A lawsuit by seven former Department of Health and Human Services employees alleges that inaccurate personnel records affected the agency’s April 2025 workforce cuts. “Hopelessly error-ridden” is the plaintiffs’ description of the data—not a finding by a judge. On January 22, 2026, a federal court allowed claims against agency defendants to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage, but it did not decide whether the records were inaccurate or whether anyone was unlawfully fired.
What the lawsuit is about
The case, Jackson v. Kennedy, was filed on June 3, 2025, as a putative class action by seven former HHS employees. The complaint alleges that HHS, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) collected, shared, or used inaccurate or incomplete personnel records in connection with HHS’s April 1, 2025 reduction in force (RIF). The complaint is the source for these allegations, which remain disputed. Read the complaint.
HHS announced on March 27, 2025, a plan to terminate about 10,000 full-time employees, consolidate 28 divisions into 15, and reduce 10 regional offices to five. Those were announced plans, not a verified final count of completed separations. The court’s opinion says the RIF was implemented on April 1; thousands received email notices placing them on immediate administrative leave, with formal separations effective June 2, 2025. The court opinion recounts this timeline.
What records the plaintiffs say were wrong
The complaint alleges that faulty records affected both decisions about which offices would be cut and how individual employees were ranked for retention. The opinion summarizes the named plaintiffs’ allegations; it does not independently verify the records.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Performance ratings
The plaintiffs say their RIF notices listed ratings below their actual performance ratings. The opinion recounts the complaint’s assertion that all seven named plaintiffs received inaccurate, lower ratings. For example, plaintiff Catherine Jackson alleges that her notice listed a rating of 3 even though she had never received a rating below 4.
Competitive areas and levels
In federal workforce reductions, employees are considered within defined competitive areas and levels. The plaintiffs allege that some notices placed employees in inaccurate or incomplete organizational or geographic areas, or used incorrect or missing information about comparable positions. They say those errors could have put employees in the wrong groups for retention decisions.
Retention registers
The complaint says inaccurate information flowed into retention registers—the rankings used to determine who would be kept or offered reassignment. The central allegation is not simply that employees disagreed with the outcome, but that errors in factual personnel records affected the process used to reach it.
What the court decided—and what it did not
On January 22, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion to dismiss claims against the agency defendants HHS, OMB, DOGE, OPM, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It granted the motion as to the named individual defendants in their official capacities. The opinion allowed the pleaded claims against agencies to continue at that stage; it did not establish that the allegations were true.
The claims invoke the Privacy Act of 1974, which governs federal agencies’ handling of records about individuals. As the opinion explains, the plaintiffs’ theory concerns an agency’s failure to maintain records with sufficient accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness to assure fairness in a determination that adversely affects a person.
The court also explained that a Privacy Act claim requires more than dissatisfaction with a personnel decision: the alleged factual inaccuracy must be connected to the adverse action under the applicable legal standard. The opinion distinguishes correcting factual or historical errors from using the Act to challenge officials’ judgments. It did not determine whether any particular record was wrong, whether an error caused a termination, or whether any conduct was intentional or willful. Nor did it certify a class or find that the firings were unlawful.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What plaintiffs are seeking
The case summary says the plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and actual damages claimed to be no less than $1,000 per person, plus costs. That is the relief they requested, not money awarded by the court. The January 2026 ruling did not order damages. The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse case page provides a summary of the requested relief.
What is known about the case’s status
The Clearinghouse tracker described the case as ongoing in its October 3, 2026 update. That update does not establish whether anything changed afterward; the live court docket is needed to confirm a more recent status.
A contemporaneous Ars Technica report quoted an HHS spokesperson, through the complaint, as saying: “to the extent there are errors, it is because the data collected by HHS’s multiple, siloed HR divisions is inaccurate.” That is an attributed statement reported in connection with the filing, not a finding in the court’s opinion. Ars Technica’s June 2025 report also quoted plaintiffs’ lawyer Clayton Bailey describing the data as flawed; that, too, is advocacy on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
