Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 1 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 1 of 47
`
`JS44 (actor/ts)
`CIVIL COVER SHEET
`The is 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained hereinncithcr replace nor supplement the filjn and service of pleadings or other papers as re uired by law, except as
`provided by local rules ofcourt. This form, approved b the Judicial Con erence of the ntted States in optember l974, is required for the use ofthe
`ierk ofCourt {or the
`purpose 0 initiating the civil docket sheet.
`(SEE INSTR ICTIONS 0N NEXI' PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
`I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
`DEFENDANTS
`
`PATRICE KAN'iZ
`
`(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Georgetown
`(EXCEPT IN U.S. I’LAIM'IFFCASES)
`
`AT&T. lNC.
`AT&T SERVICES. INC.
`Dallas
`County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
`(IN US. PLAINTIFFCASKS ONLY)
`IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USETHE LOCATION OF
`THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
`
`NOTE:
`
`(C) Attorneys (firm Name, Address. and Telephone Number)
`
`Attorneys (IfKnown)
`
`Susan Saint-Anotlne, Esq., Console Mattiacci Law, 1525 Locust Street.
`9th FL. Philadelphia. PA 19102
`
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" In One BaxOnIy)
`U 1 US. Government
`2‘ 3
`Federal Question
`Plaintiff
`(US Governmcnl Not a Party)
`
`III. CITIZENSHIP 0F PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" In One Buijr Plain/W
`(For Diversity Cases Only)
`and One Boxfor Deflndanl)
`FTP
`DEF
`PTF
`DEF
`0 l
`Ci
`0 4
`Cl 4
`
`1
`
`incorporated or Principal Place
`of Business In This State
`
`Citizen ofThis State
`
`0 2
`
`0.5. Government
`Defendant
`
`0 4 Diversity
`(Ind/care Clllzenrltlp ofPart/es In Item III)
`
`Citizen ofAnother State
`
`0 2
`
`El
`
`2
`
`incorporated and Principal Place
`ofBusiness in Another State
`
`0 5
`
`O 5
`
`Citizen or Subject ofa
`Forei Cotm
`
`D 3
`
`D 3
`
`Foreign Notion
`
`Ci 6
`
`O 6
`
`
`
`
`
`E:
`
`Cii
` IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X"
`k here for: Nture of uiCode_srt {ll
`
`-
`WWWMW t’
`‘
`e- AL .iiilll'tii‘l’ll
`:
`a:
`i --
`~
`’
`
`Cl
`PERSONAL INJURY
`0 625 Drug Related Seizure
`USC i58
`l i0 insurance
`D 375 False Claims Act
`U 365 Personal injury -
`C] 120 Marine
`D 3l0Airpiunc
`ofPropcrtyZl USC 88] D 423 Withdrawal
`[J 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
`Product Liability
`CI
`l30 Miller Act
`0 315 Airplane Product
`0 690 Other
`28 USC |57
`3729(3))
`0 MO Negotiable instrument
`Liability
`0 367 Health Carol
`0 400 State Reapportionment
`Cl
`ISO Recovery ofOverpayment U 320 Assault. Libel 6:
`Pharmaceutical
`mom 0 MO Antitntst
`
`& Enforcement ofiudgment
`Slander
`Personal injury
`0 820 Copyrights
`0 430 Banks and Banking
`
`Cl 330 Federal Employers‘
`Product Liability
`0 830 Patent
`0 i5i Medicare Act
`Cl 450 Commerce
`0 l52 Recovery ochl‘auitod
`Liability
`Cl 368 Asbestos Personal
`D 835 Patent - Abbreviated
`D 460 Deportation
`Student Loans
`Cl 340 Marine
`injury Product
`New Drug Application
`0 470 Racketeer influenced and
`(Excludes Veterans)
`D 345 Marine Product
`Liability
`0 840 Trademark
`Corrupt Organizations
`.B! ’
`D ”3 Recoveryol'Overpaymcnt
`Liability
`PERSONAL PROPERTY 3
`r
`-=_ '
`,
`,
`-
`i D 480 Consumer Credit
`“x“:
`ol'Vcteran's Benefits
`0 350 Motor Vehicle
`0 370 Other Fraud
`0 7I0 Fair Labor Standards
`0 86l HlA (i395
`0 485 Telephone Consumer
`C1 l60 Stockholders‘ Suits
`0 355 Motor Vehicle
`0 37i Truth in Lending
`Act
`0 862 Black Lung (923)
`Protection Act
`0 190 Other Contract
`Product Liability
`0 380 Other Personal
`0 720 Labor/Management ’
`D 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(3))
`Cl 490 Cable/Sat TV
`C!
