Derek Copeland, who was recently dismissed from his position at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), was 11 days away from completing one year of service when he received his termination notice on February 14. The letter stated that his continued employment was not in the public interest. This came as a surprise to Copeland, as his performance review indicated he was “fully successful” in executing his role as a training specialist at the National Detector Dog Training Center in Newnan, Georgia. Prior to joining the USDA, Copeland had dedicated his career to canine training, retiring from a 20-year service in the Air Force, primarily in canine units focusing on narcotics and explosives detection.
In Georgia, Copeland was responsible for training dogs and handlers to detect agricultural products not permitted into the U.S., playing a crucial part in safeguarding the nation’s food system. Expressing his frustration, Copeland remarked on his years of service and continued dedication to federal work being dismissed. His case reflects a broader situation where numerous federal employees have recently been terminated, some planning to contest their dismissals legally.
Since last week, the Trump administration has terminated over 10,000 federal employees across various departments, including the National Institutes of Health, the Small Business Administration, and the Department of Energy, as part of a strategic initiative to significantly reduce the federal workforce. This campaign, largely driven by Elon Musk, aims to cut costs and shrink the bureaucracy. Most employees affected were still under a probationary status, which lasts up to three years. Employment protections typically kick in only after this period.
Legal firms like the Alden Law Group and the nonprofit Democracy Forward have filed a classwide complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, seeking intervention against these terminations. Lawyers suggest that the affected employees might have a case if they can prove discrepancies in performance appraisals or termination letter statements.
Meanwhile, Michelle Kirchner, a postdoctoral researcher with the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service in Logan, Utah, was also dismissed on February 14. Kirchner, who was involved in a project supporting alfalfa growers in pest control while preserving pollinating bees, had made significant contributions during her tenure. Despite winning a grant and submitting various research papers, her work’s future is now uncertain, raising concerns about the project’s direction without her involvement.
The USDA’s Bee Biology and Systematics Laboratory, established in the late 1940s, has also been impacted by these terminations, leaving key research positions vacant and creating uncertainty about the program’s stability.
Derek Copeland questions the rationale behind dismissing employees from the National Detector Dog Training Center, where there was a demand for additional specialists due to rising requests from U.S. Customs and Border Protection for trained dogs and handlers.
Employment attorney David Branch states that probationary employees, often among the most diligent, are highly motivated to prove themselves during their initial employment phase. However, proving the defamation nature of the termination letters in court will be challenging. Branch advises dismissed federal employees to gather any available feedback that contradicts the government’s claims about their performance.
Individuals affected by these changes are encouraged to share their experiences and insights on the matter through secure communication channels.
