Six former employees of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have initiated a legal challenge against their recent terminations, arguing that their dismissals violated their First Amendment rights. The employees were part of a group that publicly criticized the Trump administration’s environmental policies, leading to their firings shortly after they signed a declaration of dissent in June 2023.
These six individuals were among 160 employees let go in what has been described as a retaliatory measure. They claimed that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin had been “recklessly undermining” the agency’s mission while prioritizing polluters’ interests over scientific consensus. The legal action, filed with the US Merit Systems Protection Board, contends that their terminations were not only retaliatory but also arbitrary compared to the treatment of other dissenters, many of whom were suspended without pay rather than fired.
The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the organization representing the former employees, highlighted that many of them had long and distinguished careers within the agency. For instance, John Darling, a senior research biologist, dedicated over 20 years to protecting endangered aquatic species. Similarly, Tom Luben, an environmental epidemiologist, spent over 18 years at the EPA studying the effects of air pollution on pregnancy, earning 14 National Honor Awards for his contributions. Another former employee, Missy Haniewicz, was actively engaged in hazardous waste cleanup projects across Utah at the time of her dismissal.
The termination notices issued to these employees cited “conduct unbecoming of a federal employee” as the reason for their dismissals. Although the notices acknowledged their years of service and distinguished performance ratings, they ultimately claimed that these factors were outweighed by the “serious nature of your misconduct.” The notices emphasized that the agency could not tolerate actions undermining its operations and responsibilities to the public.
Legal representatives for the dismissed employees argue that their terminations breach the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which safeguards federal employees from arbitrary actions and political coercion. The Act also protects whistleblowers who expose potential violations of law or dangers to public health.
“Federal employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern in their personal capacities, even when they do so in dissent,” stated Joanna Citron Day, general counsel for PEER. She emphasized that the EPA’s actions not only undermine First Amendment protections but also jeopardize public safety by dismissing experienced staff crucial to the agency’s mission.
The broader context reveals that the Trump administration has reportedly laid off approximately 300,000 federal civil servants in recent months, with numerous terminations linked to perceived retaliation against dissent. In a recent instance, 14 employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), who had previously signed an open letter of dissent, were placed back on administrative leave following a brief reinstatement. This letter warned that budget cuts could lead to failures similar to those seen after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
In September 2023, over a thousand employees from the Department of Health and Human Services called for the resignation of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., citing risks posed to public health. Subsequently, more than a thousand employees were let go in what was termed a “Friday Night Massacre.”
Legal counsel Eden Brown Gaines, who is also representing the former EPA employees, underscored the importance of upholding democratic principles in the United States. “If America is to remain on the course of democracy and honor the principles of its Constitution, we must allow its judicial system to restore employment for those unjustly fired and our collective faith in our country,” she stated.
PEER concluded with a powerful message: “Truth is not a fireable offense.” As the case unfolds, it stands as a critical examination of the intersection between federal employment, free speech, and government accountability.
