As businesses begin the process of re-opening, many are finding that due to changed conditions, they are overstaffed. One possible solution to this problem is a reduction in force (RIF). In planning a RIF, there are a great many factors for employers to consider in the current environment, including the points listed below.
Selection Criteria: In any RIF, the method used to select the employees who will lose their employment is one of the most critical factors. The safest route from a litigation avoidance standpoint is to use neutral criteria such as date of hire seniority - for example, you need to eliminate two employees from a ten person group and the two most recently hired are selected. While this approach is relatively safe, employers often want to retain their best performers and they may not be the most senior. Similarly, certain skill sets that are viewed as critical to the business may not be held by all employees introducing additional complexity. The bottom line is that any introduction of subjective criteria into the selection process, e.g. performance, skills, productivity, brings with it a greater risk of litigation. Employers must weigh these competing interests carefully and determine what level of risk they will accept.
Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”): In a RIF that impacts employees over 40 years of age, employers seeking releases in return for severance must comply with the OWBPA. The statute itself is very specific, imposing several requirements on the form and timing of releases. You can find detailed information in one of my prior posts.
WARN Act: Most employers did not issue WARN notices for furloughs on the basis that the anticipated layoff would be less than six months. If and when furloughs become permanent via a RIF (or extend beyond six months), employers must reconsider their notice obligations. By the same token, employers considering RIFs must consider any state law notification requirements in so called state mini-WARNs or other statutes.
PPP Loan Forgiveness: Under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) created by the CARES Act, loans may be forgiven if businesses use the proceeds to maintain their payrolls and pay certain other expenses. As a result, employers who have taken out PPP loans need to carefully consider the impact of a RIF on their PPP loans and potential loan forgiveness.
Anticipating Litigation: 2020 has already been a difficult year and for employees who lose their jobs in a RIF, it will become more difficult. When employees have little chance of replacing lost employment, litigation naturally increases. This will likely be the case in the immediate future. As a result, employers should take extra care to analyze and document their decisions in connection with any RIFs. There are so many issues to deal with in the workplace at this time and managers are pulled in many different directions. Regardless, decisions should not be made in haste and documentation will be critical in defending lawsuits that may not be filed for several months after memories have faded.
If you are considering or planning a RIF, contact any member of our Labor & Employment Group, or the KMK Law Coronavirus (COVID-19) Response Team for further assistance.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2026 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Diversity
- Labor Law
- Department of Labor
- Wage & Hour
- FMLA
- NLRB
- Arbitration
- Immigration
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Enforcement Plan
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- FLSA
- Discrimination
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Coronavirus
- Sexual Harassment
- Social Media
- Sixth Circuit
- Title VII
- Employer Policies
- Transgender Issues
- Holiday Policies
- Employment Litigation
- Religion Discrimination
- Employer Rules
- Overtime Pay
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Artificial Intelligence
- Privacy
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- Department of Justice
- NLRA
- Paid Leave Laws
- Compliance
- Supreme Court
- Tax Credit
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Workplace Accommodations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Litigation
- Worker Classification
- IRS
- Harassment
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Medical Marijuana
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ADAAA
- ERISA
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Whistleblower
- Disability
- United States Supreme Court
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Privacy Laws
- Securities Law
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Telecommuting
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Misclassification
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- TPS Haiti Termination: How Employers Can Ensure I-9 Records Remain Compliant
- A New Enforcement Era: What Employers Should Know About the EEOC’s 2025–2029 National Enforcement Plan
- Beyond Paid Time Off: The Legal Side of Holiday Policies
- EEO-1 Reporting on the Chopping Block: What Employers Need to Know
- DOL Proposes New Joint Employer Rule: What Employers Need to Know
- Arbitration Agreements Take a Hit: What the Sixth Circuit's EFAA Decision Means for Your Workplace Agreements
- Bourbon, Ballots, and Bargaining Orders: Sixth Circuit Rejects NLRB’s Cemex Framework
- Independent Contractor and Joint Employer Rules: Looking to the Past for Future Compliance
- New Requirements for Employers in California
- Back to the Office: The EEOC Clarifies the Limits of Telework Under the ADA