Lawyers in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division are pushing to unionize, aiming to secure bargaining rights before the next presidential administration takes office. This effort, if successful, would be the first known union of litigators within the DOJ and is similar to an ongoing organizing effort in the department’s Environmental Division. The campaign is driven by a desire to maintain “stable” working conditions, including telework flexibility, amidst an uncertain political climate.
Organizers have noted a “widespread misunderstanding” among Civil Rights Division lawyers that they are ineligible to unionize. Though not explicitly naming former President Donald Trump, the organizing effort reflects concerns about potential shifts in the DOJ’s approach to civil rights issues, should Trump or another Republican take office. A Trump administration initiative previously aimed to weaken federal civil servant protections, a concern amplified by recent promises from the Republican nominee to overhaul the DOJ’s civil rights enforcement, including a focus on anti-white discrimination.
The organizing committee aims to hold a representation election by October 2024, an expedited timeline compared to typical union drives. They have already garnered over 30% support from an estimated 365 eligible lawyers and are waiting to reach 50% before applying for an election.
The union attempt is backed by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). Doreen Greenwald, NTEU’s national president, emphasized the importance of safeguarding a nonpartisan, merit-based civil service.
Uncertainties remain, particularly about eligibility for unionization. Some Civil Rights Division lawyers have recently had their federal employment codes updated, rendering them ineligible for a bargaining unit. The timing of these changes, coming shortly after the NTEU’s request for information on eligible staff, has raised suspicions among the organizers. NTEU expressed hope that these updates are merely administrative errors and is addressing the issue through appropriate channels, as shared in their frequently asked questions posted on their website.
No comment was provided by a DOJ spokesman regarding the situation.