Court Orders Federal Employees Reinstated
On March 17, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the U.S. Agency for Global Media (“USAGM”) and its subsidiary, Voice of America, must reinstate 1,000 employees who had been placed on administrative leave last year. The ruling is one of the many ongoing developments following mass federal layoffs in the early weeks and months of the second Trump administration.
In March 2025, the President directed several federal agencies, including USAGM, to “reduce the performance of their statutory functions associated with personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law.” USAGM placed 1,042 out of 1,147 full-time staff members on paid administrative leave as it worked to determine what the agency’s “statutory minimum” was. Some of those placed on leave sued USAGM and Senior Advisor to the CEO of USAGM, Kari Lake. In April 2025, the court issued a preliminary injunction and ordered the Defendants to return the employees and contractors placed on leave to their employment statuses prior to the President’s Executive Order. After an appeal resulted in staying much of the D.C. court’s preliminary injunction, additional proceedings on the remaining portion of the injunction resulted in depositions and plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
The court held that the USAGM’s actions were arbitrary and capricious and resulted in the agency being unable to carry out responsibilities it was legally required to perform by (USAGM “failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take”). The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. As a remedy, the Court ordered the 1,042 employees to return to work as of March 23, 2026.
Fourth Circuit Rules Employment Agreements Limiting Filing Time for Title VII Claims are Unenforceable
On March 4, 2026, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that private employment agreements purporting to limit the time in which employees may file Title VII claims against their employers are unenforceable. The plaintiff in the case, Thomas v. EoTech, LLC, signed an agreement upon her hire by EOTech LLC in which she agreed not to file an employment claim more than 180 days after the event leading to her complaint. The agreement stated the 180-day period would be tolled during the adjudication of any charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC.
Following her termination, the plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC 106 days after her termination from EOTech and her subsequent lawsuit 90 days following her receipt of a right to sue letter. This 196-day period was outside of the agreed-upon 180-day statute of limitations, leading the trial court to conclude her claims were untimely.
The Fourth Circuit vacated the trial court’s ruling, holding that private parties may not shorten the time period in which Title VII and the ADEA have laid out for employees to file claims. The court cited Congress’s stated interest in deterring unlawful discrimination, protecting the proscribed procedure of sending claims first to the EEOC in an effort to avoid unnecessary lawsuits, and the risk of distorting EEOC decisions in holding that any private agreements limiting filing times are unenforceable.
Ruling in Mobley v. Workday
In March, 2026, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin made a ruling in the closely watched case, Mobley v. Workday. As discussed last month, this case was brought by plaintiffs alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA by Workday’s job applicant screening tool powered by Artificial Intelligence. The case was previously allowed to proceed as a nationwide class action on behalf of millions of plaintiffs who were not hired by employers utilizing Workday’s screening tool.
Workday had argued that plaintiffs, as prospective employees who were never hired, were not covered by the ADEA in their age discrimination claims. On March 6, 2026, Judge Lin rejected that argument.
The ruling signals that AI vendors could be held liable “agents” of employers despite not being employers themselves.
Sources:
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251094.P.pdf
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv1015-223