How to approach a Reduction in Force (RIF)

by Patrick Nooren Ph.D.
EVP Biddle Consulting Group

Reductions in Force (RIFs)

Given the current state of the economy it’s understandable that many organizations are turning to reductions in force as a way to reduce costs. With this said, it’s important for those same organizations to understand that just like any other employment decision that impacts the terms or conditions of employment, if RIF decisions disproportionately impact a protected group of employees, the rationale behind those decisions must be “job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” In other words, valid. As an alternative, many organizations are choosing to avoid legal scrutiny altogether (at least for a systemic, disparate impact argument) by simply avoiding RIF decisions that disproportionately impact protected group members. They do so by conducting preliminary “what if” analyses comparing the retention rates of different groups (e.g., men/women, whites/minorities, <40/40+) based upon anticipated layoffs. If those analyses indicate statistically significant disparities, then the organization can either adjust their RIF decisions or compile the necessary information to defend them.

Patrick Nooren Ph.D. and the BCG consulting team have been conducting RIF's and other statistical analyses for EEO Litigation cases and Affirmative Action Plan audits for over 15 years. Go to www.biddle.com or contact us at 1-916-294-4250 for more information.