Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—CFPB workers’ unions file letter to federal appellate court regarding emergency motion, (Apr 23, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

The unions representing laid-off CFPB workers have urged the D.C. appellate court not to grant the government’s “extraordinary request” in its emergency motion.

In the case central to the reductions in force at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the trade unions representing laid-off CFPB workers have sent their response letter to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals on April 21, urging the court not to grant the government’s “extraordinary request” in its emergency motion. The letter notes that the government neither sought a motion to stay through the proper processes, nor sought a writ of mandamus if it believed that the district court’s order violated the appellate court’s previous stay ruling (National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, Nos. 25-5091 and 25-5132 (D.C. Cir. April 21, 2025)).

The February 2025 lawsuit, filed by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), Public Citizen Litigation Group, the Communications Workers of America, and other unions against Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought and other administration officials alleges an orchestrated effort to “dismantle” the Bureau by terminating staff en masse, and seeks injunctive relief to halt any further workforce reductions. As previously reported, the federal district court on April 19 clarified an injunction pausing CFPB mass layoffs, emphasizing that it is a temporary action to preserve the status quo until a full hearing can be held. The D.C. federal district court granted the unions’ motion to clarify the court’s April 18 injunction, ruling that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s announced April 17 reduction in force (RIF) “may NOT be implemented or effectuated,” and that the Bureau is barred from cutting any employee’s access to work systems for up to 14 days absent further order or consent (see Banking and Finance Law Daily, Apr. 21, 2025).

The government sent a letter to the appellate court, highlighting two developments, the first of which was the district court’s order for the government to produce “all documents responsive to the plaintiffs’ request for production.” The government’s letter stated: “As defendants explained in their emergency motion, there is no basis under this Court’s Stay Order to allow plaintiffs or the district court to second-guess defendants’ determination that the employees subject to the reduction in force are unnecessary to the performance of defendants’ statutory duties—let alone to conduct an inquisition into the basis for that determination. Tomorrow’s noon deadline makes it imperative for this Court to act as soon as possible on defendants’ pending motion to enforce or clarify.” It also pointed out that the district court’s order was temporary and interim, and that the appellate court has inherent authority to enforce its own stay order.

The D.C. Court of Appeals has ordered the trade unions to file a response to the government’s emergency motion by April 22, with any reply by the government due on April 23.

The trade unions’ response letter notes that the government sent reduction-in-force notices to almost 90 percent of the agency just days after the appellate court’s stay order. “Faced with evidence strongly suggesting that the defendants had not undertaken any “particularized assessment” before doing so, and that effectuating this RIF would also put the agency in violation of the data-deletion and consumer response provisions of the injunction, the district court scheduled a hearing to determine whether the defendants had violated its injunction. And in the interim, it issued a temporary order briefly pausing the RIF and administrative leave to ensure preservation of the status quo—an order to which the defendants did not object,” the trade unions stated.

News: LitigationNewsTrends LaborNews PublicEmployees Layoffs Discharge RemediesDamages AgencyNews