Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Lawsuit by former DOJ employees alleges termination without cause, retaliation, (Jul 28, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Gordon previously prosecuted more than three dozen defendants involved in the January 6 insurrection.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Michael Gordon and two other former Department of Justice (DOJ) officials have filed suit against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the DOJ, and the U.S. government, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Fifth Amendment and seeking declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus. Gordon previously worked on the prosecution of January 6th defendants, indicating that the terminations were in retaliation for prosecutions perceived as politically affiliated, the complaint alleges.

Gordon firing. On June 27, 2025, a one-page memorandum signed by Bondi purported to remove Gordon from his position in the federal service effective immediately. According to the complaint, the memorandum did not assert any justification for his firing, other than that his removal was “[p]ursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States.” At the time of his termination, Gordon was counsel of record in 17 cases for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida (USAO-MDFL)—including a case against two individuals accused of stealing more than $100 million from a medical trust fund intended to help individuals with disabilities, injured workers, and retirees—had 20 ongoing investigations, and was slated to have at least six trials between July and September 2025. Two days before his termination, Gordon received a rating of “Outstanding,” the highest rating available, on his mid-year DOJ performance review.

Hartman, Tirrell firings. On July 7, 2025, Patricia Hartman received a one-page memorandum purporting to remove her from her position of Supervisory Public Affairs Specialist with the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the District of Columbia. Additionally, on July 11, 2025, Joseph Tirrell received a similar one-page memorandum purporting to remove him from his position of director in the Departmental Ethics Office. Neither memorandum provided any justification for termination other than stating that the removals were “[p]ursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States.”

As a member of the Civil and Senior Executive Services (SES), Tirrell was entitled to procedural and substantive due process before his termination and removal, the complaint argues. Grounds for dismissing members of the SES are specified and limited by statute and are limited to misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or to accompany a position in a transfer of function. Tirrell’s termination memorandum did not cite any of these grounds, and none are applicable to him, the complaint states. Further, the complaint states that the defendants did not comply with the procedures that must be followed before terminating a member of the SES. Finally, the complaint argues that, as a veteran of the U.S. Navy, Tirrell is afforded additional safeguards under the Prohibited Personnel Practices, including the prohibition on knowingly taking, recommending, or approving any personnel action “if the taking of such action would violate a veterans’ preference requirement.” This prohibits federal employees or agencies with the authority to make personnel decisions from discriminating against veterans in a way that violates the rules governing veterans’ preferences—a system that gives veterans and eligible family members advantages in federal personnel actions, such as reductions in force or termination.

Causes of action. The complaint alleges violation of the APA against Bondi and the DOJ for implementing a final agency decision “not in accordance with the law,” “contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity,” and “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” Further, the complaint alleges that Bondi and the DOJ had no lawful authority to terminate the plaintiffs from federal service without adhering to the statutory protections afforded to each; thus, the terminations were ultra vires and without legal force or effect. Against all defendants, the complaint alleges violation of the Fifth Amendment for deprivation of their property interests in employment and for deprivation of liberty without due process. The complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus commanding that the defendants return the former employees to their respective offices.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-02409.

News: LitigationNewsTrends AgencyNews PublicEmployees Retaliation