In response to a downturn in business, management responded with a reduction in force, ordering each department to cut its payroll costs by 35 percent. The sales department responded by expanding the territories of its salesmen and laying off two of its most senior employees, both of them males over the age of 40. By eliminating those two positions, the department was able to make its reduction quota, because none of the remaining salesman are over the age of 30 nor have any of them been with the company more than two years. What's more, last year, while business was still good, one of the senior salesman had a heart attack and was on long-term disability for six months. By laying him off, the company averts a large increase in group health and disability premiums, both of which are fully paid for by the company.

Do you see any trouble with this layoff approach? How can both sides justify their case? Employer justifying layoff choice and employee justify discrimination lawsuit?