Service Workers' Group Asks Court to Halt Trump Orders on Public-Sector Union Rights
The executive orders, signed last year, would make it easier for underperforming federal employees to be fired. They would also direct federal agencies to renegotiate labor contracts with unions, including SEIU, and limit how much time workers can use for union business.
December 16, 2019 at 12:56 PM
5 minute read
One of the country's largest public sector labor unions is asking the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals to halt a series of executive orders from President Donald Trump, now in effect, that it says are aimed at curbing the power of labor unions in the federal government.
The Service Employees International Union is seeking to have the Second Circuit reverse a recently issued decision that gave the go-ahead for the executive orders to continue in force.
U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Wolford of the Western District of New York rejected the union's motion for a preliminary injunction against the executive orders, writing that its lawsuit against them wasn't likely to succeed in the long term.
"Plaintiffs' additional submissions and arguments have not changed the Court's assessment of Plaintiffs' likelihood of prevailing on their procedural APA claims," Wolford wrote. "The Court continues to find that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on such claims."
Wolford also appeared, in her decision, to write that Trump had lawfully promulgated the executive orders last year, contrary to concerns from government labor unions that he was illegally infringing on their rights.
"This is not an impermissible exercise of legislative power, but a function of the President's role as head of the executive branch and his associated broad statutory authority to regulate executive branch employment policies," Wolford wrote.
The executive orders, signed last year, would make it easier for underperforming federal employees to be fired. They would also direct federal agencies to renegotiate labor contracts with unions, including SEIU, and limit how much time workers can use for union business.
Wolford had previously denied a temporary restraining order sought by the union against Trump's executive orders in October. In that decision, she'd written it was unlikely that unions would be immediately harmed by the orders going into effect.
Wolford had predicted a slow implementation of the orders. But SEIU, in a letter to the court in November, said the federal government was already taking steps to enforce them. Officials from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs had indicated as much in a letter, they said.
Because she rejected the preliminary injunction on other grounds, Wolford said in last week's decision she didn't need to evaluate the potential harm that could come to the union.
SEIU Local 200 United president Scott Phillipson criticized the executive orders in a statement confirming the union's appeal of Wolford's decision.
"Attacking us only serves to silence the voices of doctors, nurses, police officers, buildings and other grounds workers, and others who are with patients every day and best positioned to stand up for what they need," Phillipson said. We will never stop fighting against these types of misguided attempts to weaken our union and harm our patients."
SEIU is represented in the litigation by attorneys with law firm Altshuler Berzon in San Francisco, Creighton Johnsen & Giroux in Buffalo and Mairead Connor, a solo practitioner in Syracuse.
The Second Circuit would become the second federal appellate court in the country to review the executive orders at issue after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit allowed them to take effect in early October.
That case was brought against the Trump administration by another prominent labor union: the AFL-CIO.
Their lawsuit was tossed by a federal judge, who said the labor union's concerns were outside the court's purview and should instead be brought to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, a federal, bipartisan entity that reviews such claims.
Wolford, in her decision from October denying SEIU's request for a temporary restraining order, had come to the same conclusion. Her position remained the same in her decision last week denying the preliminary injunction.
The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, a target of SEIU's lawsuit, declined to comment on the appeal.
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 AllThe Lawyers Picked (So Far) by Trump for Key Roles in His Second Administration
5 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1LA Judge Anne Hwang Confirmed to the Federal Bench
- 2NY Court Leaders Ask for 10% Judiciary Budget Increase
- 3ClaimClam Wanted to Boost Class Action Claims Rates. But Judges and Attorneys Fought Back
- 4'We Will Sue ... Immediately': AG Bonta Says He's Ready to Spend $25M Battling Trump
- 511 Red State AGs Demand Damages in Antitrust Lawsuit Shaming ESG Climate Investors
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