The U.S. Office of Personnel Management cannot force federal job applicants to profess loyalty to President Donald Trump on employment applications as a lawsuit against the practice proceeds, a federal judge ruled recently.
“Requiring federal job applicants to answer politically motivated questions goes against the very nature of the nonpartisan civil service,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, in response to the temporary stay issued Sept. 11.
AFGE, along with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the National Association of Government Employees sued the administration in November over its requirement that civil service job applicants write an essay about the president’s executive orders and policies.
“For more than a century, civil servants have been hired based on their merits, not based on allegiance to a partisan political agenda.”
Democracy Forward, Protect Democracy, and Keker, Van Nest and Peters represent the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
“For more than a century, civil servants have been hired based on their merits, not based on allegiance to a partisan political agenda,” said Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman.
The decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts “reaffirms the importance of a nonpartisan civilian workforce that serves the American people,” she said. “This ruling protects the Constitution, the civil service and the people who depend on a professional, nonpartisan federal workforce.”
The question that sparked the lawsuit was one of four added to government service applications by the Office of Personnel Management under Trump: “How would you help advance the president’s executive orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant executive orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”
David Holway
In addition to arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, the government responded that the question was not designed as “an ideological litmus test” in federal hiring.
But the lawsuit contends the question violates the Administrative Procedures Act and the First Amendment rights of job applicants who may feel pressured to respond positively.
George O’Toole
In issuing the temporary stay, District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. in Boston concluded the question could lead applicants to shape answers to avoid being considered disloyal to the president.
“The plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that Question Three is neither related to an important government interest nor narrowly tailored to promote that interest,” O’Toole wrote.
Plaintiffs also are likely to succeed in proving the question violates the APA and First Amendment and would impose real harm on people applying for jobs, O’Toole wrote.
Winning the temporary stay demonstrates that hiring in the federal workforce must not include loyalty tests, NAGE National President David Holway said. “Federal jobs are not political rewards, and public service is not conditioned on allegiance to a president. When political loyalty becomes a prerequisite for public service, it erodes public trust and weakens democracy itself.”
The decision also is a win for the communities federal workers serve, FSCME President Patrick Moran added. “These ‘loyalty questions’ are a blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers. Protecting the integrity of a nonpartisan, professional civil service is essential to the health and safety of our communities.”