When a company says it was cutting costs, the next question is often where those cuts came from. For Smithfield Foods, that question has turned into a federal age discrimination case involving a longtime employee, a pandemic-era layoff and a salary that stood out from the rest.
The EEOC sued Smithfield over the 2021 firing of Sheryl Hahn, who was 59 and had worked for the company for more than a decade. The agency claims Hahn was selected for the reduction in force because of her age.
Smithfield tells a different story. The company says Hahn was included because she had the highest salary on her team and was working remotely from Georgia while Smithfield was trying to move employees to its Virginia headquarters.
Hahn’s relocation became an important part of the case. Smithfield previously told the EEOC that Hahn was selected for termination after she refused to relocate, but the company later described her location as the more accurate reason.
The EEOC says Hahn actually agreed to move to Virginia in 2019, but Smithfield later withdrew the relocation request and allowed her to continue working remotely for another 15 months. A magistrate judge also noted that Smithfield, rather than Hahn, had put the relocation discussions on hold.
A magistrate judge recommended that Smithfield’s request for summary judgment be denied, meaning the case could continue toward trial. Smithfield is now challenging that recommendation, arguing that the court should not second guess how the company decided to save money during the pandemic.
The company says there were countless ways it could have reduced costs, from cutting other positions to outsourcing services or reducing salaries. Just because another option might have worked, Smithfield argues, does not mean its decision to include Hahn in the layoffs was discriminatory.
The EEOC points to other details that it says raise questions about Smithfield’s explanation. Four of the five other employees terminated in the same reduction were over 55, while 14 of 18 employees considered for termination but ultimately kept were younger than 55.
Smithfield, however, argues that the employees involved in the cuts were selected for legitimate business reasons. The company also points out that the executives involved in Hahn’s termination were not themselves young employees, with one being 50 and another 60 at the time.
That is the question for now. Smithfield wants the case dismissed before a jury gets involved, while the EEOC believes the company’s changing explanations and the age breakdown of the layoffs raise enough questions to keep the case going.
The dispute is a reminder that even when a company has a legitimate reason to reduce its workforce, how those decisions are made and explained can matter just as much as the cuts themselves.
Every case is different, but understanding your legal rights is always the first step. If you have questions about your situation, The Minias Law Firm is here to help. Just remember Don’t stress, Just text.