Six former employees of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have filed a First Amendment challenge against their firings, which occurred earlier this year after they criticized the Trump administration’s environmental policies. This legal action was initiated on Wednesday, as the employees contended that their dismissals were retaliatory actions for exercising their rights to free speech.
The six individuals are part of a larger group of 160 EPA workers who were terminated shortly after signing a “declaration of dissent” in June. They specifically targeted EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, accusing him of “recklessly undermining” the agency’s mission and disregarding scientific consensus to favor polluters. In their claim before the US Merit Systems Protection Board, the former employees argue that their terminations violate their rights under the First Amendment and assert that they were treated more harshly than others who signed the letter, many of whom received only temporary suspensions.
According to the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the terminated workers had notable professional histories within the federal service. For instance, John Darling, a senior research biologist, dedicated over two decades to the EPA, focusing on protecting endangered aquatic species. Tom Luben, with over 18 years at the agency, specialized in environmental epidemiology, investigating the impacts of air pollution on pregnancy complications. Another terminated employee, Missy Haniewicz, worked for a decade on hazardous waste cleanup across more than 20 sites in Utah.
The termination notices received by these employees indicated they were dismissed for “conduct unbecoming of a federal employee.” Despite acknowledging their years of service and commendable performance ratings, the notices stated these accolades were outweighed by the “serious nature of your misconduct.” The documents emphasized that the agency cannot tolerate actions that undermine its operations and mission.
PEER’s legal team contends that the employees’ firings breach the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which protects federal employees from arbitrary dismissals and political coercion. This act also safeguards whistleblowers who disclose information regarding potential violations of law or public health risks. Joanna Citron Day, general counsel for PEER, noted, “Federal employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern in their personal capacities, even when they do so in dissent.”
The broader context of this legal challenge reflects a troubling trend during the Trump administration, which has reportedly laid off approximately 300,000 federal civil servants, with some dismissals appearing retaliatory in nature. For instance, 14 employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) were recently placed back on administrative leave after signing a letter of dissent regarding budget cuts, warning these cuts could lead to failures similar to those witnessed after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
In a related political landscape, Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina has expressed frustration with the treatment of women under House Speaker Mike Johnson. Reports suggest she is considering resigning early from her position, indicating a significant level of discontent within the Republican ranks.
As the legal proceedings unfold, PEER released a statement asserting, “Truth is not a fireable offense.” The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for federal employees and their rights to express dissent without fear of retaliation. The judicial system’s handling of these terminations will be closely monitored, as it speaks to the fundamental principles of free speech and the protection of whistleblowers in the United States.
