Employment Law Expert Ty Hyderally’s Thoughts on Landmark Federal Reinstatement Orders
The EEOC’s Evolving Stance on DEI – Ty Hyderally’s Perspective
March 5, 2025
Recent rulings by federal judges in California and Maryland have ordered the reinstatement of over 24,000 federal employees terminated as part of a controversial workforce reduction.
My name is Ty Hyderally, I’m a leading employment attorney with over 25 years of experience defending worker rights. As such, I wanted to share my thoughts and perspective on these significant decisions.
These rulings establish important precedents about mass terminations and probationary employee protections. They impact government agencies and private employers nationwide. My goal here is to help you understand the legal boundaries that even the federal government must respect.
The Mass Federal Terminations and Their Challenges
In early 2025, the Trump administration initiated a series of terminations affecting over 24,000 probationary federal employees across more than a dozen agencies. The administration’s stated goal was to streamline federal operations and reduce costs. But as soon as these terminations began, legal challenges followed.
Unions, nonprofit organizations, and many state governments brought lawsuits. These lawsuits argued that the administration had skipped over key legal processes. They claimed the terminations lacked enough justification, ignored procedural safeguards, and violated laws requiring advance notice to the states. This controversy demonstrates how skipping procedure—even in the name of efficiency—can lead to litigation.
Judicial Responses to Federal Employee Wrongful Terminations
Two federal judges—one in Maryland and one in California—delivered significant rulings that challenged the mass firings’ legal basis. Judge James Bredar in Maryland determined that 18 agencies failed to follow federal regulations governing mass layoffs. This included the need to notify affected states at least 60 days in advance. He uses the sheer scale of the terminations as evidence these were not performance-based decisions, as the administration claims. That’s a crucial distinction for employers and employees: mass action must meet a higher standard.
Meanwhile, in California, Judge William Alsup focused on whether the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) actually had the authority to issue such sweeping orders. His ruling found that OPM, and its acting director, lacked the legal authority to direct mass firings across agencies. What stood out was the judge’s emphasis on discrepancies. Employees who had recent positive performance evaluations were being terminated for performance issues. Alsup also highlighted the government’s use of templated dismissal emails, suggesting this lacked the individualized review that due process demands. For any employer relying on automated or bulk processes to terminate staff, this ruling should prompt serious review.
Probationary Federal Employees
Most of the workers affected by the terminations were probationary employees. These individuals were recently hired or promoted and still within their first year on the job. They have less protections than permanent federal workers, so they’re often seen as easier to dismiss.
But this case raises a vital point: while probationary status may limit appeal rights, it does not end the need for fair process. If you’re a probationary worker or manage teams that include them, understand the difference between lawful discretion and unlawful circumvention of rights. Agencies involved included the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Defense, Agriculture, and Treasury, among others.
Core Legal Issues in Federal Employment Reinstatement Cases
Several legal questions lie at the heart of these rulings. First is the matter of due process. The courts expressed concern that the mass firings failed to meet basic procedural standards. Employees need a chance to respond and proper notice. From an administrative law perspective, this is a reminder that fairness and transparency must govern these decisions. I’ve advised clients many times on the importance of due process. Even in complex reductions in force, each employee deserves fair treatment.
Second, there’s the question of authority. Judge Alsup’s decision questions whether the executive branch overstepped its bounds by directing agencies to terminate staff en masse. This speaks to the broader issue of separation of powers and how administrative authority must still adhere to law. In my experience, disputes over authority often arise in the context of large organizations. This is why clear guidelines are necessary.
Finally, the use of performance-based justifications came under scrutiny. Both judges noted that employees were being let go under the guise of poor performance, even when their records told a different story. This approach could create a dangerous precedent where performance claims protect questionable decisions. Employers should take note: if you’re terminating staff for cause, it’s not enough to claim poor performance. You must be able to provide clear, fair proof. I’ve seen cases where employers have faced significant liability for not having proper documentation to back up performance-related terminations.
Legal Guidance for Employers Following Reinstatement Orders
These rulings are a clear sign that HR practices about probationary workers need to be reviewed and potentially overhauled. It’s not enough to assume that because these employees lack full civil service protections, they can be terminated without procedural checks. If your agency is acting on guidance from a central authority like OPM, you still need to apply agency-specific discretion and follow existing employment law.
For private-sector employers, the legal lesson still applies. I often explain that while this case directly involves federal workers, it serves as a reminder that terminations, even of at-will or probationary employees, can trigger liability. If conducted en masse or without procedural fairness, they need to meet a higher level of scrutiny.
For example, I recently represented a group of employees in a class action suit where a company implemented mass layoffs. They used a generic form letter that didn’t provide specific reasons or offer employees an opportunity to respond. This resulted in a costly settlement for the company. You should be mindful of potential legal challenges, even in situations where employment is not guaranteed.
All employers—public or private—should use this moment to audit their termination processes. Make sure your documentation is solid, your justifications are specific, and your procedures align with law and policy. When in doubt, take the time to review decisions at an individual level, especially in large personnel actions.
Recommended Responses for Terminated Employees Facing Reinstatement
If you were among those terminated, these rulings offer a measure of hope. Many affected employees are now being reinstated, at least temporarily, while litigation proceeds. While this doesn’t guarantee permanent employment, it does reopen doors that were abruptly closed.
Employees are also seeking relief through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which hears appeals in federal employment cases. But, that route isn’t without complications. The board itself is dealing with internal challenges, including disputes over leadership and mounting case backlogs. Given this, employees may want to explore many options—including seeking legal counsel from experienced employment attorneys like Ty Hyderally. These attorneys help them understand which paths to reinstatement are most viable.
One of the broader takeaways is this: even workers with limited protections can find support through the legal system. It’s a reminder to all employees that rights exist—and they can be enforced.
Predictions on Coming Court Decisions
The Trump administration has already appealed these decisions, arguing that the president has authority over federal employment decisions. In the meantime, agencies must follow the reinstatement orders. This means putting affected employees back on payroll and reporting how they’re implementing the rulings.
While the legal process continues, agencies will have to manage a complex situation. Reinstated employees are returning to their roles, HR departments are reviewing compliance obligations, and courts are preparing to weigh in on whether the administration exceeded its legal authority. This process may take months, and its outcome could reshape how the federal government handles terminations.
For employers and employees, this legal moment is more than a bureaucratic dispute. It’s about defining the boundaries of authority, fairness, and individual rights in the workplace.
Employee Rights in Mass Termination Cases
These rulings show the importance of process, authority, and fairness in employment decisions. As Ty Hyderally, an employment lawyer with decades of experience fighting for employee rights, I want to emphasize that employers should take this opportunity to revisit internal policies. Look at your probationary employee and mass termination policies to make sure they’re in compliance with the law.
Employees, especially those in roles that feel vulnerable, should recognize that protections do exist. Courts are willing to enforce them when procedural lines are crossed. Whether you’re managing a workforce or trying to stay in one, staying informed is your first line of protection.
About the Author:
Ty Hyderally is the Owner of Hyderally & Associates, P.C., located in Montclair, New Jersey, and New York, New York. He concentrates on Employment Law and has been included in the list of Top Ten Leaders of Employment Law in Northern New Jersey. Mr. Hyderally is a former President of the National Employment Law Association (New Jersey) from 2008-2012. He received his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley Law School.
