Draft Reduction In Force Selection Memorandum

---
name: draft-reduction-in-force-selection-memorandum
task_id: employment-labor/draft-reduction-in-force-selection-memorandum
description: Guides the drafter in producing a privileged attorney-client memorandum on reduction-in-force selection criteria and legal risk analysis, including facility-level notice analysis, disparate-impact review, selection criteria documentation, and review of internal communications for risk indicators.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Draft Privileged RIF Selection Memorandum

## 1. Subject-matter triage

- Treat the assignment as a privileged legal risk memorandum, not a business summary.
- Separate the analysis by facility and by jurisdiction before drawing any global conclusion.
- Confirm whether the RIF implicates any age-sensitive release requirements before finalizing the recommendations.
- Surface verbatim quotes from internal documents only when needed to show risk indicators, and keep them narrowly tied to the issue discussed.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Analyst performs only an aggregate notice analysis rather than analyzing each facility separately, missing that different sites may have different notice obligations.
- Analyst applies only the baseline notice framework without also analyzing any applicable state or local notice regime, which may have different thresholds, notice periods, or eligibility criteria.
- Analyst acknowledges that disparate impact is a concern without conducting a structured statistical check on the protected-class composition of the selected group compared to the pre-RIF workforce.
- Analyst reviews selection criteria from the RIF plan without examining internal communications that may reflect an intent to target employees based on protected characteristics or protected activity.
- Analyst identifies a risk but stops at description instead of tying it to the governing rule, the source-document facts, and the likely consequence for the employer.
- Analyst gives recommendations that are generic, untimed, or not assigned to a responsible role.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- Federal plant-closing / mass-layoff notice framework: analyze the covered event under 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2109 and 20 C.F.R. Part 639; determine whether the site, headcount, and affected-employee counts trigger advance notice obligations, and identify the required recipients and timing.
- State and local notice regimes: many jurisdictions impose separate or longer notice obligations; analyze the governing statute or ordinance for each facility’s location independently and do not assume the federal rule is exhaustive.
- Facility-by-facility analysis: notice compliance turns on the individual site of employment, not an aggregate enterprise view; a facility below one threshold may still be covered by another applicable regime.
- Disparate impact under employment discrimination law: assess whether a facially neutral selection process creates an adverse impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k), and, where applicable, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a), using a preliminary comparison of selection outcomes.
- Selection criteria documentation: objective, pre-established, consistently applied criteria reduce pretext and discrimination risk; subjective criteria, undocumented overrides, and post hoc rationales increase exposure under Title VII, the ADEA, and analogous state laws.
- Internal communications review: planning emails and management discussions may become evidence in later litigation; communications suggesting that the RIF is being used to remove a particular employee or group for a non-business reason are classic pretext indicators.
- Older-worker separations: if the RIF affects employees age 40 or older and uses a group termination or exit incentive program, evaluate waiver and disclosure requirements under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 626(f), and any associated notice obligations.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

- Enumerate the facilities first, then analyze each one separately. For each facility, identify the total headcount, the proposed selected count, the governing federal threshold, any state or local overlay, and the notice timing outcome.
- Use a jurisdictional pass for every site. State the controlling statute or regulation for that location, then compare the contemplated timing against that rule.
- Perform a protected-class selection check. Compare selected versus non-selected employees by protected category, using the source data; if the pattern suggests adverse disparity, flag it as a litigation risk and identify the next factual step.
- Review criteria in sequence. State whether each criterion is objective, pre-established, and consistently applied; flag criteria that are vague, subjective, or easily manipulated.
- Review communications in sequence. Identify the internal messages or drafts that matter, explain what they show, and link any problematic language to the selection decision or timing.
- If the record includes releases or severance paperwork, check whether the form tracks the applicable OWBPA disclosures, consideration period, and revocation period.
- For each issue, close the loop: state the scale or threshold implicated, identify the source-document interaction that matters, and explain the practical consequence for the client.
- Assign a severity level to every issue using a uniform ordinal scale defined once at the top of the memorandum.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

- Keep the analysis vertical: federal rule first, then state or local overlay, then facility-specific application, then document-based risk indicators.
- Keep the analysis temporal: pre-RIF planning, selection decision, notice timing, separation paperwork, and post-selection litigation exposure are distinct steps and should not be merged.
- When one document modifies or conflicts with another, state which document controls for the question being analyzed and why that matters for risk.
- If the source set contains multiple facilities, periods, or employee groups, do not collapse them into a representative sample; walk the reader through each item or state clearly that only one item is in scope.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Format the document as a privileged attorney-client memorandum and mark it as privileged in the heading and footer conventions used by the client.
- Begin with a short executive summary that states the overall risk posture and the highest-priority remediation items.
- Use an issue-spotting structure with a defined severity scale at the top, such as Critical / High / Medium / Low.
- Organize the body in this order: federal notice analysis by facility; state/local overlay by facility; disparate-impact analysis; selection criteria documentation assessment; internal communications review; older-worker release/severance compliance; recommended remediation.
- Include a notice-compliance table with at least the facility, headcount, selected count, federal trigger status, local trigger status, and notice status.
- Include a selection-rate summary table for protected categories when the source data supports a statistical comparison.
- Tie every legal conclusion to the governing rule by name and citation, and avoid conclusory statements that are unsupported by an identified authority.
- End with a Recommended Actions block that assigns each action to a role and a timing anchor, using the most specific deadline available in the source materials or the nearest regulatory milestone if no deadline is stated.