She got an ultimatum. Her non-DEIA colleagues allegedly got a better deal
A federal DEIA officer fired under President Trump's executive order lost all four legal challenges to her termination in court.
On March 11, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed all four claims brought by Neonu Jewell, the former Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer of the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
Jewell joined DFC in December 2022. In addition to leading the agency's diversity and inclusion efforts, she took on the role of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Director after the previous officeholder resigned. Her position description covered DFC's EEO program, its Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) program, and government-wide equity policy.
That work became the basis for her removal.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." The next day, the Office of Personnel Management directed agency heads to place employees of DEIA offices on administrative leave while each agency took steps to close and end all DEIA initiatives, offices, and programs.
On January 22, 2025, according to court filings, Jewell and her deputy director of DEIA were placed on paid leave. The rest of her team – whose titles referenced only EEO duties – were not.
On January 28, 2025, DFC's Chief Human Capital Officer allegedly gave Jewell two options: resign immediately or be terminated on February 22, 2025. She was ultimately let go without the reduction-in-force severance pay contained in her contract. She also alleged that other non-DEIA Administratively Determined DFC employees were offered a deferred resignation option she was not given.
With no access to the Merit Systems Protection Board – the standard appeals body for federal employees – Jewell went directly to federal court. She argued her termination was arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act, violated her free speech rights, stripped her of due process, and denied her equal protection of the laws.
The court rejected each argument.
On the APA claim, the court ruled that federal employment law blocks employees like Jewell from seeking review under the APA, even when they have no other statutory avenue. The court cited longstanding precedent in the D.C. Circuit that Congress deliberately excluded certain employees from those protections.
On the free speech claim, the court found that Jewell did not point to any speech she made as a private citizen. Her complaint lacked any factual allegations about speech or activity outside her official role – and under established case law, speech made in the course of official duties does not carry First Amendment protection.
On due process, the court noted that the executive order's characterization of DEIA programs as "wasteful," "shameful," and "divisive" was directed at programs broadly, not at Jewell personally. She did not allege that anyone publicly identified her or damaged her individual reputation. She also did not claim she had been turned down for another job as a result of the stigma.
On equal protection, the court found her comparison to other DFC employees too vague. And even if it were not, the court said there was a rational basis for treating her differently: she ran the very program the President ordered shut down.
All claims were dismissed without prejudice by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich.
For HR professionals watching how the federal DEIA dismantling plays out in court, this case offers a straightforward takeaway. Employees in positions directly tied to programs eliminated by executive directive face steep legal hurdles – particularly when their roles are classified outside standard civil service protections and their claims rely on broad policy statements rather than specific, personal harm.
