RFK Jr. admitted agency knew it would fire the wrong people but proceeded anyway
A federal court refused to throw out claims that 10,000 federal workers lost their jobs based on flawed data officials knew was wrong.
The January 22 decision could become a watershed moment for how organizations handle mass layoffs. A federal judge in Washington allowed a class action lawsuit to move forward against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), rejecting government arguments that the case should be dismissed before any evidence could be gathered.
The lawsuit stems from an April 1 reduction in force that swept through HHS. Seven former employees claim they were among roughly 10,000 workers terminated based on personnel records riddled with errors, particularly around performance ratings. What makes the case unusual is not just the scale but what the workers say happened next.
The complaint quotes HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly acknowledging the problem. "Personnel that should not have been cut, were cut," he reportedly said in early April. "We're reinstating them. And that was always the plan." He went on to explain that the agency expected to conduct 80 percent cuts knowing that 20 percent would need reinstatement because of mistakes.
In another interview days later, according to the complaint, Kennedy said the agency could not slow down to fix errors because doing so "takes too long and you lose political momentum." There would be "casualties," he added.
The workers paint a troubling picture of what can go wrong when speed overtakes accuracy in workforce decisions. All seven claim their termination notices showed performance ratings lower than what they actually received. Some say they were rated as poor performers despite receiving awards and commendations.
The alleged consequences went beyond job loss. One plaintiff, 68 years old, was reportedly let go just shy of five years of federal service. Her retirement benefits never vested. Two others say they lost retirement benefits that would have kicked in just months after their terminations. Another claims to have lost the chance for student loan forgiveness through a public service program.
The errors allegedly extended beyond individual performance ratings to competitive areas, which determine which employees compete against each other during layoffs, and competitive levels, which group similar positions together. Performance ratings matter in federal reductions because they form one of four factors used to rank employees for retention.
The government moved to shut down the case, arguing that federal employment disputes belong in a different forum: the Merit Systems Protection Board, an administrative body that handles personnel matters under the Civil Service Reform Act. From there, appeals go to a specialized federal court.
But District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell was not persuaded. She pointed to decades of precedent holding that workers can sue in regular federal court when they claim inaccurate records caused them harm under the Privacy Act of 1974. That law requires federal agencies to maintain personnel files with the accuracy needed to ensure fair treatment in employment decisions.
The judge also rejected arguments that the workers failed to plausibly allege their terminations were actually caused by bad data or that officials acted intentionally. She noted that the complaint described officials repeatedly emphasizing performance as a key factor in deciding who would be cut. President Trump posted on social media in early March about keeping "the best and most productive people." Internal directives told agencies to prioritize removing underperforming employees and to send lists of workers with less than fully successful ratings.
The complaint also details extensive coordination between HHS and other agencies including the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, led by Elon Musk. These agencies allegedly requested and reviewed employee data in the weeks leading up to the April cuts.
Judge Howell found it premature to dismiss claims that officials acted intentionally or willfully. The standard requires showing that someone committed a violation without grounds for believing it lawful or by flagrantly disregarding employee rights. Taking the complaint's allegations as true, which courts must do at this early stage, the judge said the workers had cleared that bar for now.
The government also argued that post-termination statements from HHS saying performance ratings were not actually a factor should end the case. The judge disagreed, noting that courts cannot resolve factual disputes or choose between competing versions of events when deciding whether to dismiss a case at the outset.
The decision sends the case into discovery, where both sides can gather evidence about what actually happened. The workers are seeking to represent a class of everyone at HHS who received termination notices on April 1 containing information inconsistent with official records.
For HR professionals, the case offers a stark reminder of what can happen when data quality takes a back seat to organizational urgency. Federal agencies face special requirements under the Privacy Act, including rules about computer matching programs that compare different databases. Before taking action based on such comparisons, agencies must independently verify accuracy and give people a chance to dispute findings.
The allegations suggest those safeguards were ignored or bypassed. Whether the workers can ultimately prove their claims remains to be seen. Discovery will reveal what evidence exists. But the court has made clear they will get their chance to try.
