Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Court grants injunctive relief to intelligence officers facing termination following DEI order, (Apr 2, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

The defendants were enjoined “from effectuating or implementing any decision to terminate the Plaintiffs without further Court authorization,” and were required to provide the employees with an appeal if requested and consider them for reassignment.

Nearly 20 nonpartisan intelligence officers, who were serving in temporary assignments related to DEIA within the Intelligence Community at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) implementing federal civil rights laws, were placed on administrative leave on January 22, 2025, “apparently only because of their temporary assignments to personnel functions involving DEIA.”

Lawsuit filed, stay granted and vacated. Afraid they were about to lose their jobs, they filed suit, alleging that ODNI, CIA, and their respective directors violated the Administrative Leave Act by placing them on administrative leave for more than 10 workdays in the absence of any individual accusation of misconduct. Citing their imminent terminations, they also alleged that the defendants’ actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and their First and Fifth Amendment rights.

They alleged that they are “being fired because of their assumed beliefs about a domestic political issue, and losing their property interest in their employment without due process of law.” While the court initially entered an administrative stay in response to the employees’ motion for a temporary restraining order, it later vacated that stay and the lawsuit continued.

Renewed injunction motion. Last week, the employees filed a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction order in which they argue that, while the court had previously ruled their claim for reputation injury was not yet ripe, now that they have invoked their right under CIA regulations to the review of their terminations and the CIA has taken the position that no such right of review exists, the court now can enter relief.

The defendants opposed the motion. They argue that the court had already acknowledged they might possess cognizable Fifth Amendment due process claims, which they contend are “based on a lack of due process from (1) reputational injury suffered from defamatory presidential statements about their termination, and (2) a lack of post-termination consideration for reassignment to positions for which they are qualified.”

Granted in part. In a brief order, the district court granted, in part, the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court ordered that the defendants, and any of their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, as well as other persons who are acting in concert with them are enjoined from “effectuating or implementing any decision to terminate the Plaintiffs without further Court authorization.” The court adds that, “[t]o the extent that any such decision to terminate any Plaintiff is submitted to the Court for approval, the Court will assess the extent to which any such Plaintiff has received the appeal and consideration for reassignment he or she was entitled to receive as set forth on the record during the hearing; and Plaintiffs shall continue to remain on administrative leave with pay and benefits, or be otherwise reinstated, pending further Court order[.]”

Must provide appeal. The court also ordered that the defendants provide the employees “a requested appeal from any decision to terminate him or her, consistent with the steps set forth in CIA Regulation 4-16, including to permit Plaintiffs to submit ‘written comments’ explaining why they should not be terminated, to provide Plaintiffs with a written notification of the Directors decision, and to provide reasonable notice of the status of any pending appeal.”

Reassignment consideration. Additionally, the court ordered that the defendants “consider any Plaintiffs' request for reassignment for open or available positions, in accordance with their qualifications and skills, without regard to the definition of a ‘competitive area’ in the January 24, 2025 OPM Memorandum, and consistent with CIA Regulation 4-16 Section II. C. 4., including an Agency-wide review of available positions that Plaintiffs may be qualified for, notwithstanding any election that a Plaintiff may have made in response to the requirement that each Plaintiff select whether to retire, resign, or be terminated[.]”

The case is No. 1:25-cv-300 (AJT/LRV).

News: LitigationNewsTrends AgencyNews WhiteHouseNews FedTracker LaborEmployment