Suit claims most workers cut were allegedly over 40 — and the role came back
Levi Strauss is accused of age discrimination after allegedly backfilling a role it claimed to have eliminated during a workforce reduction.
A lawsuit filed on March 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Kapil v. Levi Strauss & Co., Case No. 5:26-cv-01999-NC) alleges the company terminated Ajay Kapil, who held a senior product management role focused on experimentation and digital optimization, while representing that his position was being cut as part of a workforce reduction.
The catch, according to the filing: Levi Strauss subsequently staffed substantially similar responsibilities through contractor or replacement personnel — raising the question of whether the role was truly eliminated at all.
For HR professionals watching from the sidelines, this is a familiar but cautionary pattern. A reduction-in-force that looks clean on paper can come apart quickly when post-layoff staffing decisions tell a different story. The moment an organization fills the same work through a different channel, the original justification for cutting the role is open to challenge.
The suit also points to data from Levi Strauss's own Older Workers Benefit Protection Act disclosure. According to the filing, 861 employees were considered for termination, and 30 were ultimately selected. Of those 30, the suit alleges 22 were age 40 or older. Kapil, who was within the protected age group at the time, argues that distribution raises concerns about whether age played a role in termination decisions.
That OWBPA data matters. When employers ask departing employees to sign age-related waivers, they are required to disclose who was considered and who was selected. It is a compliance step many HR teams treat as routine paperwork — until it surfaces in court as statistical evidence.
Kapil, who is representing himself in the matter, alleges he performed his duties satisfactorily and was not subject to performance discipline justifying termination. He also claims he engaged in protected activity related to workplace and employment matters before the adverse action, though the filing does not specify what that activity involved.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a right-to-sue notice on December 10, 2025, after opting not to proceed further with its own investigation. The agency noted that its decision did not mean the claims lacked merit.
The suit brings claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and includes a retaliation claim. It seeks back pay, lost benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, and front pay or reinstatement. No determination has been made on the merits of the case.
The real takeaway here is not about one lawsuit. It is about a gap that trips up even well-resourced HR teams: the distance between what an organization says during a layoff and what it does afterward. How a company staffs the work it just claimed to eliminate can quietly undo months of careful planning — and hand a plaintiff exactly the evidence they need.
