To Members of Congress and the Federal Labor Rights Community:

I write as a removed federal employee and as the current Chapter President of the National Treasury Employees Union ("NTEU") Chapter 212, which represents bargaining unit employees across Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada. My case, Bruce v. Department of Health and Human Services, MSPB Docket SF‑0752‑25‑0084‑I‑1, has become a vivid example of how the promise of due process in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 ("CSRA") can be rendered hollow when there is no meaningful enforcement of timeliness, transparency, or accountability in removal appeals.

This letter is not merely about one appellant’s frustration. It is about a structural problem that Congress must fix if the CSRA is to live up to its purpose of safeguarding both the efficiency of the service and the rights of federal workers—especially those who serve as union officials and challenge agency practices.

I. The Timeline That Shows the Problem

The procedural history of my MSPB appeal is largely undisputed and documented in the Board’s own record.

I filed my appeal challenging my removal from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, on November 6, 2024.

The record closed on May 9, 2025; the parties submitted close‑of‑record briefs on May 23, 2025, and responses on June 9, 2025.

On June 20, 2025, I filed a motion for an expedited decision explaining significant financial hardship, ongoing medical concerns as a disabled veteran, and the impact of delay on my ability to perform my representational duties.

On August 18, 2025, a further status‑update request was filed.

On September 12, 2025, the Administrative Judge ("AJ") denied my motion to reopen the record and denied my motion for an expedited decision, while acknowledging that my close‑of‑record submission.

On December 1, 2025—nearly six months after written submissions closed, excluding the October–November 2025 government shutdown—my counsel filed a detailed Request for Status Update, citing Congress’s 120‑day expectation for discrimination cases under 5 U.S.C. 7702 and the Board’s own average processing times.

Despite these filings, as of April 2026 no initial decision has issued, and my attorney’s written requests of December 1, 2025, and April 6, 2026, have not produced any substantive timeline or explanation for the continued delay, even though the case was submitted on the written record, with no hearing required.

The Board’s own rules and the CSRA framework create the expectation—not merely a hope—that a discrimination‑mixed case like mine should be resolved within approximately 120 days. Yet, by any measure, my case has drifted far beyond that benchmark, without a clear remedial mechanism for an appellant.

The structure of the CSRA and its implementing regulations allows:

A removal appeal to remain undecided for many months after full briefing,

Discretionary case‑management choices to effectively override statutory expectations of timeliness, and

Appellants to bear the full brunt of delay without any meaningful, enforceable remedy.

At that point, “due process” is more theoretical than real.

II. The Human Cost of Delay in a Removal Case

The December 1, 2025, status‑update request sets out the concrete damage occasioned by this prolonged limbo. Those harms are not abstract.

Severe Financial Hardship: I have been without federal income since November 2024, and the unresolved appeal amplifies ongoing financial instability, including withdrawals from retirement savings, which was expressly  documented in my motion to expedite.

Loss of Career Opportunities: The pending removal appeal materially constrains my ability to obtain new federal employment, and even private‑sector positions can be chilled by an unresolved removal action.

Health and Medical Coverage Concerns: As a disabled veteran with substantial medical needs—including issues documented in VA records submitted to the Board—the lapse of stable federal employment and the uncertainty surrounding my case jeopardize continuity of care and coverage.

Emotional and Familial Stress: The absence of any credible timeline for a decision.

For a removed employee, especially one who is a union leader, these harms accumulate over every month of delay. They undermine not only individual wellbeing but also the credibility of the civil service system in the eyes of bargaining unit employees who look to their union for protection and to the MSPB for neutral adjudication.

The Board’s FY 2024 report, cited by my counsel, reflects an average processing time for initial appeals of roughly 130 days; my case is a far outlier with no practical recourse to enforce the statutory expectation of timeliness. When law and reality diverge to this degree, reform is overdue.

III. Union Leadership, Retaliation Concerns, and the CSRA’s Gaps

My removal did not occur in a vacuum. As NTEU Chapter 212 President (and previously the First Vice President from June 2023 to December 2024), I have been deeply involved in raising concerns about union governance, financial practices, and agency compliance with our collective bargaining agreement.

The CSRA of 1978 envisioned robust protections for both employee rights and union democracy, including OLMS oversight of federal sector unions and statutory unfair labor practice mechanisms. But the statute does not ensure that MSPB procedures and timelines will actually protect a removed employee’s due process rights in real time, especially when that employee is a controversial or inconvenient union leader.

In effect, the system can punish union activism not only through the removal itself, but through delay—by leaving the employee without income, without clarity, and with no guaranteed path to timely adjudication.

