USAID Employees Challenge Their Terminations Before the MSPB
On July 9, 2025, USAID employees represented by Kevin Byrnes and Kevin Carroll filed comprehensive appeals challenging their termination as unlawful, improperly motivated, and a violation of their rights. The appeal described the difficulties employees experienced and the alleged disregard for their due process rights that occurred after the Agency became subject to criticism from Elon Musk and DOGE. Citing public statements from Stephen Miller, Musk, OMB Director Russell Vought, President Trump, and various political appointees, the appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) describes a large-scale termination of federal employees based not on performance deficiencies or misconduct, but on unsubstantiated assertions regarding their perceived loyalty and concerns about the Agency’s policies.
In the process of restructuring the Agency, the appeal describes how employees were placed on paid leave, at taxpayer expense, their offices were summarily closed, and they were stripped of their assignments and dignity, often through unsigned email and text messages. It details how Agency leadership and the Administration implemented the closure of offices and headquarters and restricted employee access to worksites and computers.
Although Administration and Agency officials would describe such actions as neutral “reduction-in-force” (RIF) the federal equivalent to a reorganization, the Agency allegedly did not follow established legal protections that require the Agency to state with particularity, why the reorganization was occurring, such as a lack of work, or a Congressionally approved abolition of agency functions, and to provide competitive categories for such employees to receive placement at other offices or agencies. Instead, according to the appeal, the Agency sent inconsistent directives and messages and did not adequately assess, to determine whether certain categories of employees, including older workers, disabled employees, veterans, and minority employees, would be more adversely affected by the RIF.
The appeal also notes that virtually the entire agency was placed on paid administrative leave for months, which the appellants claim violated the 2025 amendments to the Federal Administrative Leave Act that were part of bipartisan legislation designed specifically to prohibit the abuse of such paid leave.
The appeal raises several legal claims, contending that USAID employees were terminated due to perceived political affiliations and connection with diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. The employees were also collectively accused of mismanagement. The appeal states that the employees were simply fired, without proper notice, alleging that they were themselves deficient in performance or conduct. It notes that the whole structure of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA)and its counterpart, the Foreign Service Act, was to create and support a non-partisan merit-based workforce, whose duties are to the public and the Constitution and not to the President of to a political party.
The appeal argues that the RIF was implemented as a post-hoc justification and that employees were effectively dismissed without proper cause. In this respect, it cites Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought’s statement that creating a workforce with fewer workplace protections. The appeal notes that the Agency has failed to justify the RIF or even identify who was actually responsible for actions that the appellants claim disregard statutes and rulings protecting federal workers from a system based on political affiliation.
The appeal does not pursue a class appeal or a broad request for injunctive relief. Attorney Kevin Byrnes has noted that the reason for this is grounded under the scheme of the CSRA itself, which generally requires each employee to assert their own claims. Mr. Byrnes notes that many recent Court decisions, including those of the Supreme Court, have rejected class appeals by unions and third parties.
The appeals are now pending before the Merit Systems Protection Board, which has a procedure that supports a “group appeal” where employees with similar claims facing similar actions may consolidate their efforts.
