Filed Date: June 30, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the Trump administration’s mass termination of federal probationary employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), alleging violations of the Privacy Act. On June 30, 2025, four former NOAA employees—Arianna Goodman, Sarah Scott, Christine Buckel, and Jennifer Raulin—filed this putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against high-level officials and agencies including Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Plaintiffs were represented by the Civil Service Law Center LLP.
The case was assigned to Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby.
According to the complaint, following President Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, OPM issued guidance directing agencies to compile lists of all employees in probationary status and assess whether to retain or terminate them. Plaintiffs alleged that these directives resulted in a sweeping, top-down termination campaign targeting hundreds of NOAA probationary employees without individualized review and in contradiction to their personnel records. On February 27, 2025, all four plaintiffs were terminated by identical boilerplate emails citing inadequate “ability, knowledge, and/or skills” and referencing OPM’s performance-based authority. Yet plaintiffs contended they had received consistently positive feedback, performance-based pay raises, or recent promotions—all inconsistent with performance-based dismissal.
The complaint alleged that defendants knowingly relied on incomplete or inaccurate records and improperly classified the terminations as being for cause. Plaintiffs further alleged that these justifications were memorialized in SF-50 separation forms, unemployment benefit denials, and health insurance disputes, compounding their harm. They cited post-termination documentation that retroactively coded the firings under 5 C.F.R. § 315.804, which governs performance-based probationary removals.
The plaintiffs brought three claims under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a: (1) failure to maintain accurate, relevant, timely, and complete records in connection with adverse employment decisions; (2) unlawful dissemination of inaccurate records; and (3) request for declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. They sought actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and class-wide declaratory relief on behalf of an estimated class of 600 to 900 former NOAA probationary employees terminated around February 27, 2025.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Brian Chen (7/17/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70674081/parties/goodman-v-lutnick/
Samuels, Jessica Merry (Maryland)
Goldmeier, Melissa E (Maryland)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70674081/goodman-v-lutnick/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 1:16 p.m.
State / Territory: Maryland
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Appointments/Civil Service)
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 30, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Former NOAA probationary employees.
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
U.S. Department of Commerce, Federal
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Federal
U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, Federal
U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Federal
Office of Management and Budget, Federal
Howard Lutnick as Secretary of Commerce, Federal
Amy Gleason as DOGE Administrator, Federal
Charles Ezell as Acting Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Federal
Russell Vought as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: