Case: Doe v. Collins

1:25-cv-00760 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Filed Date: March 14, 2025

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case challenged the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) termination of 12 civil servants at the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Office of Equity Assurance (OEA) based on the VA's designation of OEA as a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) office and the 12 civil servants as DEIA employees. These designations and firings resulted directly from—and were carried out in purported compliance with—President Trump’s Executive Order 14151 (EO 14151) that directed the eli…

This case challenged the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) termination of 12 civil servants at the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Office of Equity Assurance (OEA) based on the VA's designation of OEA as a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) office and the 12 civil servants as DEIA employees. These designations and firings resulted directly from—and were carried out in purported compliance with—President Trump’s Executive Order 14151 (EO 14151) that directed the elimination of all DEIA-related offices and positions in the federal government. None of the 12 terminated employees were probationary employees, and none had been subject to complaints of poor performance or misconduct. (To view the Clearinghouse's collection of civil service-related legal challenges to actions by the second Trump administration, click here.) 

On March 14, 2025, the 12 terminated employees filed this lawsuit under pseudonyms in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Represented by the Law Office of David A. Branch & Associates, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant’s conduct violated: the APA because it was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion; the First Amendment because the terminations were based on the plaintiffs' perceived viewpoints about DEIA; Due Process under the Fifth Amendment because they were denied notice and a chance to challenge their designations and terminations; and Equal Protection because they were treated differently than employees in the OEA’s VA companion Office of Health Equity, on the basis of their perceived beliefs.

For relief, the plaintiffs asked the court to find that the defendant’s actions were unlawful; issue declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the defendant from designating OEA as a DEIA office and the plaintiffs as DEIA employees; order the defendant to recant the designations to the VA and the public; and pay attorneys’ fees. 

On March 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a sealed motion to proceed anonymously, which the court granted in part and denied in part, subject to any future decision of the judge eventually assigned to the case.

On March 27, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a notice of related case, alleging that their case was related to Perkins Coie LLP v U.S. Department of Justice (1:25-cv-00716). The District Judge in the Perkins case, Beryl A. Howell, denied relatedness on April 18. Thus, this case was reassigned to District Judge Rudolph Contreras the same day.   

On April 18, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO); after briefing and a hearing, Judge Contreras denied the motion on May 2, 2025, "for the reasons stated on the record."  However, on July 17, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. 

This case is closed. 

Summary Authors

Sylvia Al-Mateen (4/24/2025)

Clearinghouse (5/17/2025)

Jeremiah Price (7/21/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69740178/parties/doe-v-collins/


Judge(s)

Contreras, Rudolph (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Branch, David A. (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Horowitz, Brenda A. (District of Columbia)

Littman, M. Jared (District of Columbia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

1:25-cv-00760

Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

March 14, 2025

March 14, 2025

Complaint
3

1:25-cv-00760

Notice of Related Case

March 27, 2025

March 27, 2025

Other
5-1

1:25-cv-00760

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion For A Temporary Restraining Order

April 18, 2025

April 18, 2025

Pleading / Motion / Brief
12

1:25-cv-00760

Order

May 2, 2025

May 2, 2025

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69740178/doe-v-collins/

Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 11:28 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ADCDC-11543818) filed by Jane Doe, et al.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons)(Branch, David) (Entered: 03/14/2025)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

2 Summons

View on PACER

3 Summons

View on PACER

4 Summons

View on PACER

March 14, 2025

March 14, 2025

Clearinghouse
2

SEALED MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym filed by Jane Doe, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Branch, David) (Entered: 03/14/2025)

March 14, 2025

March 14, 2025

PACER
3

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by All Plaintiffs. Case related to Case No. 1:25-cv-00716. (Branch, David) (Entered: 03/27/2025)

March 27, 2025

March 27, 2025

Clearinghouse
4

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER: The Court ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs' 2 Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, subject to any further consideration by the United States District Judge to whom this case is randomly assigned; 2) All parties shall use the pseudonyms listed in the Complaint in all documents filed in this action; and 3) Within 14 days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file: (i) a pseudonymous version of their 2 Motion and any attachments on the public docket; and (ii) a Notice containing their real names and addresses, filed under seal. Signed by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on April 9, 2025. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 04/09/2025)

April 9, 2025

April 9, 2025

RECAP
5

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by JANE DOE 1-6. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(Branch, David) (Entered: 04/18/2025)

