A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has denied a request from five former federal employees, who claim they were improperly terminated during a “mass firing” in February 2025, to proceed with their lawsuit anonymously.
The plaintiffs, identified only as Civil Servants 1 through 5, are suing the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging the agency unlawfully closed thousands of prohibited personnel practice (PPP) complaints filed by probationary employees without considering the individual merits of each case. They contend this action undermines workplace protections and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
Career Harms Not Concrete Enough for Anonymity
The civil servants had requested anonymity, arguing that public disclosure of their identities would subject them to long-term career harm and potential retaliation from the public and the government, particularly given the politically charged nature of a lawsuit challenging the current administration.
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on October 6, 2025, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg denied the motion. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet the “weighty burden” required to overcome the strong public presumption in favor of disclosing litigants’ identities.
Judge Boasberg ruled that the plaintiffs’ asserted privacy interests did not involve a “sensitive and highly personal nature” and that their claims of career harm were speculative.
“The fact that disclosure means Plaintiffs ‘could be deemed litigious’ or that future employers ‘may treat Plaintiffs’ association with this litigation as a red flag’ is not sufficient to allege a substantial privacy interest,” the opinion stated.
Seeking Programmatic Relief Intensifies Public Interest
The court also found the risk of physical or mental harm to be too generalized, noting that the plaintiffs are not currently employed by the government and therefore do not face an immediate threat of being fired or put on leave.
The judge emphasized that the plaintiffs are seeking what is considered programmatic relief. Their demands include vacating the OSC’s “Probationary Directive” and an order for the agency to reopen thousands of closed complaints.
READ: Trump Deploys California National Guard To Oregon After Judge’s Ruling
“Any ruling in their favor would ‘alter the operation of public law… to’ all those whose complaints were disposed of by OSC pursuant to the Probationary Directive,” the court wrote, concluding that the “public interest” in the case is therefore “intensified.”
The judge ultimately ruled that the plaintiffs had not presented the “truly exceptional circumstances” needed to proceed anonymously when seeking to alter public law.
The former federal employees have been given fourteen days to file a notice with the court stating whether they wish to proceed with the lawsuit under their real names. If they fail to do so, the case will be terminated.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
