Selection When a Role Is Removed
An employer entitled to reduce headcount is not entitled to choose whom to remove on the basis of age. Where long-serving staff are disproportionately selected, the criteria, the way they were scored, and the pool they were applied to all become the subject of scrutiny.
The rule in short
A genuine reduction in headcount does not make the selection lawful. The pool from which people were selected, the criteria applied, how those criteria were scored, and the consistency of the outcome are all examinable. Criteria that correlate with age — recent qualifications, adaptability, potential, or cost — attract particular scrutiny. The strongest evidence is usually the scoring itself, which employers must be able to explain.
The letter says the role is redundant, which sounds like a decision about a job. The decision that actually matters is about a person, and it was made by applying criteria that somebody chose and somebody scored.
The three things examined
The pool. Which roles were considered together, since a pool drawn narrowly around one person is frequently the whole of the problem.
The criteria. What factors were used, when they were decided, and whether they were set before or after anybody knew who they would affect.
The scoring. How each person was assessed against each criterion, by whom, and on what information, which is where inconsistencies surface.
Together with the outcome. Whether the people selected share a characteristic, which is frequently visible from a list of names, ages and lengths of service.
And the alternatives. What else was considered — redeployment, reduced hours, voluntary arrangements — since an employer is expected to have looked.
Criteria that attract scrutiny
Potential and adaptability. Which are subjective, difficult to evidence, and correlate closely with assumptions about age in practice.
Recent qualifications. Weighting formal training obtained lately over experience, which systematically disadvantages longer-serving staff.
Technical currency. Where the assessment reflects who has been given recent training rather than who is capable of doing the work.
Flexibility. Willingness to travel or relocate, which can be legitimate and can also operate as a proxy for stage of life.
And cost. Which is treated carefully, since in a long-serving workforce it produces an outcome close to selecting by age.
| Element | What to ask for |
|---|---|
| The pool | How it was defined and why |
| The criteria | What they were and when set |
| The scoring | Own scores and the reasoning |
| Consistency | The range of scores across the pool |
| Alternatives | What was considered and rejected |
What the scoring usually reveals
Scores inconsistent with appraisals. Where somebody rated highly for years scores poorly on the same qualities in a selection exercise.
Reasoning that is thin or absent. Since scores recorded without any supporting note are difficult for an employer to defend when challenged.
Scorers without relevant knowledge. Where somebody who has not worked with the person assessed them on qualities they could not observe.
Criteria applied differently. Between individuals, which is visible once the range of scores and the reasoning are seen together.
And documents created afterward. Which internal inconsistencies and file details frequently reveal when the material is examined properly.
It is the most productive single exercise available and it takes an afternoon. Where somebody has been rated strongly on adaptability and technical skill for a decade, and then scores poorly on precisely those qualities in a selection exercise conducted by the same organization, the employer has an inconsistency to explain. Employers preparing these exercises are frequently working quickly and do not check the scores against their own historic records.
What to do during consultation
Ask for everything in writing. Pool, criteria, scores, reasoning and alternatives, during the process rather than after it has concluded.
Challenge the pool first. Since a pool defined too narrowly is the most common structural problem and the easiest to identify.
Compare scores against appraisals. Which is the single most productive exercise available and frequently produces an immediate inconsistency.
Propose alternatives. Redeployment, reduced hours or a different arrangement, since an employer that rejected them must be able to explain why.
And record the remarks. On the approach in comments, policies and proof, since consultation meetings produce them regularly.
Before signing anything
A severance offer is not the end. It is a proposal, and accepting it generally means giving up claims, which is a decision rather than a formality.
Group exits carry disclosure requirements. Set out in the disclosure a group exit requires, and the information is genuinely useful.
Releases must meet specific conditions. To be effective against age claims, on the requirements in what makes a waiver binding.
Periods must be allowed. For consideration and for revocation, which cannot be waived away by an employer's urgency.
And advice before signature is cheap. Relative to a claim given up for a payment that would have been made anyway.
The most useful thing to separate at the outset is the business decision from the selection decision. Conceding that a reduction was genuine costs nothing and leaves the real question untouched.
The pool is where structural problems usually sit, and it is the easiest thing to examine. A pool drawn tightly around one person is not a selection exercise at all.
Criteria set after somebody knows who they will affect are treated very differently from criteria set in advance, which is why the timing of their adoption is worth asking about specifically.
The scoring is the most valuable material, and comparing it against years of appraisals is the exercise most likely to produce something the employer cannot readily explain.
