`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 1 of 42
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`ALISON RAY
`
`Collegeville, PA 19426,
`on behalf of herself individually
`and on behalf of those similarly
`situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC.
`
`1025 Lenox Park Blvd, NE.
`
`Atlanta, GA 30319
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18—03303
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`FIRST AMENDED CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Plaintiff, Alison Ray, brings this action against her former employer, AT&T Mobility
`
`Services. LLC. alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”),
`
`as amended by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621,
`
`et seq.
`
`Despite her excellent performance throughout twenty-three (23) years of service
`
`with Defendant, Plaintiff was terminated on account of her age (49 at the time of
`
`termination) as a result of AT&T’s company—wide “Workforce 2020” plan to reduce what
`
`it perceived to be an aging workforce.
`
`In connection with her termination as part of a
`
`group termination/reduction in force assigned “Business Case ID 17-350," Defendant
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 2 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 2 of 42
`
`presented to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff signed, what purported to be a general release and
`
`waiver, but which has been determined to violate the OWPBA.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for age discrimination in violation of
`
`the ADEA as a collective action pursuant to the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), incorporating
`
`section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of herself
`
`individually and in behalf of those similarly situated,
`
`i.e., all former employees of
`
`Defendant who when age 40 or over were terminated in connection with “Business Case
`
`ID 17—350" and who signed a release agreement entitled "GENERAL RELEASE AND
`
`WAIVER AT&T INC. SEVERANCE PAY PLAN (NON-CALIFORNIA)" (referred to
`
`hereinafter as “Older Workers").
`
`In that regard, Plaintiff seeks an Order providing that
`
`Notice of this lawsuit be given to each Older Worker.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff seeks damages,
`
`including back—pay, front-pay, compensatory, liquidated, attorneys’ fees and costs, and
`
`all other relief that this Court deems appropriate.
`
`ll.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Alison Ray is an individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of
`
`Pennsylvania, residing therein in Collegeville, PA 19426.
`
`2.
`
`AT&T,
`
`Inc.
`
`is a Delaware corporation that
`
`is the parent company of
`
`Defendant AT&T Mobility Services, LLC.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant AT&T Mobility Services, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
`
`company duly registered to transact business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as
`
`a foreign corporation, with a registered agent in Pennsylvania for service of legal process.
`
`AT&T Mobility Services, LLC maintains several places of business located throughout the
`
`Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, maintains systematic and continuous activity with
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 3 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 3 of 42
`
`Pennsylvania such that it is at home in Pennsylvania, and has employed many people in
`
`the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including Plaintiff.
`
`4.
`
`AT&T,
`
`Inc., by and through its wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary
`
`corporation AT&T Mobility Services, LLC., maintains multiple places of business in
`
`Pennsylvania, including the offices at which Plaintiff worked, conducts business through
`
`AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, maintains systematic and continuous activity with
`
`Pennsylvania such that it is at home in Pennsylvania, and has employed thousands of
`
`people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including Plaintiff.
`
`5.
`
`AT&T, Inc. shares with Defendant AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, inter alfa,
`
`common ownership, management, administrative services, personnel, policies, and
`
`employment practices.
`
`6.
`
`AT&T,
`
`inc. and Defendant AT&T Mobility Services, LLC (collectively
`
`"AT&T“), hold themselves out to the public and their employees as part of an AT&T “family
`
`of companies" known as "AT&T” which, together and as one entity, employ over 270,000
`
`people.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`AT&T, Inc. is the “alter ego” of Defendant AT&T Mobility Services, LLC.
`
`AT&T, inc. and AT&T Mobility Services, LLC are interconnected such that
`
`they are considered a “single" and/or “integrated” employer andlor enterprise.
`
`9.
`
`AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Mobility Services, LLC have employed thousands of
`
`people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including Plaintiff.
`
`10.
`
`At all times material hereto, AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Mobility Services, LLC
`
`have been engaged in an industry affecting interstate commerce and have acted as
`
`“employers" within the meaning of the ADEA.
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 4 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 4 of 42
`
`11.
`
`At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant within
`
`the meaning of the ADEA.
`
`12.
`
`At all times material hereto, AT&T employed more than twenty (20) people.
`
`13.
`
`At all times material hereto, AT&T acted by and through their authorized
`
`agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees within the course and scope of their
`
`employment with and in furtherance of Defendant’s business.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`14.
`
`The causes of action set forth in this Complaint arise under the ADEA, as
`
`amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621, sf seq.
`
`15.
`
`The District Court has subject matterjurisdiction over Counts l and II
`
`(ADEA) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 626(0) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`16.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
`
`17.
`
`On or about March 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with
`
`the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC”), complaining of the acts of
`
`discrimination alleged herein. Attached hereto,
`
`incorporated herein, and marked as
`
`Exhibit “A" is a true and correct copy of the EEOC Charge of Discrimination (with minor
`
`redactions for purposes of electronic filing of confidential/identifying information).
`
`18.
`
`On or about May 7, 2018, the EEOC issued to Plaintiff a Dismissal and
`
`Notice of Right to Sue for Plaintiff's EEOC Charge. Attached hereto and marked as
`
`Exhibit “B" is a true and correct copy of that Notice (with minor redactions for purposes of
`
`electronic filing of confidential/identifying information).
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff has fully complied with all administrative prerequisites for the
`
`commencement of this action.
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 5 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 5 of 42
`
`20.
`
`AT&T Mobility Services, LLC is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this
`
`Court because, inter alia, the case arises out of or relates to the contacts of AT&T Mobility
`
`Services, LLC with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The contacts of AT&T Mobility
`
`Services, LLC are continuous and systematic such that AT&T Mobility Services, LLC is
`
`at home here, andior AT&T Mobility Services, LLC has consented to personal jurisdiction
`
`by personal service within the state via an authorized agent of the corporation.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`21.
`
`AT&T has a corporate culture of age bias and a public record of egregious
`
`age discrimination.
`
`22.
`
`AT&T’s Chief Executive Officer, Randall Stephenson, has publicly
`
`discussed that AT&T has an aging workforce and a need to reinvent the company. See
`
`Gearing Up
`
`for
`
`the Cloud, AT&T Tells
`
`its Workers:
`
`Adapt or Else,
`
`http:liwww.nytimes.com, February 13, 2016. As part of this reinvention, AT&T came up
`
`with a plan to “retool" its aging workforce by the year 2020.
`
`id.
`
`23.
`
`As part of its plan — variously called “Vision 2020," "Workforce 2020,”
`
`“Workplace 2020" — AT&T has publicly expressed age-based stereotypes and has
`
`acknowledged that those age-based stereotypes are considered in workplace decisions.
`
`See, e. 9., AT&T Prepares for a New World of Work: The Changing Work Force (Part 2),
`
`https://networkingexchangeblog.att.com/enterprise-business (dividing its workforce by
`
`age, characterizing “Baby Boomers” as the workforce of "Yesterday," expressing without
`
`stated basis what is important to “Baby Boomers” as distinct from “Gen X” and "Gen Y”
`
`workers, explicitly stating that AT&T is taking these age-based stereotypical "factors into
`
`account when planning for our workplace of the future," and stating that by 2015, 90% of
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 6 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 6 of 42
`
`new hires will be from Gen X and Gen Y).
`
`24.
`
`AT&T has implemented its age discriminatory “2020" plan by a three-step
`
`"surplus," then termination and fraudulent release scheme.
`
`25.
`
`AT&T‘s fraudulent three—step plan has been carried out with the intent to
`
`harm older workers.
`
`26.
`
`The first step in AT&T’s fraudulent three-step scheme is an age-biased
`
`selection process in which certain employees are placed on “surplus" status.
`
`27.
`
`In the context of AT&T's fraudulent scheme, “surplus” status is distinct from
`
`termination of employment.
`
`28.
`
`Employees are selected for surplus based on centrally determined,
`
`company-wide, ill-defined and/or subjective criteria in a process infected with age bias.
`
`Without
`
`limitation, employees are assigned a rating for “skills," however the “skills"
`
`supposedly assessed are not those necessary to perform an actual job, but a job of the
`
`"future" per "Vision 2020,” thus permitting managers to assign ratings based on the ageist
`
`stereotype that older workers could not or would not acquire “high tech” skills necessary
`
`for these future jobs.
`
`29.
`
`In the second step of AT&T’s fraudulent plan. workers placed on “surplus"
`
`are given the opportunity to find an alternative position.
`
`If an employee placed on surplus
`
`is unable to find an alternative position within sixty (60) days,
`
`their employment is
`
`terminated.
`
`30.
`
`In the third and final step of its plan, AT&T promises its terminated workers
`
`a severance payment in exchange for signing what purports to be a “General Release
`
`and Waiver" of claims. but which AT&T knows is not valid and enforceable as the
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 7 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 7 of 42
`
`Release falsely states that terminated workers are giving up their right to bring suit
`
`against AT&T under the ADEA.
`
`31.
`
`The General Release and Waiver was designed and prepared by AT&T with
`
`the intent to harm older workers.
`
`32.
`
`AT&T has intentionally carried out its three-step plan in waves so as to keep
`
`its older workers in the dark regarding the intent and effect thereof.
`
`33.
`
`The purported General Release and Waiver offered by AT&T, along with its
`
`accompanying ADEA Listing, is invalid and unenforceable insomuch as it is not knowing
`
`and voluntary, falsely states that it waives the employee’s right to bring suit under the
`
`ADEA, and fails to comply with various disclosure requirements contained in the OWBPA.
`
`34.
`
`The General Release and Waiver offered to terminated workers is
`
`fraudulent and unenforceable for the following reasons, without Ilmtiation:
`
`a. The General Release and Waiver provides none of the disclosures
`
`required for a knowing and voluntary waiver of claims under the ADEA.
`
`including the right to bring an age discrimination lawsuit.
`
`b. The General Release and Waiver provides no information to terminated
`
`workers as to who is actually being terminated and who is being
`
`retained.
`
`c. The General Release and Waiver provides no meaningful information,
`
`in a manner calculated to be understood by the average individual,
`
`regarding the criteria used for placing certain employees on surplus
`
`status.
`
`d. The General Release and Waiver provides no meaningful information,
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 8 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 8 of 42
`
`in a manner calculated to be understood by the average individual,
`
`regarding the "organization" to which an employee is assigned in the
`
`accompanying ADEA Listing.
`
`The ADEA Listing contains a category entitled “AWG,” which is defined
`
`therein as “Affected Work Groups.” According to the ADEA Listing,
`
`“AWGS” “are comprised of positions at the same level with similar
`
`definabie characteristics from which the surplus employees are
`
`selected. An AWG may be any portion of an organization, described in
`
`terms of level,
`
`job title, similar job functions, geography,
`
`lines of
`
`organization or other definable attributes based on needs of the
`
`business. The combined AWGs comprise the Decisional Unit for this
`
`business case."
`
`The ADEA Listing purports to describe but in fact does not provide
`
`meaningful
`
`information as to the AWG category,
`
`the basis for
`
`employees receiving different AWG numbers, or why those with
`
`different AWGs are grouped together for purposes of the ADEA Listing.
`
`Documentation accompanying the General Release and Waiver
`
`contains the designation: "PROPRIETARY not for use or disclosure
`
`outside AT&T, Inc. and all its wholly owned subsidiaries and controlled
`
`companies, except under written permission."
`
`This designation
`
`discourages employees on surplus from sharing information with each
`
`other or consulting with an attorney and furthers AT&T's fraudulent plan
`
`to keep its older workers in the dark regarding the discriminatory nature
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 9 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 9 of 42
`
`of their terminations.
`
`35.
`
`At all times material hereto, AT&T knew that the General Release and
`
`Waiver was fraudulent, unenforceable, and was intended to harm older workers for the
`
`foregoing reasons.
`
`36.
`
`As part of AT&T’s 2020 plan with three step “surplus," then termination and
`
`fraudulent release scheme, and with the intent and effect of eliminating older employees
`
`from its workforce, Defendant underwent a group termination/red uction in force assigned
`
`Business Case ID: 17-350.
`
`3?.
`
`In connection with the group termination/reduction in force assigned
`
`Business Case ID: 17—350, Defendant terminated the employment of Plaintiff and Older
`
`Workers because of their age and presented to them a General Release and Waiver
`
`(entitled “GENERAL RELEASE AND WAIVER AT&T INC. SEVERANCE PAY PLAN
`
`(NON-CALIFORNIA)”), which purported to be a general release and waiver but is not
`
`knowing and voluntary, falsely states that it waives the employee’s right to bring suit under
`
`the ADEA, and fails to comply with various disclosure requirements contained in the
`
`OWBPA.
`
`38.
`
`The group terminationlreduction in force assigned Business Case ID: 17-
`
`350 was centrally planned, part of AT&T'S pattern or practice of age discrimination,
`
`infected by age discrimination and/or infused with AT&T’s top-down corporate culture of
`
`age bias.
`
`39.
`
`The group termination/reduction In force entitled Business Case ID: 17-350
`
`was infected by an age discriminatory aspect, i.e., the fact that it entailed obtaining from
`
`Plaintiff and Older Workers a General Release and Waiver that violates the ADEA, as
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 10 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 10 of 42
`
`amended by the OWBPA.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff was employed by AT&T, Inc. and its controlled subsidiarylpayroll
`
`company, AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, from May 16, 1994 until the date of her unlawful
`
`termination of employment effective January 15, 2018.
`
`41.
`
`From September of 2011 until the time of her termination in 2018, Plaintiff
`
`held the position of Director of Sales.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff reported to Judith Cavalieri (Cavalieri), AT&T Vice President and
`
`General Manager - Ohio/Pennsylvania (511).
`
`Plaintiff began reporting to Cavalier]
`
`effective April 1, 2016, when she was appointed to her position.
`
`43.
`
`Prior to reporting to Cavalieri, Plaintiff had reported to Tiffany Baehman,
`
`Vice President, General Manager of Liberty States (46).
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff was a highly qualified and dedicated employee for AT&T for more
`
`than twenty-three (23) years.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff’s
`
`extensive
`
`knowledge,
`
`skills,
`
`experience,
`
`and
`
`record of
`
`achievement as a successful Director of Sales were recognized by AT&T.
`
`46.
`
`By way of example, Plaintiff
`
`received annual merit
`
`increases and
`
`performance-based bonuses.
`
`47.
`
`For 2014, 2015, and 2016, Plaintiff received overall performance ratings of
`
`"fully meets" her business goals.
`
`48.
`
`As a result of these accomplishments, Plaintiff was called upon by AT&T to
`
`serve as a mentor for team members in her area.
`
`49.
`
`However, in furtherance of its "Vision 2020” plan, on November 16, 2017,
`
`
`
`1 All ages herein are approximations.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 11 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 11 of 42
`
`AT&T notified Plaintiff that the position that she held was being eliminated and that she
`
`was being placed on "surplus status."
`
`50.
`
`On the same day that she received the surplus notification, Plaintiff received
`
`a General Release and Waiver of Claims along with an ADEA Listing containing certain
`
`information regarding Plaintiff's “Organization.”
`
`51.
`
`The General Release provided to Plaintiff fraudulently purported to release
`
`her claims against AT&T, including federal age discrimination claims with respect to her
`
`employment and termination of employment.
`
`52.
`
`As a result of being placed on surplus status, Plaintiff was to remain
`
`employed until January 15, 2018, at which time her employment was to be terminated if
`
`she had not been selected by AT&T for, and accepted, another position.
`
`53.
`
`In the General Release provided to Plaintiff, AT&T affirmatively and falsely
`
`represented to Plaintiff that, at the time of her termination, it had provided to her the ages
`
`and job titles of those “designated to participate in the [AT&T, Inc. Severance Pay Plan].”
`
`AT&T knew this to be false. The AT&T, lnc. Severance Pay Plan required, as a condition
`
`of eligibility, that its participants had to have actually been terminated from employment.
`
`54.
`
`Accordingly, the General Release provided to Plaintiff affirmatively and
`
`falsely represented to her that, at the time of her termination, it had provided to her the
`
`ages and job titles other employees who had been placed on surplus status and
`
`terminated.
`
`55.
`
`However, as of November 16, 2017, the date of the General Release, no
`
`one identified on the ADEA Listing was actually eligible for participation in the Severance
`
`Plan because none of those employees had yet been terminated.
`
`In fact, some
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 12 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 12 of 42
`
`employees who had been placed on surplus status along with Plaintiff were able to find
`
`other positions at AT&T within the sixty (60) day period.
`
`56.
`
`Thus, contrary to the affirmative and false representation contained in the
`
`General Release, AT&T dfd not, and could not have, informed Plaintiff which employees
`
`were eligible for participation in the plan.
`
`57'.
`
`Further, the General Release given to Plaintiff provided no information
`
`explaining the specific criteria relied up in Plaintiff's selection for surplus status. Without
`
`providing any additional information, the General Release and Waiver simply stated the
`
`following: "The considerations when designating eligible employees for company initiated
`
`involuntary termination and participation in the AT&T Inc. Severance Pay Plan include
`
`some or all of the following: business needs, criticality of skills, job performance, role
`
`elimination, geographic location, and/or employee preference for displacement (“interest
`
`in leaving’).”
`
`58.
`
`According to the criteria identified by AT&T for placing Plaintiff on surplus
`
`status, the reasons for Plaintiff’s surplus notification could have been any conceivable
`
`business-related reasons.
`
`59.
`
`The "ADEA Listing” provided to Plaintiff was for an “Organization" identified
`
`as “Mobility Retail Sales and Service — East Region Jennifer Van Buskirk Region
`
`President — Large Business.”
`
`There was no information explaining what
`
`this
`
`"Organization” identification meant, and no information provided as to how this
`
`Organization was determined or who was assigned to it.
`
`60.
`
`The ADEA Listing provided to Plaintiff does not indicate why Plaintiff was
`
`assigned to a certain AWG 12 and why others were assigned different AWG numbers.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 13 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 13 of 42
`
`61.
`
`The ADEA Listing provided to Plaintiff failed to provide required information
`
`and disclosures regarding the numbers of employees in Plaintiff’s Decisional Unit.
`
`62.
`
`The ADEA Listing provided to Plaintiff also contained a category entitled
`
`“IIL.” The ADEA Listing defines "IIL" as “interest in Leaving," which, according to the
`
`ADEA Listing "is a process used in some business cases that invites employees to
`
`express their interest in terminating their employment with eligibility for severance
`
`benefits. Employees expressing ||L may or may not be selected based on needs of the
`
`business, and employees who have not expressed ||L may nevertheless be selected for
`
`surplus based on other criteria such as performance, experience, skills and training.”
`
`53.
`
`The ADEA Listing provided to Plaintiff purports to but in fact does not
`
`provide meaningful information regarding this category.
`
`64.
`
`January ’15, 2018 marked the commencement of the sixty (60) day period
`
`for Plaintiff to consider the General Release and Waiver.
`
`65.
`
`The ADEA Listing provided to Plaintiff on November 16, 201? was not given
`
`to her at the commencement of the General Release and Waiver consideration period as
`
`explicitly required by the OWBPA.
`
`66.
`
`As a result of the foregoing, the General Release provided to Plaintiff was
`
`not valid and enforceable insomuch as AT&T fraudulently induced Plaintiff to sign the
`
`General Release while hiding from her information critical to an assessment of whether
`
`or not her termination was the result of age discrimination.
`
`67.
`
`AT&T has stated that Plaintiff was placed on surplus status because her
`
`position was being eliminated. This stated reason for placing Plaintiff on surplus is merely
`
`a pretext for age discrimination.
`
`1'3
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 14 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 14 of 42
`
`68.
`
`Following Plaintiff’s placement on surplus status there remained at least
`
`twenty-two (22) Director of Sales positions in Plaintiff's “Organization."
`
`69.
`
`Further, there remained the following Directors of Sales who performed the
`
`same function as Plaintiff, including at least five (5) who reported to Cavalieri and worked
`
`in the same region as Plaintiff: Linda Gill (30, with two (2) years as Director of Sales);
`
`Eric Decker (33, with six (6) months as Director of Sales); Emily Wiper (34, with eight (8)
`
`months as Director of Sales); Giovanni Ouiros (36, with three (3) years as Director of
`
`Sales); and Kevin Kuhn (40, with nine (9) months as Director of Sales).
`
`70.
`
`The average age of those included in Plaintiff’s "Organization" was 41.31.
`
`The average age of the employees in the Organization selected for surplus was 46.14.
`
`71.
`
`Per the ADEA Listing, of the eight (8) individuals assigned to “AWG 12,"
`
`Plaintiff was one (’I ) of two (2) selected for surplus by AT&T. Of the eight (8) employees
`
`assigned to AWG 12, the two (2) employees, including Plaintiff and an employee older
`
`than Plaintiff, who were selected for surplus, were the two (2) oldest employees in AWG
`
`12. Of the remaining six (6) individuals in AWG 12 that AT&T did not select for surplus
`
`status, all were younger than Plaintiff, including some who were substantially younger
`
`(including three (3) individuals in their thirties (303)).
`
`72.
`
`Based on,
`
`inter alia, Plaintiff's knowledge, skills, and outstanding track
`
`record with AT&T, including in particular as a Director of Sales, Plaintiff was at least as,
`
`or better, qualified than all of the employees, including the three (3) substantially younger
`
`employees, in AWG 12 who were not selected for surplua
`
`73.
`
`Per the ADEA Listing, there were twenty—nine (29) people who held Director
`
`of Sales positions in the Organization, only seven (7) of whom were selected for surplus.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 15 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 15 of 42
`
`The Directors of Sales selected for surplus were ages 31, 43, 46, 47, 49, 50, and 51.
`
`Plaintiff was older than twenty-one (21) individuals who held a Director of Sales position
`
`in the Organization, including several individuals younger than forty (40), each of whom
`
`was not selected for surplus and was retained by AT&T.
`
`74.
`
`Based on, inter alia, Plaintiff knowledge, skills, and outstanding track record
`
`with AT&T, including in particular as a Director of Sales, Plaintiff was at least as, or better,
`
`qualified than all of the employees, including the seventeen (’17) younger employees, who
`
`held that position and were not selected for surplus.
`
`75.
`
`Based on, inter alia, Plaintiff’s last formal performance appraisal in which
`
`Plaintiff received an overall score of “Fully Meets,” and a leadership rating of “Exceeds,”
`
`and the recognition by AT&T of Plaintiff’s outstanding performance, results and positive
`
`contributions to the company over a more than twenty-three (23) year career, any fair and
`
`unbiased assessment of the criteria on which individuals were to have been rated and
`
`ranked for surplus selection purposes (business needs, criticality of
`
`skills,
`
`job
`
`performance,
`
`role elimination, geographic location, and/or employee preference for
`
`displacement), would not have resulted in Plaintiff being selected for surplus status.
`
`76.
`
`As of the termination of Plaintiff's employment on January 15, 2018, Plaintiff
`
`was instructed to consider signing the General Release and Waiver in exchange for a
`
`severance payment.
`
`77.
`
`As of January 15, 2018, no suitable replacement positions at the Director
`
`level were available for Plaintiff to apply to.
`
`78.
`
`AT&T terminated Plaintiff’s employment effective January 15, 2018.
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiff signed and returned the General Release and Waiver on or about
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 16 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 16 of 42
`
`January 16, 2018.
`
`80.
`
`The General Release and Waiver signed by Plaintiff
`
`is
`
`invalid and
`
`unenforceable as to her ADEA claims insomuch as it provides none of the disclosures
`
`required for a knowing and voiuntary waiver of claims under the ADEA.
`
`81.
`
`The surplus notification, General Release and Waiver, ADEA Listing and
`
`other documents provided by Defendant to Plaintiff in connection with her selection for
`
`surplus and termination were uniform, standard form documents that were also provided
`
`to Older Workers in connection with their termination of employment as part of the group
`
`termination/reduction in force assigned “Business Case ID: 17-350."
`
`82.
`
`The group termination/reduction in force assigned “Business Case ID: 1?-
`
`350" was centrally planned, centrally coordinated, and uniformly implemented.
`
`83.
`
`The group termination/reduction in force assigned "Business Case ID: 17-
`
`350” used processes that were centrally planned, standard and uniform.
`
`84.
`
`Plaintiff and Older Workers are similarly situated in that, among other things,
`
`they were the victims of AT&T’s age discriminatory 2020 plan and three step “surplus,”
`
`then termination and fraudulent release scheme, who were terminated as part of Business
`
`Case ID: 17-350, a group termination/reduction in force infected by age discrimination,
`
`including, but not limited to, the fact that it entailed obtaining from Plaintiff and Older
`
`Workers a General Release and Waiver that violates the ADEA, as amended by the
`
`OWBPA.
`
`85.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the discriminatory conduct of AT&T,
`
`Plaintiff and Older Workers have in the past incurred, and may in the future incur, a loss
`
`of earnings andfor earning capacity, loss of benefits, pain and suffering, embarrassment,
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 17 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 17 of 42
`
`humiliation, loss of self-esteem, mental anguish, and loss of life's pleasures, the full extent
`
`of which is not known at this time.
`
`VIOLATION OF THE ADEA — (SURPLUS SELECTION AND TERMINATION}
`(by Plaintiff Allison Ray individually and on behalf of similarly situated Older
`Workers)
`
`COUNT I
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of
`
`this
`
`Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`8?.
`
`AT&T Mobility Services, LLC intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff and
`
`Older Workers because of their age.
`
`88.
`
`AT&T Mobility Services, LLC has violated the ADEA by committing the
`
`foregoing acts of disorimination as alleged herein, including, without limitation selecting
`
`Plaintiff and Older Workers for “surplus" in November 2017, and/or terminating their
`
`employment effective thereafter on or before January 15, 2018.
`
`89.
`
`As a direct result of AT&T Mobility Services, LLC’s discriminatory conduct,
`
`Plaintiff and Older Workers have in the past incurred, and will in the future incur, a loss of
`
`earnings andlor earnings capacity, loss of benefits, and other injuries, the full extent of
`
`which are not known at this time.
`
`90.
`
`AT&T Mobility Services, LLC's violations of the ADEA were intentional and
`
`willful under the circumstances and warrant the imposition of liquidated damages.
`
`91.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of AT&T Mobility Services, LLC’s violations
`
`of the ADEA, Plaintiff and Older Workers have sustained the injuries, damages, and
`
`losses set forth herein.
`
`1?
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 18 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 18 of 42
`
`92.
`
`Plaintiff and Older Workers are now suffering and will continue to suffer
`
`irreparable injury as a result of AT&T Mobility Services, LLC’s discriminatory and unlawful
`
`acts unless and until the Court grants the relief requested herein.
`
`VIOLATION OF THE ADEA — FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE OWBPA
`
`(by Plaintiff Alison Ray individually and on behalf of similarly situated Older
`Workers)
`
`COUNT ll
`
`93.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of
`
`this
`
`Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`94.
`
`AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, by the above-described improper and
`
`discriminatory acts, has violated the OWBPA.
`
`95.
`
`Plaintiff and Older Workers were not given an OWBPA-compliant release
`
`and therefore, they did not release their claims under the ADEA, or waive their right to
`
`bring or participate in a collective or representative action under the ADEA.
`
`96.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of AT&T Mobility Services, LLC’s violation
`
`of the OWBPA, Plaintiff and Older Workers were misled regarding their rights under
`
`federal law and/or harmed in the prosecution of their claims under the ADEA.
`
`97.
`
`Plaintiff and Older Workers did not release their ADEA claims nor did they
`
`waive their rights under the ADEA to an age discrimination action under the ADEA.
`
`98.
`
`Plaintiff and Older Workers are entitled to declaratory relief, declaring the
`
`General Release and Waiver invalid as to all claims and rights under the ADEA.
`
`99.
`
`Plaintiff and Older Workers are entitled to injunctive relief, enjoining and
`
`restraining AT&T Mobility Services, LLC from raising the General Release and Waiver as
`
`a defense to Plaintiffs and Older Workers’ claims.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 19 of 42
`Case 2:18-cv-03303-TR Document 48 Filed 06/20/19 Page 19 of 42
`
`100. As a direct and proximate result of AT&T Mobility Services, LLC’s violation
`
`of the OWBPA, Plaintiff and Older Workers have sustained the injuries set forth herein.
`
`101.
`
`Plaintiff and Older Workers are now suffering and will continue to suffer
`
`irreparable injury as a result of AT&T Mobility Services, LLC’s discriminatory acts unless
`
`and until this Court grants the equitable relief requested herein.
`
`
`RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in
`
`favor of Plaintiff, Alison Ray, and against AT&T Mobility Services, LLC:
`
`a)
`
`declaring this actio