Opinion ID: 2973594
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: This is a reduction in force case

Text: The parties disagree on whether this is a reduction in force (RIF) case. In Barnes v. GenCorp. Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1465 (1990) a panel of this Court defined a RIF as follows: A work force reduction situation occurs when business considerations cause an employer to eliminate one or more positions within the company. An employee is not eliminated as part of a work force reduction when he or she is replaced after his or her discharge. However, a person is not replaced when another employee is assigned to perform the plaintiff's duties in addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among other existing employees already performing related 11 work. Wilson says that there was no RIF because although many people were reclassified, transferred, or demoted, no one, including himself, was terminated. This argument is not well-taken. There is no requirement that a RIF involve terminations; a RIF merely requires that positions be eliminated. Indeed, a panel of this Court analyzed a discrimination case under the RIF standard where the defendant company reorganized and the plaintiff was demoted, not fired. See Gatch v. Milacron, Inc., 111 Fed. Appx. 785 (6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2004). The key inquiry into whether a RIF is involved is whether or not Wilson was replaced. Under Barnes, Wilson was not replaced if (1) another employee was assigned to perform Wilson’s former duties in addition to that employee’s own duties; or (2) Wilson’s former duties were redistributed among other existing employees. See Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1465. Here, Wilson says he was replaced by Denise Durbin. This assertion is not supported by the record. Prior to the merger, Durbin was Chief of Facility Leasing and Contract for ODHS and, as stated above, was essentially Wilson’s counterpart in the ODHS. After the merger, she performed her job for both ODHS and OBES sites. In other words, Wilson and Durbin’s positions were combined into one, which clearly does not meet the definition of replacement. Moreover, the clear thrust of H.B. 470 was to eliminate, reduce, and reclassify positions within the two agencies - the hallmark of a RIF situation. Because a RIF is involved, the fourth prong of the prima facie test is modified and 12 Wilson must present “additional direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence tending to indicate that the employer singled out the plaintiff for discharge for impermissible reasons.” Id.