A federal judge is weighing whether to step in and block the termination of a long-time Denver employee who says she was unfairly swept into the city's 2025 layoffs. After a nearly daylong hearing Tuesday in federal court, U.S. District Judge Nina Y. Wang said she would issue a written ruling as soon as possible.
The preliminary-injunction hearing ran nearly six hours and featured testimony from plaintiff Jessica Calderon and two of her former supervisors, Ben Sanders and Brian Firooz, both named as defendants. According to the nearly six hour hearing, the court took the matter under advisement after testimony wrapped, as per The Denver Gazette.
Allegations and timeline
Calderon, who served as director of operations and innovation in the Mayor’s Office of Social Equity & Innovation, filed suit in June 2025 alleging First Amendment retaliation and sex discrimination after she was included in the city's August 2025 layoffs. Court records state that she has been on administrative leave since Aug. 18, 2025, and that she claims she was denied promotions, received downgraded performance reviews, and was repeatedly confronted about her ties to community group LUNA.
The court previously granted a temporary restraining order that barred the city from terminating her while the preliminary-injunction request was litigated, according to an order posted on GovInfo.
Evidence presented in court
Tuesday’s hearing record included select audio clips, transcripts of recorded conversations, and excerpts from Calderon’s performance evaluations that were read aloud in court. Calderon and at least one supervisor had recorded exchanges that her attorneys submitted as exhibits, and segments of her reviews were used to show both praise and criticism of her work. The parties sparred over whether that evidence proves the kind of irreparable harm courts require before granting extraordinary relief, according to courtroom testimony.
City's defense and the judge's view
The city has argued that the 2025 layoffs were driven by an "unprecedented budgetary crisis" and has warned the court against issuing injunctions that, in its view, could spur copycat lawsuits and disrupt the mayor’s financial plan.
But in a Sept. 17, 2025 order, Judge Wang wrote that the defendants' concerns about "copycat litigation" were "speculative" and that they "have not submitted evidence to substantiate" claims that an injunction would "erode" the city's fiscal integrity, according to GovInfo. That same order temporarily blocked the city from ending Calderon's salary and benefits while the preliminary-injunction motion plays out.
What happens next
With the request now under advisement, the judge’s written decision will determine whether Calderon keeps her salary, benefits and position while the lawsuit continues. If the court grants the preliminary injunction, she would remain on the payroll during the case. If it is denied, the city would be free to move ahead with completing its layoff.
Beyond Calderon’s job, the ruling is expected to help shape how other city employees weigh potential legal challenges to Denver's broader workforce reductions.
Legal stakes
Preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders are governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To win this kind of emergency relief, a plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of equities favors granting relief and that an injunction serves the public interest. Courts treat this relief as extraordinary and apply the four-part test cautiously, especially when government budgets and staffing plans are on the line, according to Cornell Law School.
