KCNF partner Mary Kuntz is leading a team of KCNF attorneys representing a group of former federal employees in a class-action lawsuit filed by the ACLU of the District of Columbia that challenges the Trump administration’s removal of employees perceived to have been involved in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work. The suit, filed on Dec. 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the administration unlawfully targeted and fired employees based on past DEI roles and/or perceived political beliefs, even when those employees were no longer working in DEI positions.
The complaint explains how federal workers across multiple agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), were abruptly placed on administrative leave and later issued reduction in force (RIF) notices as part of a government-wide directive to “eliminate” DEI programs. Many of these employees, like former OPM official Mahri Stainnak, were working in unrelated positions when they were targeted.
In a Federal News Network article, Kuntz emphasized that these actions violate the core protections of the merit-based civil service. “You can’t RIF somebody from a position they’re not in,” she said. “They sought to punish Mahri [Stainnak] for previous DEI work. That’s a violation of the First Amendment.”
Kuntz also noted that the administration’s approach had a disproportionate impact on protected groups. According to the complaint, women, nonbinary individuals, and people of color were among those most heavily targeted in the RIFs carried out during the DEI rollback. “The DEI folks were working on behalf of people with disabilities, people who are non-native speakers of English. They were advocating for protected groups,” she explained.
The lawsuit challenges a series of executive orders issued in the early days of the administration that required agencies to identify and remove employees associated with DEI programs dating back to the 2024 election. The complaint argues that these directives were not ordinary changes in policy, but instead represented “targeted actions intended to punish perceived political enemies” and to eliminate the presence of women, people of color, and employees advocating for protected groups within the federal workforce.
Kuntz also underscored that the President’s executive orders never defined what DEI work included. “He characterizes them as illegal and discriminatory and various other things … but does not define them,” she said. “You can’t decide that somebody is a different party than the party in the White House and decide to fire them on that basis.”
According to the lawsuit, the total number of federal employees affected by the DEI purge is still unknown, though news reports suggest the number could be “potentially in the thousands.” Employees who filed appeals with the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Office of Special Counsel, or agency EEO offices have seen those proceedings stall due to the volume and complexity of the cases.
The lawsuit details how the rollback removed employees whose work advanced essential, bipartisan functions of government, including efforts to improve language competency at the border, expand access to veterans’ benefits, and strengthen emergency response capabilities. As plaintiff Mahri Stainnak noted, these actions have consequences that extend far beyond the federal workforce. “This action is really hurting the people who live in this country,” they said, “because now these dedicated, hardworking federal servants are not in their jobs providing the critical services that they do.”
KCNF, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, and ACLU of DC are representing employees in the matter.
Additional coverage of the lawsuit is available from Bloomberg Law and in the ACLU of DC’s press release.