Cost-based selection occupies genuinely difficult ground. It is not automatically unlawful and it produces outcomes that look identical to age-based selection in a long-serving workforce.
Everything worth asking for should be asked for during consultation, in writing, because the process is the point at which an employer is obliged to engage rather than simply to respond.
A severance offer arriving at the end of this is a proposal rather than a conclusion, and the periods that must be allowed before it is signed exist precisely so that it can be considered properly.
And advice taken before a signature costs a fraction of what the signature may be giving up, particularly where the offer would have been made regardless of whether anything was released.
There is a practical point about consultation that is worth stating separately, because most people get it wrong. Consultation is not a period during which an employee waits to hear the outcome. It is the only stage at which an employer is obliged to engage with what somebody says, and the questions asked in it become the record everything afterward is measured against.
An employee who asks nothing during consultation, and then challenges the outcome afterward, is in a considerably weaker position than one who asked for the criteria in week one and pointed out an inconsistency in week two. The same points made later look like reconstruction.
None of that requires confrontation or a lawyer. A short written list of questions, sent politely and answered in writing, does most of the work available at this stage. Employers expect those questions in a properly run process and are frequently relieved to be asked them in writing rather than in a room. A well-run consultation answers them; a poorly run one does not, and the difference is itself informative.
Points to carry away
- A genuine redundancy can still involve unlawful selection.
- The pool, the criteria and the scoring are all examinable.
- Criteria correlating with age attract particular scrutiny.
- Cost-based selection is treated with caution.
- The scoring documents are the most valuable evidence.
Questions readers ask
Can a genuine redundancy still be unlawful?
Yes, and this is the distinction that matters most. An employer may be entirely justified in reducing headcount and still choose whom to remove for unlawful reasons. The business case and the selection are separate questions, and a worker who concedes the first is not conceding the second. Employers frequently argue as though establishing a genuine business need answers everything, and it does not: the question remains why this person rather than a colleague doing comparable work.
What is wrong with cost as a criterion?
It is complicated. Decisions based on salary or benefit cost are not automatically age discrimination, since cost is not the same thing as age, and employers do make legitimate decisions on that basis. The difficulty is that in a long-serving workforce cost correlates closely with age and length of service, so a criterion of cost alone produces an outcome indistinguishable from selecting by age. Where cost is the stated basis, the reasoning and the alternatives considered come under close examination.
What should somebody ask for?
The pool and how it was defined; the criteria and when they were set; their own scores and the reasoning behind each; the range of scores across the pool without necessarily naming individuals; who scored and on what information; and the alternatives to redundancy that were considered. Employers frequently supply less than this and are frequently obliged to supply more. The request should be made in writing during the consultation rather than afterward, when the position has already hardened.
Sources
- 29 U.S.C. § 623 — Prohibition of age discriminationlaw.cornell.edu
- 29 U.S.C. § 626 — Recordkeeping, investigation, and enforcementlaw.cornell.edu
- Legal Information Institute — Disparate Impactlaw.cornell.edu
- Legal Information Institute — Pretextlaw.cornell.edu
- Legal Information Institute — Age Discriminationlaw.cornell.edu
- Legal Information Institute — Reduction in Forcelaw.cornell.edu
Silverline Legal Notes is a publication, not a law firm. This article states general rules and cites its sources; it is not advice about any particular case, and the law differs by state and changes over time.
More in Working Past Retirement Age
Raising a Complaint Within the Deadline
A discrimination claim generally requires an administrative charge to be filed within a defined period, which is extended in states with their own enforcement agencies. Separate periods govern internal grievances, contract claims and benefit claims, and they run simultaneously and differently. The clock starts at the discriminatory act rather than at the point of realization, which is why delay while deciding whether to act is the most common way claims are lost.
Continuing to Work and What It Does to a Pension
Continuing employment past a plan's normal retirement age affects several things at once. Benefits may continue to accrue or may not, depending on plan terms. In-service distributions may be available at a defined age or not at all. Required minimum distributions generally begin at a defined age, with an exception for a current employer's plan that does not extend to earlier employers' plans or to individual accounts. Plan documents govern throughout.
What a Plan Has to Tell a Member
Plans governed by federal benefits law must provide a summary plan description, periodic benefit statements, and, on written request, the plan document, the trust agreement, the latest annual report and certain other instruments. A request must be answered within a defined period, and failure can expose the administrator to a daily penalty. Claim denials must be explained in writing with reasons and with the review procedure stated.