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...
"Here is a follow-up video capturing a classic moment from the Xi-Trump summit: While Xi Jinping was away using the restroom, Trump casually glanced through a small notebook Xi had left on the tab...