`l95 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal
`Property Damage
`Relations
`0 864 SSiD Title XVl
`Cl 850 Securities/Commoditics/
`
`0 385 Property Damage
`Cl 740 Railway Labor Act
`0 865 RSI (405(3))
`injury
`Cl 196 Franchise
`Exchange
`
`0 362 Personal injury -
`Product Liability
`0 751 Family and Medical
`0 890 Other Statutory Actions
`
`Medical Malraeticc
`Leave Act
`D 89] Agricultural Acts
`liltiiitititt-R a- ‘EiPROPERWfiEéoi iz‘éitditGMBRIGHYIS
`:PRiSONERlBE'I'ifI‘IONS'::3 0 790 Other Labor Litigation
`ittiftlFEDERAli‘erXtSUI’PSEER” Cl 893 Environmental Matters
`
`Cl 440 Other Civil Rights
`Habeas Corpus:
`D 791 Employee Retirement
`[3 870 Taxes (US. Piaintiii'
`Cl 895 Freedom of information
`D 2l0 Land Condemnation
`
`D 44I Voting
`0 463 Alien Detainee
`income Security Act
`or Defendant)
`0 220 Foreclosure
`Act
`
`5 442 Employment
`0 510 Motions to Vacate
`D 87] lRS—Third Party
`0 896 Arbitration
`0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectmcnt
`O 443 Housing/
`Sentence
`26 USC 7609
`Ci 240Torts to Land
`D 899 Administrative Procedure
`
`
`Accommodations
`El 530 General
`0 245 Tort Product Liability
`Act/Review or Appeal of
`
`[J 445 Amer. w/Disabiiities- D 535 Death Penalty
`«ifilMMIGRATION .
`.
`Cl 290 All Other Real Property
`Agency Decision
`Employment
`Other:
`0 462 Naturalization Application
`0 950 Constitutionality of
`Cl 446 Amer. wlDisabilities - D 540 Mandamus 34 Other
`0 465 Other immigration
`State Statutes
`Other
`D 550 Civil Rights
`Actions
`0 448 Education
`0 555 Prison Condition
`Cl 560 Civil Detainee -
`Conditions of
`Confinement
`
`
`
`V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" In One Bax Only)
`ii! i Original
`Ci 2 Removed from
`Proceeding
`State Court
`
`D 3 Remanded from
`Appellate Court
`
`D 4 Reinstated or
`Reopened
`
`0 6 Multidistrict
`Litigation -
`Transfer
`
`Ci 8 Multidjsuict
`Litigation ~
`Direct Ftle
`
`Cl 5 Transferred from
`Another District
`(5 cl, )
`Cite the US. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do mucrrcjurlsdlcrlanalrrarurcs unless diverrlty):
`Vi CAUSE OF ACTION 29 U.S.C. ~ 621, et seo.
`_
`'
`Brietj description ofcause:
`Plaintiff was discriminated against because of her age.
`Ci CHECK iF THIS ts A CLASS ACTION
`’ DEMAND 3
`UNDER RULE 23, racvr.
`tn excess of $75,000
`
`Vii. REQUESTED IN
`COMPLAINT:
`VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
`
`(See lnrtmcllunr):
`IF ANY
`JUDGE
`DOCKET NUMBER
`
`
`DATE M SIGNATURE or ATTORNEY OF RECORD
`01/30/2020
`,,,,,
`.
`WWWWMW
`We
`RECEIPT li
`AMOUNT
`APPLYING iFP
`JUDGE
`MAG. JUDGE
`
`CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
`may DEMAND;
`Yes
`0N0
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 2 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 2 of 47
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`DESIGNATION FORM
`(to be used by counsel orpro se plaintifi"to indicate the category ofthe casefor the purpose ofassignment to the appropriate calendar)
`
`Address “Plaintiff:
`
`Address “Defendant,
`
`
`Murrells Inlet, SC 29576
`208 s. Aka rd , St. , Dallas, TX 75202
`
`
`Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction:
`
`RELA TED CASE, IF ANY:
`
`Case Number:
`
`
`
`Judge:
`
`Date Terminated:
`
`Civil cases are deemed related when Yes is answered to any of the following questions:
`
`1.
