Union of CFPB employees contradicts bureau's rationale for workforce reduction
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is facing a challenge over its job-cutting plans, with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) arguing that the cuts could violate court orders.
Last week, the CFPB announced its intention to lay off nearly 1,500 employees, a move that has been met with resistance from the NTEU. According to a court filing, the union urges an appeals court to halt the bureau's job cuts, citing concerns that the CFPB has not fully complied with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' requirement to conduct a particularised, individualised assessment before implementing the job-cut total.
The court mandated this assessment to ensure that the CFPB substantiates its decisions and rejects challenges that lack a causal connection between specific agency actions and alleged injuries. However, publicly available CFPB documents and regulatory actions focus more on broader supervisory authority, rulemaking, and enforcement issues rather than detailing compliance with this individualised assessment for workforce reductions.
The CFPB argues that a 200-person workforce is enough to fulfil its statutory obligations. However, employees have reported that they had not consulted any programmatic managers before implementing the reduction in force. The employees overseeing the consumer call centre, those responsible for directing complaints to companies, staff responsible for maintaining the consumer complaint database, and the supervisor of and several members of the escalated case management team were included in the RIF.
The RIF notices were issued to 112 of the 128 employees that work in consumer response, according to the court filing. The NTEU's attorneys argue that the cuts the CFPB sought to implement would violate the data-deletion and consumer response provisions of an injunction Berman Jackson granted last month.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia temporarily paused the CFPB's plan to cut off employees' access to bureau systems. In a recent court hearing, Berman Jackson expressed doubts about a declaration from CFPB Chief Legal Officer Mark Paoletta, noting that it lacked specific details such as dates, when the particularised assessment was done, the names of the people involved, and how and when the RIF orders came to be justified.
The direction to ignore concerns about the RIF came from Mark Paoletta, according to the employees. The dismissal of the lawsuit was with prejudice, meaning it can't be refiled in the future. A district court hearing is set for Monday. The NTEU filed a rebuttal on Tuesday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
[1] Supervisory Authority, Rulemaking, and Enforcement Issues - Publicly Available CFPB Documents and Regulatory Actions [2] D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' Requirement for a Particularised, Individualised Assessment - Court Ruling and Context
- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been urged by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) to provide a more detailed explanation of its workforce reductions, as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals requires a particularised, individualised assessment to ensure the CFPB substantiates its decisions.
- The ongoing dispute between the CFPB and the NTEU, regarding the CFPB's job-cutting plans, is embedded within the broader context of finance, business, politics, and general-news, as it involves interpretations of court orders, workforce management, and adherence to supervisory authority, rulemaking, and enforcement issues.
