Handle Airport Screenings
Dismiss AFGE Suit On Security Firings

By GINGER ADAMS OTIS

A lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees against the Transportation Security Administration over the firing of 5,000 security screeners in airports across the country was dismissed by a U.S. District Court Aug. 30.

JOHN GAGE: Cuts affect veterans.

The AFGE, which represents Federal employees in most government agencies, filed suit on behalf of TSA security screeners who were fired following a reduction-in-force mandate from Congress in 2003.

A Limited Role

Although security screeners have been denied the right to collectively bargain, the AFGE represents them at disciplinary hearings, in the courts and to Congress.

The suit alleged that the TSA violated the rights of veterans and other Federal employees, particularly more-senior workers. But the court upheld TSA's argument that it's exempt from many of the labor laws governing Federal agencies.

The AFGE said the TSA violated the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the Veterans' Preference Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

But a U.S. District Court Judge in Washington issued a summary judgment dismissing four of the five charges. In the fifth complaint, an allegation that some employees were targeted for the reduction-in-force because of their union activities in violation of their First Amendment rights, the court said discovery could proceed, but not as a class-action lawsuit. AFGE could only argue on behalf of the named plaintiff.

'Unpatriotic Actions'

AFGE President John Gage said his union didn't hear from the courts for three years after filing the suit, only to learn Aug. 21 that the bulk of the case was being dismissed.

"This decision only hurts our veterans," he said in a written statement. "The court all but excused TSA's unpatriotic behavior. Especially during a time of war, we need to look out for our veterans, not push them aside."

TSA spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said the agency didn't comment on issues that were still being litigated.

The TSA was created by Congress in the wake of Sept. 11, as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. The ATSA's goal was to federalize the work force that screened entrances, exits, checkpoints and bags at the nation's air ports. In establishing the TSA, Congress mandated that it should follow existing personnel rules and regulations established for the Federal Aviation Administration.

Congress added a footnote to its legislation, however, which said that notwithstanding other laws, the TSA administrator could create policy regarding the hiring, firing, compensation, discipline and terms and conditions of employment for its security screeners.

Hired Contractors

In 2003, the agency was told to improve its security officers. The agency initially hired a private contractor to coordinate its efforts, but later grew dissatisfied with the firm it hired, stating that work was done in a haphazard fashion. It sued to recoup some of the money paid under the contract.

As part of its overhaul, Congress then told the TSA to scale back its work force to better manage its personnel. The agency let more than 5,000 screeners go - many of whom, the AFGE suspected, were veterans, senior workers, and those who had been vocal about wanting to better unionize the work force. When the AFGE and other unions protested, the TSA argued, as it has in similar situations, that the Congressional footnote freed it from having to follow Federal labor laws applicable to other agencies.

"We were unable to determine how many of those let go were veterans because we didn't get to the discovery phase of the case," said Gony F. Goldberg, AFGE assistant general counsel. "We can't appeal the summary judgment right now because the First Amendment charge was upheld - so that will move forward."

She added, "AFGE is hopeful that the next Congress will remedy this. We have every intention of continuing with the case."