Most reduction-in-force litigation is not about whether the business needed to reduce headcount. It is about how the individuals were chosen.

Define the criteria before the names. Skills, role redundancy, documented performance — written down, applied consistently, and decided by people who can explain them later. Selection driven by managers’ impressions, recorded nowhere, is the pattern that produces claims.

Run a disparate-impact review. Once the proposed list exists, compare it to the workforce by age, sex, race, disability status and any other protected characteristic. A selection that is neutral in intent but falls heavily on one group needs to be understood before it is executed, not explained afterwards. This review is best done under privilege.

Check the statutory obligations. Advance-notice requirements may apply to larger layoffs at a single site, with state analogues that can be stricter and trigger at lower thresholds. Miss them and the remedy is back pay for the notice period regardless of the merits.

Handle the releases correctly. Group terminations carry additional requirements for waivers of age claims, including disclosure of the job titles and ages of those selected and not selected, and longer consideration periods.

Then execute consistently. The most damaging evidence in these cases is usually the exception — the person who met the criteria and was kept, or the one who did not and was let go.