Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—S.D.N.Y.: Laid-off employee whose responsibilities were handed to newly hired younger person gets trial on bias claim, (Sep 24, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

She did not have to show that the person who replaced her was not within her protected class, so long as she lost out because of her age.

An NYCHRL age discrimination suit brought by an employee terminated during a reduction in force (RIF) survived summary judgment. A federal district court in New York held that the employee raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the RIF was a pretext for intentional age discrimination. She presented evidence as part of her prima facie case (much of which was undisputed) that she transitioned all of her work to the new younger employee, and that the younger employee ended up assuming at least some of her responsibilities (Linfante-Hill v. PVH Corp., No. 23 Civ. 191 (AT), (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2025)).

In October 2017, PVH hired the employee as Vice President of the Global Business Process Management Group. The employee was 49 years old when she was hired. For the next five years, the employee held various positions in PVH. During her time there, she received generally positive performance reviews.

Not considered for new position. In 2021, her manager began searching for a person to improve the business process management practice. The manager believed that the employee lacked the business process modeling and optimization experience or certification that the new position required. According to the employer, the employee did not apply for or express interest in the position.

However, according to the employee, when she expressed interest in the position, her manager told her she “was not needed to interview.” The employee also introduced evidence that she had business process modeling experience from her previous job and from her work at PVH. Her manager, however, did not inquire into her qualifications for the new position, nor did she consider her for the position.

Younger person hired. In September 2022, the manager hired a 47-year-old man for the position. He was seven years younger than the employee was at the time. Around August 2022, PVH had begun a reduction in force (RIF) to implement a “new global operating model,” lower “costs in its global offices,” and “drive efficiencies.”

She’s fired, he gets her responsibilities. Purportedly pursuant to the RIF, the employee was terminated in September and the new younger employee ended up assuming at least some of her responsibilities.

Subsequently, the employee sued PVH, alleging age discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). PVH moved for summary judgment.

To set out a prima facie case of employment discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position she held; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse action took place under circumstances giving rise to the inference of discrimination. Here, the parties disputed only the fourth element: whether the employee’s termination “took place under circumstances giving rise to the inference of discrimination” based on her age.

Same protected category. The employee argued that she satisfied the fourth prong of her prima facie case because she was replaced by a younger employee. PVH countered that nothing in the undisputed record supported her assertion that the new younger employee replaced her, and contended that both employees belonged to the same protected category.

As the nonmoving party, the employee was not required to point to undisputed evidence to defeat PVH’s summary judgment motion; she was only required to present enough evidence to place a material fact in dispute. The court found that the employee “adduced evidence that she was fired under circumstances from which a reasonable jury could draw an inference of discrimination.”

Circumstances could allow inference. First, said the court, PVH was mistaken that “nothing in the undisputed record” supported the claim that the employee was “replaced” by the new younger employee. A plaintiff may demonstrate that she was replaced by showing that, after her termination, some of her former responsibilities were delegated to another employee, in addition to that other employee’s own responsibilities. Here, PVH conceded that, at the manager’s direction, the employee transitioned all of her work to the new employee, and that he assumed at least some of the employee’s responsibilities.

Second, said the court, the fact that the new younger employee was only seven years younger than the employee and belonged to her protected class does not mean that she could not raise an inference of discrimination. The fact that one person in the protected class has lost out to another person in the protected class is irrelevant, said the court, so long as she has lost out because of her age.

Third, the record showed that, as part of the RIF, another employee was fired, and some of his responsibilities were taken up by the new, younger employee.

PVH argued that the evidence the employee put forward was insufficient, but her burden at this stage of the analysis was “de minimis.” Accordingly, considering the “cumulative weight” of her evidence, the court found that the employee raised a triable issue of fact as to whether her termination took place under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

PVH stated that the employee was terminated as part of its RIF, which was motivated by economic concerns. Accordingly, PVH put forward a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination.

Pretext. However, the court found that the employee raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the RIF was a pretext for intentional age discrimination. She adduced evidence as part of her prima facie case (much of which was undisputed) that she transitioned all of her work to the younger employee, and that the younger person ended up assuming at least some of her responsibilities. Additionally, the employee showed that she received positive performance reviews during her time at PVH, and that she had at least some qualifications for the role the younger employee assumed. PVH did not dispute that it did not consider the employee for the new position, despite her apparent qualifications and experience.

Drawing all reasonable inferences in the record in favor of the employee, the court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that PVH’s stated reason for terminating her was a pretext for age discrimination. Accordingly, the employer’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

The case is No. 23 Civ. 191 (AT).

Judge: Torres, A.

Attorneys: Kevin Edward Barber (Barber Law) for Christine Linfante-Hill. Eric A. Savage (Littler Mendelson) for PVH Corp.

Companies: PVH Corp.

Cases: AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Layoffs Discharge NewYorkNews