite “conduct unbecoming of a federal employee,” they simultaneously acknowledge the employees’ longstanding service and commendable performance ratings. The documents argue that the employees’ actions undermined agency decisions and disrupted its operations, emphasizing the need for discipline among federal workers.
Legal representatives for the terminated employees contend that these firings contradict the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which protects federal workers from arbitrary actions and partisan retaliation. This legislation also defends whistleblowers who report suspected violations of law or public safety concerns. Joanna Citron Day, general counsel for PEER, remarked, “Federal employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern in their personal capacities, even when they do so in dissent.”
The terminations are not isolated incidents. The second Trump administration reportedly laid off around 300,000 federal civil servants over the past year, with some dismissals appearing to stem from retaliatory motives against dissent. Recently, 14 employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency were briefly reinstated only to be placed back on administrative leave for signing an open letter expressing concerns about budget cuts, which they warned could lead to failures similar to those experienced after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Moreover, following a public outcry from over a thousand employees at the Department of Health and Human Services, who called for the resignation of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over health concerns, the department faced significant staff reductions, dubbed a “Friday Night Massacre.”
In light of these developments, attorney Eden Brown Gaines, who represents the dismissed EPA employees, emphasized the importance of judicial intervention to uphold democratic principles and protect employees from unjust firings. PEER echoed this sentiment, stating, “Truth is not a fireable offense.”
The legal proceedings may have broader implications for the treatment of federal employees and the preservation of their rights to free speech within the government, particularly in times of political contention. As this case progresses, it is likely to attract significant attention regarding the intersection of employment rights and governmental accountability.
