federal labor organization advocating for the restoration of Environmental Protection Agency employees suspended due to a written communication

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds itself in a contentious situation, with over 600 employees endorsing a "Declaration of Dissent" letter as of Friday afternoon. The letter, sent last month, criticizes the Trump administration for ignoring science, abandoning environmental justice efforts, and promoting a "culture of fear" within the agency.

In response to the letter, Administrator Lee Zeldin placed 139 of the roughly 170 named signatories on administrative leave last week, pending an investigation into their conduct. However, the union representing EPA workers, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Council 238, has asked for the immediate reinstatement of these employees.

Justin Chen, president of AFGE Council 238, states that the employees' actions in signing the letter are protected by federal law and the collective bargaining agreement. He argues that Zeldin's actions violate the employees' First Amendment rights.

Stephanie Rapp-Tully, a federal employment attorney, notes that the employees have little recourse until they are either reinstated or subjected to discipline or removal. She suggests that much of what happens next could depend on "fact-specific" issues, such as the nature of someone's position or whether the agency can prove that some employees signed the letter during work or using agency resources.

Rapp-Tully also mentions that the letter seems to be relatively work-related and discussing work-related matters. However, she notes that an argument could be made in favor of meting out discipline, but it would be an unusual escalation, as a similar letter from National Institutes of Health workers produced no such response.

Moreover, labor officials and those already on leave were exempt from the administrative leave, according to CNN. This exemption has raised questions about the legitimacy of the investigation and the administrative leave itself.

The National Science Academies have advocated for the return of the nearly 140 Environmental Protection Agency employees who had been suspended for signing the open letter. Rapp-Tully suggests that the idea of an employee being disciplined for disagreeing with a policy or management decision might not be against any rule or regulation that would warrant discipline.

As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen whether the EPA employees will be reinstated or face further disciplinary action. The outcome could set a precedent for future instances of employees expressing dissent within government agencies.