Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Judge Rules On President Trump’s Federal Employee Buyout Offer


U.S. District Judge George O’Toole on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration’s deferred resignation offer for federal employees to move forward.

According to CNN, O’Toole ruled that federal employee unions, who brought the lawsuit on behalf of their members, are not directly impacted by the offer and lack standing. 

Per CNN:

The ruling is a major win for the Trump administration, which has struggled to successfully defend its policies in court in roughly four dozen lawsuits.

The deferred resignation offer is a key piece of the Trump administration’s effort to downsize the federal government.

Some 77,000 workers accepted the package, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday. The program closed at 7 p.m. ET Wednesday.

The offer will generally allow them to leave their jobs but be paid through the end of September – though the unions and many workers have said that the information the administration has released about the package has been conflicting and confusing.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 77,000 figure represents close to 4% of the roughly 2 million federal employees who received the incentive. However, not all may ultimately be able to take it since the administration exempted some positions after sending the offer – but the number of people in that situation is very low, Pinover said.

“That’s gonna save millions of dollars for the American taxpayer, and that’s exactly what we wanted,” Leavitt said.

WATCH:

Fox News reports:

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole of Massachusetts made the ruling in favor of the White House Wednesday evening. In his decision, he wrote that the plaintiffs in the case “are not directly impacted by the directive” and denied their case on that basis.

“[T]hey allege that the directive subjects them to upstream effects including a diversion of resources to answer members’ questions about the directive, a potential loss of membership, and possible reputational harm,” O’Toole wrote.

“The unions do not have the required direct stake in the Fork Directive, but are challenging a policy that affects others, specifically executive branch employees. This is not sufficient.”

Additionally, the judge wrote that his court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ pleaded claims,” noting similar cases where courts were found to have lacked authority.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Aggrieved employees can bring claims through the administrative process,” O’Toole said. “That the unions themselves may be foreclosed from this administrative process does not mean that adequate judicial review is lacking.”

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at 100 Percent Fed Up.

View the original article here.



 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!