The company announced a restructuring last week. New strategy. Shifting priorities. Realigning for growth.

Your manager called you into a meeting yesterday. They’re eliminating your position. Nothing personal. Just part of the broader changes.

Except no one else in your department is being let go. Your responsibilities aren’t disappearing. They’re being redistributed to your colleagues. And this announcement came four weeks after you filed a discrimination complaint with HR.

That’s not restructuring. That’s retaliation.

What employees get wrong about restructuring claims

You think that if the company can point to a business reason, you have no case.

That’s not true.

Restructuring can be legitimate. But when the timing is suspicious, when you’re the only person affected, and when the explanation doesn’t match the facts, that business reason is evidence of pretext. New York law addresses this directly.

Restructuring doesn’t shield discrimination

Employers can restructure. They can eliminate positions and reorganize departments.

What they cannot do is use restructuring as a cover for discrimination or retaliation.

Under New York law, if discrimination or retaliation motivated the decision to terminate you, the termination is unlawful even if there were also legitimate business reasons. You don’t need to prove it was the only reason. You need to show it played a role.

What pretextual restructuring looks like

The company announces department-wide changes. But your role is the only one eliminated. Your work doesn’t vanish. It gets absorbed by others or reassigned with a different title.

Or the restructuring is announced within weeks of you complaining about discrimination, requesting an accommodation, or taking protected leave.

Or your position gets eliminated, but months later, the company posts a nearly identical job with a different title.

Or you’re told your skills don’t align with the new direction. But your performance reviews have been strong, and no one mentioned this concern before.

Or other employees in similar roles kept their jobs. The restructuring somehow only affected you.

How courts identify pretext

New York courts examine specific factors to determine whether an employer’s explanation is pretextual.

Timing matters. If elimination came shortly after protected activity, that proximity supports an inference of retaliation.

Inconsistency matters. If the explanation shifts or conflicts with what they told you initially, that undermines credibility.

Comparisons matter. If similarly situated employees who didn’t complain kept their jobs, that disparity is evidence of discrimination.

Documentation matters. If the employer claims performance issues but your reviews were positive, that contradiction shows pretext.

The business justification matters. If the employer claims financial hardship while posting strong earnings, or claims your position is unnecessary while reassigning your work, those contradictions expose the real reason.

Common explanations that don’t hold up

“We’re eliminating your position.”

But the work still needs to be done, and others are doing it. If the position were truly eliminated, the responsibilities would disappear.

“It’s part of a broader reorganization.”

But you’re the only person affected, or the only person who recently complained. Broader reorganizations affect more than one person.

“This is a business decision.”

That’s not a defense. The question is whether discrimination or retaliation motivated that decision.

“Your skills don’t match our new direction.”

But your skills were fine last month, and this concern was never raised before. And the new direction requires exactly what you’ve been doing.

“We need to reduce headcount.”

But the company is hiring elsewhere, revenues are stable, and no one else was let go. Selective reduction targeting one person after a complaint looks like retaliation.

What New York law specifically prohibits

Under New York law, restructuring cannot be used as a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. Employers can reorganize, but if the decision to eliminate your specific position was motivated by discrimination or retaliation, it’s unlawful.

Under both State and City law, retaliation doesn’t require termination. It includes demotion, removal of responsibilities, reassignment, or any action reasonably likely to deter someone from asserting their rights.

The law recognizes that discrimination rarely involves direct admissions. Employers say “restructuring” instead of “we’re retaliating.” Courts examine whether the stated reason holds up under scrutiny.

When the explanation falls apart

If you were laid off in a restructuring and any of these apply, the explanation may be pretextual.

The timing. Announced shortly after you filed a complaint, opposed discrimination, requested accommodation, or took protected leave.

The scope. You’re the only person affected, or one of very few, while the company describes it as a broader reorganization.

The work. Your responsibilities continue under someone else or get redistributed rather than eliminated.

The inconsistency. The company’s explanation has shifted or conflicts with what they said initially.

The comparison. Other employees in similar roles who didn’t engage in protected activity kept their jobs.

The contradiction. The company claims financial necessity, but financials don’t support it, or claims your role is obsolete, but the work continues.

What an employment lawyer evaluates

An employment lawyer examines your timeline, the employer’s stated reasons, the scope of the restructuring, and the evidence of pretext.

They look at who else was affected. They compare how the company treated similarly situated employees. They identify inconsistencies between the stated reason and the documented facts. They evaluate whether the timing supports an inference of retaliation.

That evaluation determines whether you have a viable discrimination or retaliation claim. The conversation is confidential. And it provides clarity about whether what happened was lawful or whether restructuring was used as a cover.

Why this matters

Pretextual restructuring is one of the most common forms of workplace retaliation in New York.

Employers know they can’t admit retaliation. So they announce a restructuring, eliminate one position, and claim business necessity. But when the timing, scope, and explanation don’t align with the facts, that’s not a business necessity. That’s unlawful retaliation.

New York law provides strong protections, damages for emotional distress, back pay, front pay, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees/costs. And the burden on employers to justify their decisions is substantial.

You’re not required to accept that your termination was just business. If the circumstances suggest otherwise, the law gives you recourse.

We see this pattern constantly

At Risman & Risman, we represent New York employees who were terminated under the guise of restructuring.

We know what pretextual restructuring looks like. We know how to identify timing patterns, inconsistent explanations, and disparate treatment. We know how to evaluate whether a business reason holds up under scrutiny.

And we know how to hold employers accountable when restructuring is used to mask discrimination or retaliation.

If you were laid off as part of a restructuring and the circumstances don’t add up, we can tell you whether what happened was lawful.

Call us at 212-233-6400 or contact us online for a free confidential consultation.

Sometimes restructuring is business. Sometimes it’s discrimination. We can help you determine which.