`
`Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year
`previously terminated action in this court?
`
`Does this case involve the same issue offact or grow out ofthe same transaction as a prior suit
`pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?
`
`Does this case involve the validity or infringement ofa patent already in suit or any earlier
`numbered case pending or within one year previously terminated action of this court?
`
`Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights
`case filed by the same individual?
`
`Yes D
`
`Yes D
`
`Yes D
`
`Yes [:|
`
`No
`
`I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case Cl is / E] is not
`this court except as noted above.
`-
`2
`DATE, 01/30/2020
`,, $7,...—
`
`Attorney-at-Law / Pro Se Plaintifi”
`
`55799
`Attorney I.D. it (ifapplicable)
`
`related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in
`
`DEIDEIEIEIEIEIEIP=
`
`Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
`
`Insurance Contract and Other Contracts
`Airplane Personal Injury
`Assault, Defamation
`Marine Personal Injury
`Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
`Other Personal Injury (Please specifil):
`Products Liability
`Products Liability — Asbestos
`. All other Diversity Cases
`(1°lease 517801739!
`
`CIVIL: (Place a \l in one category only)
`A.
`
`Federal Question Cases:
`
`Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts
`FELA
`
`Jones Act-Personal Injury
`Antitrust
`Patent
`Labor-Management Relations
`Civil Rights
`Habeas Corpus
`Securities Act(s) Cases
`Social Security Review Cases
`All other Federal Question Cases
`(Please spect'fii):
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`a).
`l.
`
`91 l
`
`E]
`Cl
`E]
`El
`
`E E
`
`l B
`
`E]
`
`ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
`(The effect ofthis certification is to remove the case from eligibilityfor arbitration.)
`
`Susan Saint-Antoine
`
`, counsel of record or pro se plaintiff, do hereby certify:
`
`/ Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, § 3(0) (2), that to the best ofmy knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case
`exceed the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs:
`
`
`
`El Reliefother than monetary damages is sought.
`DATE, 01/30/2020
`
`r
`..<._ -'
`
`if?"
`
`55799
`
`NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.
`
`Civ. 609 (5/2013)
`
`Attorney-at-Luw / Pro Se Plainttfl"
`
`Attorney I.D. # (ifapplicable)
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 3 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 3 of 47
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
`
`PATRICE KANTZ
`
`AT&T, INC.
`
`and
`AT&T SERVICES, INC.
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`NO.
`
`In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for
`plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of
`filing the complaint and selve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1 :03 of the plan set forth on the reverse
`side of this form.)
`In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
`designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on
`the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track
`to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.
`
`SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:
`
`(a) Habeas Corpus _. Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through § 2255.
`
`(b) Social Security — Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health
`and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.
`
`(c) Arbitration ~ Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2.
`
`(d) Asbestos — Cases involving claims for personal. injury or property damage from
`exposure to asbestos.
`
`(e) Special Management — Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are
`commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
`the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
`management cases.)
`
`(f) Standard Management - Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks.
`
`(
`
`(
`
`(
`
`(
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`(
`
`)
`
`(X)
`
`01/30/2020
`
`Date
`
`f
`/ "fl
`
`4;...”
`
`Plaintiff Patrice Kantz
`
`
`
`Attorney-at—law
`
`Attorney for
`
`215-545~7676
`
`215-565-2855
`
`santanto@conso|elaw.com
`
`Talephone
`
`FAX Number
`
`E—Mail Address
`
`(Civ. 660) 10/02
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 4 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 4 of 47
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`PATRICE KANTZ
`
`Murrells Inlet, SC 29576,
`on behalf of herself individually
`and on behalf of those similarly
`situated,
`
`/
`
`:
`'
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AT&T, INC.
`208 S. Akard St.
`
`Dallas, TX 75202,
`
`and
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC.
`208 S. Akard St.
`
`Dallas, TX 75202,
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. __
`
`ADEA COLLECTIVE ACTION
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants. :
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`AT&T, at the highest levels of the company, has expressed its displeasure at having an
`
`aging workforce, its intention to transform the company for the future, and its desire and
`
`expectation that older workers will leave its workforce. Toward that end, AT&T undertook a
`
`course of action designed to terminate the employment of older workers through a centrally
`
`planned workforce reduction in its Technology & Operations (“ATO”) business unit that was
`
`announced by ATO’S President, Jeff McElfresh, on January 4, 2019.
