Six former employees of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have filed a legal challenge asserting that their terminations earlier this year were in violation of their First Amendment rights. This action follows their dismissal after publicly criticizing the environmental policies of the Trump administration.
The employees were part of a group of 160 who were let go shortly after signing a “declaration of dissent” in June against EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. They claimed that Zeldin was “recklessly undermining” the agency’s mission and disregarding scientific consensus to favor polluters. In their complaint submitted to the US Merit Systems Protection Board, which handles appeals from dismissed federal workers, they argue they were retaliated against for exercising their rights to free speech.
According to their legal representatives from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the six individuals received harsher penalties compared to others who signed the dissent letter, many of whom were only suspended without pay for two weeks. The dismissed employees include notable figures such as John Darling, a senior research biologist with over two decades of service focused on protecting endangered aquatic species, and Tom Luben, an expert in environmental epidemiology recognized for his extensive research on air pollution and its impact on health.
The termination notices issued to the employees, which PEER has made public, claimed the individuals were fired for “conduct unbecoming of a federal employee.” The documents acknowledged their lengthy service and commendable performance records but stated that those factors were outweighed by the seriousness of their alleged misconduct. The notices further indicated that the agency must not tolerate actions that could undermine its mission or disrupt workplace morale.
The legal team representing the former employees contends that these firings violate the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which protects federal employees from arbitrary adverse actions based on political affiliation or personal favoritism. The act also safeguards whistleblowers who disclose information regarding legal violations or threats to public health.
“Federal employees have the right to speak out on matters of public concern in their personal capacities, even when they do so in dissent,” said Joanna Citron Day, general counsel for PEER. She emphasized that the EPA’s actions not only infringe upon First Amendment rights but also jeopardize public safety by dismissing experienced employees essential to the agency’s mission.
The recent firings align with broader trends observed during the Trump administration, which reportedly laid off around 300,000 federal civil servants over the past year, with some terminations occurring in apparent retaliation for dissent. For instance, 14 employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency were briefly reinstated after signing an open letter expressing concerns over agency cuts, only to be placed back on administrative leave.
In another instance, a significant number of employees from the Department of Health and Human Services were dismissed following a call for the resignation of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who faced accusations of endangering public health.
PEER has echoed this sentiment, affirming, “Truth is not a fireable offense.” As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications of these terminations on free speech within federal agencies continue to garner attention and concern.
