Filed Date: March 18, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges a 2025 reduction in force at the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”), alleging that federal agencies and Department of Government Efficiency ("DOGE") officials orchestrated the removal of older employees and replaced them with younger workers in violation of federal employment laws.
More than 170 current and former USAID foreign service officers and other employees, all over age 40, filed a lawsuit against USAID, the United States State Department, the United States Office of Management and Budget, the United States Office of Personnel Management, and the United States DOGE Services on March 18, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants conducted a pretextual reduction in force at USAID in 2025, terminating older employees without individualized performance assessment while simultaneously promoting a public campaign emphasizing that young officials were replacing "older legacy employees". Per the complaint, DOGE officials, many in their twenties and thirties, oversaw the terminations while promoting ageist messaging about injecting "young blood" into the federal workforce. The plaintiffs began being placed on involuntary administrative leave on February 23, 2025, and many were subsequently terminated between July and September 2025. After terminating the employees under the guise that their positions were being eliminated, defendants allegedly began rehiring younger workers through the State Department for the same or similar functions. Plaintiffs brought claims alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Older Worker Benefits Protection Act, the Administrative Leave Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, back pay, front pay, benefits, attorneys' fees, and other remedies. The case was assigned to District Judge Rudolph Contreras.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Benjamin Glicksman (6/10/2026)
Jinan Abufarha (3/21/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72513309/parties/bradley-v-united-states-agency-for-international-development/
Contreras, Rudolph (District of Columbia)
Byrnes, Kevin Edward (District of Columbia)
Brown, Allison Ilene (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72513309/bradley-v-united-states-agency-for-international-development/
Last updated June 12, 2026, 3:40 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 18, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
174 current and former USAID employees, all over age 40
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
United States Agency for International Development
United States Department of State
United States DOGE Services
United States Office of Management and Budget
United States Office of Personnel Management
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Leave Act, 5 U.S.C. § 6329a
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:26-cv-00950
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discrimination Basis:
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority:
DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency)
Case Summary of Bradley v. United States Agency for International Development, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/47944/ (last updated 3/21/2026).