1 Memorandum in Support

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit

View on PACER

3 Exhibit

View on PACER

4 Exhibit

View on PACER

5 Exhibit

View on PACER

6 Exhibit

View on PACER

7 Exhibit

View on PACER

8 Exhibit

View on PACER

9 Exhibit

View on PACER

10 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

April 18, 2025

April 18, 2025

PACER
6

SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, U.S. Attorney, and U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Notice and Consent) (zjd) (Entered: 04/18/2025)

April 18, 2025

April 18, 2025

PACER

Case Assigned/Reassigned

April 18, 2025

April 18, 2025

PACER

.Order

April 18, 2025

April 18, 2025

PACER

Case Assigned to Judge Beryl A. Howell. (zjd)

April 18, 2025

April 18, 2025

PACER

MINUTE ORDER (paperless), upon consideration of plaintiffs' 1 Complaint in this case, which was directly, rather than randomly assigned to the undersigned Judge, this Court concludes that plaintiffs' 3 Notice of Related Case ("Notice"), indicating that this case is "related" to another case in front of this Court, Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., 25-cv-716 (BAH), is erroneous, since these two cases are not related in a manner contemplated by D.D.C. LCvR 40.5(a)(3) (defining related civil cases) and 40.5(c)(1) (allowing direct assignment of "new case to the judge to whom the oldest related case is assigned").LCvR 40.5(a)(3) provides that cases may properly be deemed related when, as pertinent here, they "(ii) involve common issues of fact, or (iii) grow out of the same event or transaction..." This case and Perkins Coie do not involve common issues of fact or arise out of the same event or transaction. While both cases involve challenges to Executive Orders issued by the Trump administration, the factual similarities end there. The instant case involves a challenge, by former employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs' Veterans Benefit Administration ("VBA") Office of Equity Assurance ("OEA"), to the designation of that office as a DEIA office and the subsequent closure of that office and termination of plaintiffs' employment, pursuant to Executive Order 14151, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (Jan. 20, 2025), entitled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing," id. See generally 1 Compl. Perkins Coie, meanwhile, involves a challenge to a wholly different EO, Executive Order 14230 ("EO 14230"), 90 Fed. Reg. 11781 (Mar. 6, 2025), which targeted a specific private law firm for punitive measures based on the President's dislike of that law firm's representation of his political opponent (i.e., "Hillary Clinton"), id. § 1, and the firm's representation, sometimes pro bono, of clients seeking enforcement of voting rights (i.e., "Perkins Coie has worked with activist donors... to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws"; referring to work for what the E.O. calls "anti-democratic election changes"), id. §§ 1, 3, and rights to continue service as transgender individuals in the U.S. Military (i.e., "Perkins Coie LLP has filed lawsuits against the Trump Administration, including one designed to reduce military readiness"), see Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Addresses Risks from Perkins Coie LLP (Mar. 6, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-adresses-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/. The mere fact that Perkins Coie also involves some claims by the government about diversity issues, see id.; EO 14230 § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781, provides no basis to find these two cases, which arise from entirely separate factual circumstances, should be related. Strict adherence to the normal process of random case assignment is crucial to ensure "fair and equal distribution of cases to all judges, avoid[] public perception or appearance of favoritism in assignments, and reduce[] opportunities for judge-shopping," Tripp v. Exec. Off. of President, 196 F.R.D. 201, 202 (D.D.C. 2000), and the reasons given to justify these orders do not involve the same underlying events or facts in the way contemplated by LCvR 40.5(a)(3). Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to reassign this case randomly, pursuant to D.D.C. LCvR 40.3, since the exception provided for "related case" assignment in D.D.C. LCvR 40.5 does not apply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 18, 2025. (lcbah2)

April 18, 2025

April 18, 2025

PACER

Case Reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. Judge Beryl A. Howell is no longer assigned to the case. (zjd)

April 18, 2025

April 18, 2025

PACER
7

NOTICE of Appearance by M. Jared Littman on behalf of DOUGLAS A. COLLINS (Littman, M.) (Entered: 04/21/2025)

April 21, 2025

April 21, 2025

PACER

.Order

April 21, 2025

April 21, 2025

PACER

SCHEDULING MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the following briefing schedule shall govern further proceedings in this matter: Defendant shall file a response to 5 Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order on or before April 25, 2025; and Plaintiffs shall file a reply on or before April 27, 2025. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 04/21/2025. (lcrc3)

April 21, 2025

April 21, 2025

PACER
8

Memorandum in opposition to re 5 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by DOUGLAS A. COLLINS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Tracey Therit, # 2 Exhibit Declaration Ex. 1 (DEIA RIF Plan, Jan. 31, 2025), # 3 Exhibit Declaration Ex. 2 (VA Functional Organization Manual - Office of Equity Assurance), # 4 Exhibit Declaration Ex. 3 (Example of Administrative Leave Notice), # 5 Exhibit Declaration Ex. 4 (Example of Specific Reduction in Force Notice), # 6 Exhibit Declaration Ex. 5 (Example of Rescission Notice), # 7 Exhibit Declaration Ex. 6 (Example of Initial RIF Notice), # 8 Exhibit Declaration Ex. 7 (DEIA RIF Plan, Mar. 13, 2025), # 9 Exhibit Declaration Ex. 8 (Example of Specific RIF Notice))(Littman, M.) (Entered: 04/25/2025)

April 25, 2025

April 25, 2025

PACER
9

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by JANE DOE 1-6. (Branch, David) (Entered: 04/27/2025)

April 27, 2025

April 27, 2025

PACER
10

REPLY to opposition to motion re 5 Motion for TRO, filed by JANE DOE 1-6. (Branch, David) (Entered: 04/28/2025)

April 28, 2025

April 28, 2025

PACER

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

April 28, 2025

April 28, 2025

PACER

MINUTE ORDER granting 9 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of their motion for a temporary restraining order on or before April 28, 2025. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 04/28/2025. (lcrc3)

April 28, 2025

April 28, 2025

PACER

MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a hearing on 5 Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order on May 2, 2025 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 23A before Judge Rudolph Contreras. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 04/30/2025. (lcrc3)

April 30, 2025

April 30, 2025

PACER

.Order

April 30, 2025

April 30, 2025

PACER

Set/Reset Hearings

April 30, 2025

April 30, 2025

PACER

Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 5/2/2025 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 23A- In Person before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (tj)

April 30, 2025

April 30, 2025

PACER
11

NOTICE of Supplement to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order by DOUGLAS A. COLLINS re 8 Memorandum in Opposition,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Suppl. Ex. 1 (DRP 1.0), # 2 Exhibit Suppl. Ex. 2 (DRP 2.0), # 3 Exhibit Suppl. Ex. 3 (Job Announcements), # 4 Exhibit Suppl. Ex. 4 (DRP Participants), # 5 Exhibit Suppl. Ex. 5 (DRP 2.0 Extension))(Littman, M.) (Entered: 05/01/2025)

May 1, 2025

May 1, 2025

PACER
12

ORDER denying 5 Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 05/02/2025. (lcrc3) (Entered: 05/02/2025)

May 2, 2025

May 2, 2025

Clearinghouse

Motion Hearing

May 2, 2025

May 2, 2025

PACER

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rudolph Contreras: Motion Hearing held on 5/2/2025 re 5 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by JANE DOE 1-6 and John Doe 7-12. Oral argument heard and the motion is DENIED for reasons stated on the record. Parties to meet and propose a briefing schedule (for the court's review) on a motion for preliminary injunction during the seek of May 5, 2025. (Court Reporter: Tim Miller) (tj)

May 2, 2025

May 2, 2025

PACER
13

NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Brenda A. Gonzalez Horowitz on behalf of DOUG COLLINS Substituting for attorney Jared Littman (Gonzalez Horowitz, Brenda) (Entered: 06/27/2025)

June 27, 2025

June 27, 2025

RECAP

.Order

July 3, 2025

July 3, 2025

PACER

MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and submit a joint status report on or before July 17, 2025. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 07/03/2025. (lcrc3)

July 3, 2025

July 3, 2025

PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines

July 7, 2025

July 7, 2025

PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 7/17/2025 (tj)

July 7, 2025

July 7, 2025

PACER
14

STATUS REPORT by DOUG COLLINS. (Gonzalez Horowitz, Brenda) (Entered: 07/17/2025)

July 17, 2025

July 17, 2025

RECAP
15

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE by JANE DOE 1-6 (Branch, David) (Entered: 07/17/2025)

July 17, 2025

July 17, 2025

RECAP
16

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

July 21, 2025

July 21, 2025

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority

Speech and Religious Freedom

Special Collection(s):

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Appointments/Civil Service)

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Diversity/Equity/Inclusion/Accessibility (DEIA) and/or Antisemitism)

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 14, 2025

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

12 anonymous career civil servants who worked in the VA's Office of Equity Assurance (OEA)

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (- United States (national) -), Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Freedom of speech/association

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General/Misc.:

Discharge & termination plans

Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:

Civil Service