Mass Firings Leave Federal Employees Reeling, Performance Concerns Raise Questions
Federal employees have been shocked and devastated by a wave of firings that began last week, with many voicing particular concern over the language in their termination letters targeting their "performance."
Performance Issues Questioned
USA TODAY reviewed ten termination letters, all but one of which mentioned performance concerns. However, several probationary employees interviewed by the publication claimed they had never been informed of any performance problems. One employee had not been in their position long enough to have a performance review. Another was dismissed just a month into their job after relocating over 1,700 miles to take it. A third employee stated that their supervisor explicitly informed them that their termination was not performance-related.
Insult Added to Injury
The language regarding performance in the letters added insult to injury, according to the fired employees. They argued that it unfairly impugned their work records and could hinder their ability to obtain unemployment benefits or find new employment.
"It’s a lie, it’s simply not true," exclaimed Gavan Harmon, a dismissed U.S. Forest Service worker.
Government’s Justification
The Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has initiated an aggressive campaign to reduce the size of federal agencies. This effort included offering buyouts to nearly all federal workers and subsequently initiating mass terminations targeting probationary employees.
Federal employees believe that the performance language in the termination letters is an attempt by the government to provide legal justification for the firings. However, a labor attorney explained that the government has wide latitude to dismiss probationary employees and that the performance language may be boilerplate.
Greg Rinckey, a federal labor law practitioner, speculated that the government may be invoking performance issues to avoid categorizing the terminations as a "reduction in force," which would trigger additional legal requirements and a more time-consuming process. While the performance language is standard, probationary employees might understandably interpret it as an indication of inadequate job performance, Rinckey noted.
White House Response
When asked about the performance language in the termination letters, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields issued a statement emphasizing President Trump’s mandate to eliminate waste and abuse in the federal government. The statement did not directly address the language in the letters.
Personal Impact and Financial Concerns
Termination letters shared by employees from various federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and U.S. Forest Service, all stated that probationary employees must demonstrate how their continued employment would be in the public interest. The letters continue by indicating that the agency finds, based on performance, that the employees have not met this criterion.
The affected employees refuted these performance claims, stating that they had strong performance records. Many expressed concerns about their job loss’s financial implications and emotional toll.
Brian Gibbs, a former National Park Service ranger at Effigy Mounds National Monument, described his dismissal as the loss of his "dream job." He had been working at the site since childhood and cherished the opportunity to introduce visitors to the 2,500-year-old American Indian burial and ceremonial mounds.
Haley Robinson, a recently hired biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was devastated by her termination. She had uprooted her life to move 1,700 miles for this position, only to have it ripped away a month later.
Legal Implications
According to Rinckey, probationary employees have limited chances of success if they challenge their dismissals in court. The government is generally permitted to terminate probationary employees without providing a reason, and employees would have to prove discrimination based on protected characteristics like race or age to prevail.
Gavan Harmon expressed concern that the performance language in his termination letter could hinder his future job prospects. He emphasized his need to find work to support his family, including his newborn son.
Conclusion
The mass firings of federal employees have left many grappling with uncertainty and financial instability. The inclusion of performance concerns in termination letters has added insult to injury, impugning their work records and potentially affecting their ability to secure unemployment benefits or new employment. While the government has the authority to terminate probationary employees and may be using performance language as a legal justification, the affected employees maintain that their performance was not the reason for their dismissals.