IV. How the Current Framework Undermines Due Process

The foundational principles of due process include timely notice, a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral adjudicator within a reasonable period. The existing CSRA framework and MSPB regulations fall short in several ways that my case makes plain.

No Enforceable Remedy for Exceeding the 120‑day Expectation: Congress directed that discrimination‑related appeals be resolved within 120 days, and the Board’s own data confirms that timeline as a benchmark. Yet when that mark is missed by months, the appellant has no effective, case‑specific remedy other than more status‑update requests that can go unanswered.

Lack of Structural Safeguards for High‑stakes Removal Cases: Removal cases are, by design, the most serious adverse actions. My close‑of‑record submission explains in detail why the agency’s use of hearsay, denial of an oral reply opportunity, discovery abuses, and contract violations rendered the removal improper. Yet, the CSRA does not require:

Tiered review deadlines for removal‑only cases,

Mandatory reporting to the parties and to the Board when a case falls outside established timelines, or

Reassignment of a case that has languished without a decision beyond a clear threshold.

Insufficient Integration of Union‑related Retaliation Risks: The same record that underlies my removal contains extensive evidence of union disputes, financial‑integrity questions, and conflicts with management over official time and representational authority. Yet the CSRA does not structurally guarantee that these union‑related dimensions will receive expedited or heightened scrutiny, even when the removal directly affects an elected chapter president and the functioning of a bargaining unit.

When these weaknesses converge, due process rights become contingent on individual judicial discretion and institutional capacity, rather than guaranteed by the statute. In practice, that means a union leader like me can spend well over a year removed from service, without income or resolution, despite having fully briefed the case and repeatedly invoked the CSRA’s own timelines.

V. Specific Reforms Congress Should Enact

Using my case as a cautionary example, I urge Congress to amend the CSRA of 1978 and direct conforming changes to MSPB regulations in at least the following ways.

Make the 120‑Day Standard Enforceable: Convert the current “expectation” that discrimination‑mixed cases be decided within 120 days into a presumptive, enforceable deadline, subject only to narrowly defined extensions (e.g., government shutdowns or documented emergencies).  Require automatic written notice to the parties and the Board Chair when a case is projected to exceed 120 days after close of the record, explaining the specific reasons for delay and setting a firm revised deadline.

Create a Removal‑Case Timeliness Framework: Establish statutory tiered deadlines for removal appeals: for example, an initial decision within a set number of days after close of the record, shorter where no hearing is held, as in my case. Mandate reassignment of a removal appeal to another AJ or Board member when an initial decision has not issued within a defined period absent good cause shown in writing.

Require Reporting and Remedies for Excessive Delay: Require the MSPB to publish anonymized quarterly reports on cases that exceed statutory or regulatory timeframes, including removal cases and union‑related cases. Provide appellants in delayed removal cases with interim relief options, such as partial back‑pay escrow, health‑benefit continuation mechanisms, or priority consideration, if the Board fails to issue an initial decision by the statutory deadline without good cause.

Strengthen Protections for Union Leaders and Whistleblowers: Amend the CSRA to recognize elected union officers, like chapter presidents, as occupying a particularly vulnerable position when removed while actively engaged in representational disputes and financial‑integrity advocacy. For such cases, require expedited processing with additional safeguards similar to those provided in whistleblower retaliation cases, including prioritized dockets and stricter timeframes.

VI. A Call to Restore Meaningful Due Process

The CSRA of 1978 was a historic effort to modernize federal personnel management, promote accountability, and ensure that federal employees receive fair treatment based on merit rather than personal or political favoritism. But statutes are only as effective as the structures that implement them.

In my case, the written record has been closed since June 9, 2025. My attorney requested an expedited decision months ago, and again sought status updates as the delay extended beyond six months, then past the 120‑day discrimination benchmark, and into 2026. I remain removed, without a decision, despite having done what Congress and the MSPB’s own rules require: I appealed timely, fully briefed the issues, and complied with multiple orders.

As NTEU Chapter 212 President, I must be able to tell the members I represent that the system we ask them to trust—when they face removals, suspensions, and retaliation—is one that honors not only rights on paper but rights in practice. Right now, I cannot honestly say that. The delay in my case has become its own form of harm, one that the CSRA does not adequately recognize or remedy.

Congress should act. The CSRA should be amended so that:

Timeliness is not aspirational but mandatory,

Removal cases receive the urgency their consequences demand, and

Union leaders and other vulnerable employees are not punished through procedural drift.

Only then will “due process” in federal employment law be more than a procedural slogan. It will be a lived reality for the people who serve the public—and for those, like me, who also serve their coworkers through union representation.

Brandon S. Bruce, Esq., LL.M.

Chapter President

NTEU Chapter 212

[email protected]