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 5 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 5 of 47
`
`In an e—mail message to all ATO management employees, President McElfresh described
`
`the upcoming workforce reduction in thinly veiled age biased terms. President McElfresh told
`
`the ATO managers: “To win in this new world, we must continue to lower costs and keep getting
`
`faster, leaner and more agile. This includes reductions in our organization, and others across the
`
`company, which will begin later this month and take place over several months.” (Emphasis
`
`added.) President McElfresh’s message suggested that the workforce reduction in ATO would in
`
`some unspecified way involve geographic location. Of course, to the extent that location was in
`
`fact a consideration, a workforce may intentionally be made younger through a reduction in force
`
`that considered location if, for example and without limitation, the areas in which a greater number
`
`of young employees were “located” (physically or simply by “assignment”) were designated as
`
`the favored locations and/or exempt from reduction, the employees were assigned a location with
`
`the intent to discriminate based on age, a location was determined for purposes of the reduction
`
`because of age, or location was a factor in the selection process used as a pretext for age
`
`discrimination.
`
`AT&T’s January 2019 workforce reduction in ATO was part of its long-term scheme and
`
`pattern or practice to replace older employees with younger ones.
`
`It was designed to, and did,
`
`discriminatorily remove older employees from AT&T’s workforce, and then intentionally deceive
`
`them into falsely believing that, in exchange for a severance benefit, they had released their right
`
`to sue the company for age discrimination. AT&T knowingly presented to the older workers
`
`terminated as part of its January, 2019 ATO reduction a “General Release and Waiver” that was
`
`materially identical to A'l‘&'l"s General Release and Waiver that the Honorable Timothy J. Rice
`
`of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had already determined
`
`to be in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 6 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 6 of 47
`
`The ADEA requires an employer seeking to obtain a release of age discrimination claims
`
`from a worker terminated as part of a group layoff to provide certain data and information
`
`regarding the group layoffs to allow the terminated worker to make an informed choice whether
`
`or not to Sign a waiver agreement. AT&T knew when they offered the terminated older
`
`employees severance in exchange for the execution of their “General Release and Waiver” that
`
`the release was in violation of the ADEA, that it was not knowing and voluntary as a matter of
`
`law, and that, contrary to what the release stated, it was no_t a release of their right to sue the
`
`company for age discrimination under the ADEA. Further, AT&T fraudulently obtained from
`
`the older employees a waiver of their statutory right to proceed collectively on an ADEA claim
`
`by intentionally and falsely telling them, in effect, that they would be waiving the right to
`
`proceed collectively on a claim that they had released anyway.
`
`Plaintiff, Patrice Kantz, a highly qualified and dedicated employee of A&T for more than
`
`37 years who worked in ATO, was notified of her selection for surplus on January 28, 2019 and
`
`terminated from employment at age 57 on March 28, 2019. Plaintiff‘s physical location had no
`
`bearing on the performance of her job duties. AT&T determined for purposes of surplus selection
`
`that Plaintiff was assigned to a non—favored location which was not the location where she
`
`physically worked nor the location to which she expressly indicated a willingness to relocate.
`
`AT&T selected her for surplus and terminated her employment because of her age, and then
`
`obtained from her a General Release and Waiver in violation of the ADEA. Plaintiff now brings
`
`this action against Defendants, AT&T Services, Inc. and its controlling parent, AT&T, Inc, for
`
`violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), as amended by the Older
`
`Workers Benefits Protection Act (“OWBPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. Plaintiff brings this action
`
`as a collective action pursuant to the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), incorporating section 16(b) of
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 7 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 7 of 47
`
`the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), individually on behalf of herself and on behalf
`
`of similarly situated older workers who have been harmed by AT&T’s age discriminatory conduct,
`
`defined as follows:
`
`All former employees of Defendants and their related affiliate companies who,
`when age 40 or over and employed in Defendants’ ATO business unit, received a
`Surplus Notification Letter dated January 28, 2019, were terminated upon failing
`to secure an alternative position following surplus notification, and were presented
`with an invalid General Release and Waiver of Claims.
