When implementing a reduction in force, an employer should be aware of the common legal pitfalls associated with such an action. Due to seniority, employers should be aware of the impact of terminations based on salary since older workers may be paid higher than others on average. Thus the employer should be aware of the age of the employees to be terminated as a termination allegedly based on economic factors may constitute impermissible discrimination. Additionally, courts generally absolve the employer from liability in regards to reduction in force as the employer will follow a specified procedure for terminations, where objective criteria are used to determine the individuals to be discharged and where the position is eliminated. Moreover, to avoid further legal pitfalls, the employer should always prove that age was not a factor in the decision. Although nothing in ADEA prohibits the elimination of a protected employees position for budgetary reasons, employers should analyze economic contributions by the functional or business unit elements of the organization. By analyzing the economic contribution by the functional or business unit elements of the organization, the knowledge gained can be used to allocate reduction in force targets in a laser-focused way, designed to minimize the adverse long-term impact on the organization when the market conditions improve. This is super important as it may maintain employee morale and it is much easier to explain the reduction in force policy to the employees. Employers should make sure that reduction in force is for budgetary reasons and not to hide the larger reason of age being the true determinant. Employers should also look for ways to first solve budget problems through other solutions before terminating a large group of employees.