Federal workers fired in anti-dei purification say it is because they are not white men star-news.press/wp

Federal employees in several government agencies have applied class of adulations, claiming that he illegally fired employees to delete the President Donald Trump, which banned diversity, capital and inclusion in the entire Federal Government.

The Management Board released employees associated with DEI, according to income companies, including those who were not included in the activities related to the DEI, which is only acts in training or training group.

In the appeal, in the submitted protection for the protection of merits, the independent, judicial protection for the protection of federal employees, including politically motivated pumps, and is not the Federal Court – former employees are captured by their first amendment for perceived political attitudes.

In addition, the appeal claims that anti-dei executive orders violated the title of the Law on Civic Rights disproportionately by allocating federal workers who were not white men for hostility, suspicion, interference and break.

The appeal filed American unions of civil liberties Washington, DC, private law firms and the legal organization of democracy forward. The appeal was filed in tandem with numerous accusations for discrimination in equal employment, related to Trump 20. January 20. Executive orders to abolish the Office of the Staff Heading in the Government.

“The decision on that after people for the work of DEI are no longer working to show the True Management Motion: Punishment of employees who think that they have clashed with the extremist president,” Scott Michelman, the legal director of the press.

The White House did not immediately answer the comment request.

The appeal was filed on behalf of Mahrija Stáinnak from the Staff Management Office. Other appellants include Paige Brown and C. Scott of the Department of Federal Air Administration of Ronisica Chamber. It is unclear how many people joined Class Action appeals, but dozens filed complaints, according to ACLU DC

Federal employees are asking them to return to their previous positions and compensate for salary losses and other damage.

Other federal workers who believe they were targeted or dismissed due to the observed political affiliations or discriminated against based on their gender or racing can be joined by appeal.

“The team I belong to this was put on the administrative leave was most women and majority people in color,” Sherrell Pyatt, who was on the administrative leave from his job at the Homeland Department. Plans to join the Class Action Complaints.

“Nakvahere,” she added. “I’m an educated woman, I’m a hard worker. … I think I’m an expert on my areas of work, so I know that all that could overlook the unhappiness and unhappiness of the American public.”

Stáinnak also expressed a sense of exhaust. “Illegally targeting employees throughout the government actually hurts all people living and working in this country by negative services we provide,” said Stáinnak, “said Stáinnak for almost 17 years.

Kelly M. Dermody, Partner Management on Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, said that “the assumption did that women were all races, non-binary employees,” when executive orders would spare it. “If they were the enemies of the idea of ​​this administration and that there should be reasons to get rid of them.”

“The whole approach is not just discrimination under the title Seven Law on Civil Rights, but also violations of the first principles of amendments,” Dermody said.

Behind this appeal, executive orders against DEI are also challenged in a couple of lawsuits in the Federal Court.

At the end of February, the Federal Judge in Maryland temporarily blocked that the Federal Grants and Agreements relating to the initiatives of the DEI will be overcome by claiming that the language is “discriminating viewing”.

The Federal Court of Appeals resided by the American District Judge Adam Abelson earlier this month, as the case goes through the appeal process, and three judges express concern over the scope of the judge. The two judges stated that the Trump’s executive orders did not appear independently, but they had concern about the implementation of the order.

In the special case in Washington, the National Urban League and another non-profit equipment sued Trump and the budget that orders are “explicitly in the unfair efforts that were specially created to assist them in the overcoming systems discrimination produced by those shortcomings and inequality.”

Executive orders “are made for disproportionate benefit from the people of a certain race (whites), and disproportionate to the people of another race (Blacks, autochthonous people, Latin people and asian people, and at the same time challenge the constitutionality of the order.

The Ministry of Justice examined whether the organizations had legal standing at sues and maintain Trump orders, not violating the prosecutor’s rights to freedom of speech. The judge in that case is still not to rule the prosecutor’s request.