`
`Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an Order providing that notice of this lawsuit be
`
`given to each person who meets the proposed putative opt—in class definition. This notice should
`
`advise them that (1) any release agreement that they may have signed from AT&T is in Violation
`
`of the ADEA and did not, in fact, release Defendants from claims of age discrimination under the
`
`ADEA; (2) this action is alleging that AT&T workforce reduction in ATO in first quarter 2019
`
`was age discriminatory (3) they have the right to opt—in to this lawsuit as a plaintiff; and (4) they
`
`do not repay any consideration that they received in exchange for signing a release in order to
`
`opt—in to this lawsuit.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declarative relief, damages, including
`
`compensatory and liquidated damages, and all other relief under the ADEA and any other relief
`
`that this Court deems appropriate.
`
`11.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Patrice Kantz, is an individual and current resident of the state of South
`
`Carolina, residing therein in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, 29576.
`
`2.
`
`At the time of the age discrimination that is the subject ofthis action, Plaintiff lived
`
`in, and worked for Defendants out of, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 8 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 8 of 47
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff was born in January, 1962, and is currently 58 years of age. She was 57
`
`at the time of the termination of her employment.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant AT&T, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is the parent company of
`
`several wholly—owned and controlled subsidiary corporations,
`
`including Defendant AT&T
`
`Services, Inc.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant AT&T, Inc.
`
`is the “alter ego” of its various controlled subsidiary
`
`companies, including Defendant AT&T Services, Inc.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant AT&T, Inc., by and through its wholly—owned and controlled subsidiary
`
`corporations through which it operates and does business,
`
`including AT&T Services, Inc.,
`
`maintains multiple places of business in Pennsylvania, conducts business through its subsidiary
`
`companies duly registered to transact business in Pennsylvania, maintains systematic and
`
`continuous activity such that it is at home in Pennsylvania, and employs thousands of people in
`
`Pennsylvania, including employees subject to and impacted by the discriminatory practices and
`
`acts alleged herein and giving rise to this action.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant AT&T Services, Inc.
`
`is a Delaware corporation duly registered to
`
`transact business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a registered agent located in
`
`Pennsylvania for service of legal process.
`
`It maintains several places of business located
`
`throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and maintains systematic and continuous activity
`
`such that it is “at home” in Pennsylvania.
`
`8.
`
`At all times material hereto, Defendants have been engaged in an industry affecting
`
`interstate commerce and have acted as “employers” of Plaintiff and various members of the
`
`putative class within the meaning of the ADEA.
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 9 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 9 of 47
`
`9.
`
`Defendants share common ownership, management, administrative services,
`
`personnel, policies and employment practices.
`
`10.
`
`Defendants hold themselves out to the public and their employees as part of an
`
`interconnected AT&T “family of companies” known as “AT&T"’ which, together and as one
`
`entity, employ over 270,000 people.
`
`11.
`
`Defendants are interconnected such that they are considered a “single” and/or
`
`“integrated” employer and/or enterprise.
`
`l2.
`
`Defendant AT&T Services, Inc. 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 Services, Inc. with the
`
`Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
`
`the contacts of AT&T Services,
`
`Inc. are continuous and
`
`systematic such that AT&T Services, Inc.
`
`is at home here, and/or AT&T Services, Inc. has
`
`consented to personal jurisdiction by personal service within the Commonwealth via an authorized
`
`agent of the corporation.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant AT&T, Inc. 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, Inc. with the Commonwealth
`
`of Pennsylvania, the contacts of AT&T, Inc. are continuous and systematic such that AT&T
`
`Services, Inc.
`
`is at home here, and/or AT&T, Inc. has consented to personal jurisdiction by
`
`personal service within the Commonwealth via an authorized agent of the corporation. Among
`
`other things, and without limitation, the centrally planned and discriminatory workforce reduction
`
`that was announced on January 4, 2019 was implemented, at the direction and control of AT&T,
`
`Inc., in the AT&T’s Technology & Operations business unit in the first quarter of 2019 without
`
`regard to corporate formalities or distinctions, such as the identity of the W—2 issuing entity of the
`
`employee.
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 10 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 10 of 47
`
`14.
`
`At all times material hereto, Defendants employed more than twenty (20) people.
`
`15.
