Filed Date: March 10, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a challenge to the second Trump administration's mass firings of federal employees classified as "probationary." (To see the Clearinghouse's collection of civil-service-related legal challenges to actions by the second Trump administration, click here.)
On March 11, 2025, eight probationary employees previously employed by various federal agencies filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, naming the agency heads of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Commerce, and the Government Services Administration as defendants. They were represented by the Center for Employment Justice. Plaintiffs challenged the termination of their employment and brought the lawsuit on behalf of "all probationary employees of the Defendant Agencies terminated between January 20, 2025, to the present that received a termination communication stating that termination was due to poor performance, poor conduct, or performance not in the public interest, without any evidence of said poor performance, poor conduct, or performance not in the public interest." They alleged that their termination violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
On March 13, 2025, the case was assigned to District Judge Rudolph Contreras. Judge Contreras already had Schechter v. Collins before him, another case challenging the firing of a federal employee as "probationary" and for "poor performance."
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 21, 2025. It included an additional individual plaintiff, as well as the agency heads of the Navy and the Office of Personnel Management as defendants.
On March 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion, which was denied on May 8. 2025 WL 1360434. The district court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims because they have a remedy available to them per the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA)—review by the Office of Special Counsel. While the court acknowledged that its analysis could stop there, it stated that, even if the court were to consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, it would likely reject them for the following reasons: (1) the court is not convinced that Plaintiffs have a viable cause of action under the APA for Count III because of the limits on judicial review per the APA and precedent in the D.C. Circuit; (2) the court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of their “constitutional” claim in Count I because they have not pointed to any case where a court found a constitutional due process violation for defamatory speech where defendants were not the speakers; (3) Plaintiffs' "constitutional" claim in Count II effectively constitutes a claim that Defendants violated federal regulations, not the Constitution, which must be brought pursuant to the CSRA, if at all; and (4) Plaintiffs presented no argument why mandamus—a "drastic" remedy "available only in extraordinary situations"—is appropriate.
On May 5, 2025, one of the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed his claims. On June 3, 2025, four more of the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims.
On June 26, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Defendants first argued that since all plaintiffs employed by the Treasury and U.S. Navy had voluntarily dismissed their claims, those defendants should be dismissed from the case. Defendants further argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that plaintiffs did not have a judicially protectable property interest in their employment, and that the mandamus they sought was too extraordinary and unjustified a remedy. The court's ruling on that motion is pending.
On August 26, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to amend their complaint. Several plaintiffs had accepted the deferred resignation program offered by the federal government, and thus had voluntarily dismissed themselves from the case.The Court granted Plaintiffs motion on August 27, 2025.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Lacie Melasi (3/23/2025)
Matt Petrillo (6/30/2025)
Nick Martire (10/4/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69723263/parties/gober-v-collins/
Contreras, Rudolph (District of Columbia)
Keith, Pamela M. (District of Columbia)
Eckrote, Kaitlin Kerry (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69723263/gober-v-collins/
Last updated Dec. 1, 2025, 2:32 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 10, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Nine probationary employees previously employed by various federal agencies on behalf a class "of similarly situated federal probationary employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of the Treasury, Department of Commerce, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Government Services Administration."
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of the Treasury (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of Commerce (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Government Services Administration (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Navy (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00714
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: