Federal Employees Lose Early Bid to Stop Unpaid Work During Trump's Shutdown
US District Judge Richard Leon in Washington said a temporary restraining order would have caused "chaos and confusion."
January 15, 2019 at 01:30 PM
6 minute read
Updated at 3:10 p.m.
Hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be required to continue to work without pay during the government shutdown, a Washington federal judge ruled Tuesday, denying an emergency request that said the Trump administration was violating federal law by forcing employees into “involuntary servitude.”
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, overseeing three lawsuits at a hearing in Washington, refused to issue a temporary restraining order, saying such a move potentially would have brought “chaos and confusion” and put lives at risk by shuttering government functions the executive branch has deemed essential.
Leon expressed some reluctance to enter into the political fray that has left the government unfunded since Dec. 22. More than 400,000 federal employees across agencies are still working, despite not being paid during the shutdown, now the longest in the nation's history.
“It's hard not to empathize with the plaintiffs. They are not at fault,” Leon said. He continued, “Yet, the judiciary is not another source of leverage to be tangled in this struggle.”
Two unions—the National Treasury Employees Union and the Air Traffic Controllers Association—and a group of five individual federal employees sued in Washington's federal trial court alleging that forced-work without pay is violating federal law. Attorneys for the employees presented arguments that say these employees forced to work face unpaid medical bills, cannot afford child care and have no funds for essential needs as long as the government forces them to work without paychecks.
Yet, Leon concluded that said it was not the role of the court to wade into the political stalemate. He said such emergency measures were reserved for irreparable injury in “extraordinary or drastic” cases. He said issuing a temporary restraining order “would be profoundly irresponsible.”
“It would at best be chaos and confusion, at worst it would be catastrophic consequences,” Leon said.
Lawyers for the challengers asked Leon to stop the government from requiring employees report without pay, allow the employees to not show up for work without employment consequence and permit the employees to look for other work during the lapse in government appropriations.
These “excepted” employees, who are required to work during government shutdowns without pay, argued the government is violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and also provisions of the U.S. Constitution that require due process.
Central to the dispute is the Antideficiency Act, the 1870 law that sets the parameters of what happens when agencies run out of federal funding. Generally, federal officials are prohibited from working during a shutdown save for instances that involve the safety of human life or the protection of property.
The suits tee up a constitutional challenge to the life-and-property exception, saying that it conflicts with the Constitution's appropriations clause, which gives Congress the sole power to appropriate funds.
Daniel Schwei, arguing for the Justice Department, said the public interest in not granting the restraining order outweighed the harm felt by federal employees. “It would be an untenable result with a significant impact on public interest,” Schwei said.
Prisons, law enforcement agencies and other essential functions of the federal government would be halted, Schwei said. Air traffic controllers who stayed at home, unpaid, would mean limit airline traffic.
Paras Shah, assistant counsel for the National Treasury Employees Union, urged Leon in court to grant a temporary restraining order for 72 hours to put pressure on Congress to open the government and pay the employees. He acknowledged such a move would alter the status quo.
“Should they do their duty, chaos could be avoided,” Shah told the judge.
Leon told Shah that the court must take into consideration the public harm that granting a request that would eliminate essential workers as an exception to government shutdowns. He said that it's not the role of judiciary to appropriate funds. He also stressed several times that President Donald Trump and Congress have said the employees who are working, and the furloughed employees will be made whole.
He also said the executive branch should make decisions about which federal employees are deemed “essential,” not the courts.
Michael Kator of Washington's Kator, Parks, Weiser & Harris, who represented individual plaintiffs at Tuesday's hearing, asked the court to give employees the option to work or stay home to find alternate work until the shutdown is lifted.
Kator said the government forced these workers into “involuntary servitude” in violation of the Constitution.
The Justice Department later disputed that workers were not able to work outside of the daily jobs, and could not cite a regulation that did not allow federal workers to take extra work, such as driving for Uber or Lyft.
Molly Elkin, who advocated for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said controllers play an essential role and are already understaffed. She cited instances when Leon granted housing assistance pay and veteran pay to citizens in other instances in emergency situations. Leon said those circumstances were different.
“A (temporary restraining order) would have incredible impact on the nation,” Leon said. “A chaotic impact.”
Leon set a hearing for a preliminary injunction for Jan. 31.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCan Law Firms Avoid Landing on 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readMeet the Pacific Northwest Judges Who Rejected the Kroger-Albertsons Supermarket Merger
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250