`
`At all times material hereto, Defendants acted by and through their authorized
`
`agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees within the course and scope of their employment
`
`with Defendants and in furtherance of Defendants” business.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`16.
`
`The causes of action set forth in this complaint arise under the ADEA, as amended,
`
`29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.
`
`17.
`
`The District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 29
`
`U.S.C. § 626(0) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`18.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
`
`19.
`
`On or about July 28, 2019, 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 “1” is a true and
`
`correct copy of the EEOC Charge of Discrimination (with minor redactions for purposes of
`
`electronic filing of confidential/identifying information).
`
`20.
`
`On or about November 4, 2019 the EEOC issued to Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice
`
`of Right to Sue for Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “2” is a true
`
`and correct copy of that Notice (with minor redactions for purposes of electronic filing of
`
`confidential/identifying information).
`
`21.
`
`More than 60 days have passed since Plaintiff filed her EEOC charge with the
`
`EEOC.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff has
`
`fully complied with all administrative prerequisites
`
`for
`
`the
`
`commencement of this action.
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 11 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 11 of 47
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`23.
`
`AT&T has engaged in systemic age discrimination against its employees age 40 or
`
`over (“older workers” or “older employees”), including Plaintiff.
`
`24.
`
`AT&T, by its actions set forth herein, intentionally discriminated against its older
`
`workers, including Plaintiff.
`
`25.
`
`AT&T, by its actions set forth herein, have maintained a pattern or practice of age
`
`discrimination against older workers, including Plaintiff.
`
`26.
`
`In the alternative, to the extent that AT&T has not intentionally discriminated
`
`against it older employees, AT&T’s use of one or more of each facially neutral policy or practice
`
`as set forth herein had a disparate impact on older employees, including Plaintiff.
`
`A T& T’s Expressed Intention of Transforming Its Aging Workforce
`And Its 2019 First Quarter Reduction In A T0 In Furtherance Thereof
`
`27.
`
`AT&T has undertaken a massive effort to “transform” and rebrand itself from
`
`yesterday’s Ma Bell to a nimble, internet and cloud—based company with “workers of the future.”
`
`28.
`
`AT&T at the highest levels has publicly discussed its displeasure at having an aging
`
`workforce, its intention to transform the company for the “future,” and its desire and expectation
`
`that older workers will leave its workforce.
`
`29.
`
`AT&T’s Chief Executive Officer, Randall Stephenson, has publicly discussed that
`
`AT&T has an aging workforce and had a need to reinvent the company. See Gearing Upfor the
`
`Cloud, AT&T Tells Its Workers: Adaptor Else, http://wwwnytimcscom, Fcbruary 13, 2016.
`
`30.
`
`AT&T has touted its “Technology Transformation,” including “building a
`
`workforce for the future,” and boasted that the future AT&T workforce will differ greatly from
`
`today’s workforce in many ways.
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 12 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 12 of 47
`
`31.
`
`AT&T has for years been saying that it needs to be “leaner, faster and more agile”
`
`and would be a different company by 2020.
`
`32.
`
`Toward that end, AT&T has engaged in a series of efforts to eliminate older
`
`employees from its workforce and replace them with younger ones.
`
`33.
`
`AT&T has exhibited a corporate culture of age bias. Among other things, and
`
`without limitation:
`
`a. AT&T publicly flouts the ADEA by continuing to use a General Release and
`Waiver that violates the ADEA.
`
`b. CEO Stephenson has publicly expressed his expectation that many older workers
`will exit the AT&T workforce by 2020, which he considered to be a positive thing
`for the company.
`
`c. AT&T’s leader of its Communications business segment, John Donovan, has
`publicly discussed AT&T’S “sprint to reinvent itself,” and has publicly noted that
`“AT&T employs about 280,000 people, most of whom got their education and
`foundational job training in a different era” and that the average tenure at the
`company is 22 years and that most of AT&T’s employees were educated and
`trained “in a different era.” In these same comments, Mr. Donovan noted that
`AT&T redesigned its “practice” by, among other things, redesigning compensation
`so that it “de—emphasized seniority.”
`
`d. Mr. Donovan expressed that the company was “using innovative solutions to
`widen, develop and diversify the talent pipeline to address the shortage of current
`and future technology experts” through such things as “AT&T Aspire.”
`“AT&T
`Aspire” is a program aimed at developing students as the “next generation of
`creative thinkers.”
`
`e. As part of its plan to reinvent its aging workforce, AT&T has publicly expressed
`age—based stereotypes and has acknowledged that those age—based stereotypes are
`considered in workplace decisions. See, e.g., AT&TPreparesfor a New World of
`Work:
`The Changing Work Force (Part 2)(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 new hires will be from Gen X and Gen Y.
`
`f. AT&T has described its “Workplace 2020: Transformation for the Future” as a
`“Next—Gen Workplace Experience.”
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 13 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 13 of 47
`
`g. AT&T promotes age—defined Employee Resources Groups (“ERGS”). In 2011,
`AT&T founded an ERG entitled “OxyGEN, Young Professionals of AT&T,”
`whose stated mission is “[t]o attract, develop and retain future leaders of AT&T.”
`In 2014, AT&T launched an ERG entitled “50 & Forward AT&T Professionals
`Over 50,” whose stated mission included “...to support a generation of young
`leaders at AT&T. . .”. Among the group’s publicized initiatives was “”Workforce
`2020’: “Better Together’ initiative for preparing younger managers to lead an aging
`workforce.”
`
`h. AT&T has openly expressed its desire to hire and retain young employees, and
`considers age in hiring decisions.
`For example, and without
`limitation,
`its
`“Leadership and Development Programs,” “Technology Development Program”
`and “Flex Force” are programs intended to recruit young employees into leadership
`roles.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`AT&T has offered incentives to older employees to voluntarily leave its workforce.
`
`AT&T has for several years conducted vast involuntary terminations with the intent
`
`of eliminating older workers from its workforce. Without limitation:
`
`a. AT&T at the highest level contemplated the overall replacement of its older
`workforce with a younger one, and set up its forced surplus reduction program so
`as to stagger the terminations over time and different areas in order to conceal from
`its older employees the overall impact of its “transformation” efforts.
`
`b. Crucial to AT&T’S age discriminatory plan to replace its older workforce with a
`younger one are: a) concealing the age discrimination from the terminated older
`employees, while at the same time b) obtaining from them a release of their right
`to sue the company for age discrimination in violation of the ADEA. The
`involuntary terminations have involved a three—step notification of “surplus” status,
`a period during which “surplussed” employees remain employed and try to secure
`alternative positions with AT&T, and the presentation of a fraudulent General
`Release and Waiver. By staggering the surplus notifications from the actual
`terminations, AT&T keeps its employees in the dark as to who is actually going to
`lose their job. By offering vulnerable older employees severance in exchange for
`a General Release at the time of surplus notification and providing unintelligible
`surplus selection data — not termination data ~ AT&T fraudulently obtains a release
`of an employee’s claim that he or she was terminated because of age.
`
`0. AT&T is currently subject to several age discrimination lawsuits arising from its
`workforce surplus reductions. It has been alleged, among other things and without
`limitation, that AT&T managers “target” employees for selection of surplus and/or
`termination; that AT&T has excluded younger employees from consideration for
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 14 of 47
`Case 2:20-cv-00531-JCJ Document 1 Filed 01/30/20 Page 14 of 47
`
`surplus and they are thus exempt from possible termination; and that AT&T
`managers have asked their older employees if they plan to retire.
`
`A jury found that former AT&T employee John Gerundo proved that his age was
`the determining factor in the decision to surplus his employment in connection with
`a reduction in force. Gerundo v. AT&T Sci/vs, 2016 US. Dist. LEXIS 177583
`(ED. Pa. Dec. 21, 2016)(denying AT&T’s post-trial motion for judgment as a
`matter of law, and upholding the jury’s verdict).
`
`AT&T has, since Gerundo, continued to follow the same Surplus Guidelines in
`effect since 2011.
`
`On January 11, 2019, the Honorable Timothy J. Rice of the United States District
`Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the General Release and
`Waiver Agreement presented to employees who had been surplussed then
`involuntary terminated violated the ADEA, as amended by the Older Workers
`Benefits Protection Act, and was not an enforceable waiver under the ADEA.
`Allison Ray v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:18—cv—03303 —
`TR (ED. Pa. .Jan. 11, 2019).
`
`AT&T, since the Court’s decision in Ray, has continued to use the same General
`Release accompanied by the same legally deficient OWBPA disclosures.
`
`AT&T has fraudulently obtained from its terminated older employees a purported
`waiver of the