Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 37
`CIVIL COVER SHEET
`JS 44 (Rev. 10/20)
`The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
`provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
`purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
`I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
`DEFENDANTS
`SHERI THOMPSON
`AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC
`(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
`Montgomery
`(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
`
`Dekalb
`County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
`(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
`IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
`THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
`Attorneys (If Known)
`
`NOTE:
`
`(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
`Daniel S. Orlow
`Console Mattiacci Laww
`1525 Locust Street, 9th Fl
`Philadelphia, PA 19102
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`1 U.S. Government
`3 Federal Question
`Plaintiff
`(U.S. Government Not a Party)
`
`✖
`
`III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
`and One Box for Defendant)
`(For Diversity Cases Only)
`PTF
`DEF
`PTF
`DEF
`1
`1
`4
`
`Incorporated or Principal Place
`of Business In This State
`
`4
`
`Citizen of This State
`
`✖
`
`2 U.S. Government
`Defendant
`
`4 Diversity
`(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
`
`Citizen of Another State
`
`Citizen or Subject of a
`Foreign Country
`
`FORFEITURE/PENALTY
`625 Drug Related Seizure
`of Property 21 USC 881
`690 Other
`
`LABOR
`710 Fair Labor Standards
`Act
`720 Labor/Management
`Relations
`740 Railway Labor Act
`751 Family and Medical
`Leave Act
`790 Other Labor Litigation
`791 Employee Retirement
`Income Security Act
`
`IMMIGRATION
`462 Naturalization Application
`465 Other Immigration
`Actions
`
`2
`
`3
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Incorporated and Principal Place
`of Business In Another State
`
`Foreign Nation
`
`5
`
`6
`
`x
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
`BANKRUPTCY
`OTHER STATUTES
`422 Appeal 28 USC 158
`375 False Claims Act
`423 Withdrawal
`376 Qui Tam (31 USC
`28 USC 157
`3729(a))
`400 State Reapportionment
`410 Antitrust
`430 Banks and Banking
`450 Commerce
`460 Deportation
`470 Racketeer Influenced and
`Corrupt Organizations
`480 Consumer Credit
`(15 USC 1681 or 1692)
`485 Telephone Consumer
`Protection Act
`490 Cable/Sat TV
`850 Securities/Commodities/
`Exchange
`890 Other Statutory Actions
`891 Agricultural Acts
`893 Environmental Matters
`895 Freedom of Information
`Act
`896 Arbitration
`899 Administrative Procedure
`Act/Review or Appeal of
`Agency Decision
`950 Constitutionality of
`State Statutes
`
`PROPERTY RIGHTS
`820 Copyrights
`830 Patent
`835 Patent - Abbreviated
`New Drug Application
`840 Trademark
`880 Defend Trade Secrets
`Act of 2016
`
`SOCIAL SECURITY
`861 HIA (1395ff)
`862 Black Lung (923)
`863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
`864 SSID Title XVI
`865 RSI (405(g))
`
`FEDERAL TAX SUITS
`870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
`or Defendant)
`871 IRS—Third Party
`26 USC 7609
`
`IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`CONTRACT
`TORTS
`PERSONAL INJURY
`PERSONAL INJURY
`110 Insurance
`120 Marine
`310 Airplane
`365 Personal Injury -
`130 Miller Act
`315 Airplane Product
`Product Liability
`140 Negotiable Instrument
`Liability
`367 Health Care/
`150 Recovery of Overpayment
`320 Assault, Libel &
`Pharmaceutical
`& Enforcement of Judgment
`Slander
`Personal Injury
`151 Medicare Act
`330 Federal Employers’
`Product Liability
`152 Recovery of Defaulted
`Liability
`368 Asbestos Personal
`Student Loans
`340 Marine
`Injury Product
`(Excludes Veterans)
`345 Marine Product
`Liability
`PERSONAL PROPERTY
`153 Recovery of Overpayment
`Liability
`of Veteran’s Benefits
`350 Motor Vehicle
`370 Other Fraud
`160 Stockholders’ Suits
`355 Motor Vehicle
`371 Truth in Lending
`190 Other Contract
`Product Liability
`380 Other Personal
`195 Contract Product Liability
`360 Other Personal
`Property Damage
`196 Franchise
`Injury
`385 Property Damage
`362 Personal Injury -
`Product Liability
`Medical Malpractice
`CIVIL RIGHTS
`440 Other Civil Rights
`441 Voting
`442 Employment
`443 Housing/
`Accommodations
`445 Amer. w/Disabilities -
`Employment
`446 Amer. w/Disabilities -
`Other
`448 Education
`
`REAL PROPERTY
`210 Land Condemnation
`220 Foreclosure
`230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
`240 Torts to Land
`245 Tort Product Liability
`290 All Other Real Property
`
`✖
`
`PRISONER PETITIONS
`Habeas Corpus:
`463 Alien Detainee
`510 Motions to Vacate
`Sentence
`530 General
`535 Death Penalty
`Other:
`540 Mandamus & Other
`550 Civil Rights
`555 Prison Condition
`560 Civil Detainee -
`Conditions of
`Confinement
`
`V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`1 Original
`2 Removed from
`Proceeding
`State Court
`
`✖
`
`3 Remanded from
`Appellate Court
`
`4 Reinstated or
`Reopened
`
`6 Multidistrict
`Litigation -
`Transfer
`
`8 Multidistrict
`Litigation -
`Direct File
`
`5 Transferred from
`Another District
`(specify)
`Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
`29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. as amended
`Brief description of cause:
`Plaintiff was discriminated against because of her age.
`CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
`UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
`
`VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`VII. REQUESTED IN
`COMPLAINT:
`VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
` IF ANY
`DATE
`10/30/2020
`FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
`
`DEMAND $
`in excess of $75,000
`
`CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
`JURY DEMAND:
`Yes
`No
`
`✖
`
`(See instructions):
`
`JUDGE
`
`
`SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORDUREEEE OFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFFOFOFOF ATATATATATATATATATATATATATTORTORTOTOTOTOTORTOTORTORTOTOTO NEY
`
`DOCKET NUMBER
`
`RECEIPT #
`
`AMOUNT
`
`APPLYING IFP
`
`JUDGE
`
`MAG. JUDGE
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 37
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
`SHERI THOMPSON
`:
`CIVIL ACTION
`:
`
`:::
`
`v.
`AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC.
`
`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 serve 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
`
`10/30/2020
`Date
`215-545-7676
`
`Telephone
`
`(Civ. 660) 10/02
`
`Attorney-at-law
`215-689-2110
`
`FAX Number
`
`Plaintiff, Sheri Thompson
`Attorney for
`orlow@consolelaw.com
`
`E-Mail Address
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 37
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`DESIGNATION FORM
`(to be used by counsel or pro se plaintiff to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to the appropriate calendar)
`Collegeville, PA 19426
`Address of Plaintiff: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
`1025 Lenox Park Blvd, NE., Atlanta, GA 30319
`Address of Defendant: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
`1025 Lenox Park Blvd, NE., Atlanta, GA 30319
`Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction: ___________________________________________________________________________
`
`RELATED CASE, IF ANY:
`
`Case Number: ______________________________ Judge: _________________________________ Date Terminated: ______________________
`
`✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`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?
`
`2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit
`pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?
`
`3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier
`numbered case pending or within one year previously terminated action of this court?
`
`4.
`
`Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights
`case filed by the same individual?
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`Yes
`
`I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case
`this court except as noted above.
`10/30/2020
`311702
`
`DATE: __________________________________ __________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ ________
`
`Attorney-at-Law / Pro Se Plaintiff ey at Law /////////// PPPPPPPPPPPPro Se Plaintiff
`
` Attorney I.D. # (if applicable)
`
`related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in
`related tooooooooo aaaaaaaaaaany casee nononononononononononononow w w w w w w wwwwww peppppepeppepepepepp
`
`is /
`
`●
`
`is not
`
`CIVIL: (cid:11)(cid:51)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:3)(cid:165)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:74)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:12)
`
`A.
`
`Federal Question Cases:
`
`Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts
`(cid:133) 1.
`FELA
`(cid:133) 2.
`Jones Act-Personal Injury
`(cid:133) 3.
`(cid:133) 4. Antitrust
`(cid:133) 5.
`Patent
`(cid:133) 6.
`Labor-Management Relations
`(cid:133) 7. Civil Rights
`(cid:133) 8. Habeas Corpus
`(cid:133) 9.
`Securities Act(s) Cases
`(cid:133) 10. Social Security Review Cases
`(cid:133) 11. All other Federal Question Cases
`(Please specify): ____________________________________________
`
`✔
`
`B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
`
`Insurance Contract and Other Contracts
`(cid:133) 1.
`(cid:133) 2. Airplane Personal Injury
`(cid:133) 3. Assault, Defamation
`(cid:133) 4. Marine Personal Injury
`(cid:133) 5. Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
`(cid:133) 6. Other Personal Injury (Please specify): _____________________
`(cid:133) 7.
`Products Liability
`(cid:133) 8.
`Products Liability – Asbestos
`(cid:133) 9. All other Diversity Cases
`(Please specify): ____________________________________________
`
`Daniel S. Orlow
`I, ____________________________________________, counsel of record or pro se plaintiff, do hereby certify:
`
`ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
`((cid:55)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:73)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:17)(cid:12)
`
`(cid:133) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, § 3(c) (2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case
`exceed the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs:
`
`X X
`
`(cid:133) Relief other than monetary damages is sought.
`
`10/30/2020
`311702
`
`DATE: __________________________________ __________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ____________________________________________ __________ _______
`
`Attorney-at-Law / Pro Se Plaintiff t L // P S Pl i tiff
`
`
` Attorney I.D. # (if applicable)
`
`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 ((cid:24)/2018)
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 4 of 37
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`___________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SHERI THOMPSON
`
`
`Collegeville, PA 19426
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC.
`:
`1025 Lenox Park Blvd, NE.
`
`:
`Atlanta, GA 30319
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`___________________________________ :
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. __
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, Sheri Thompson, by and through her undersigned Counsel, hereby files this Civil
`
`
`
`Action Complaint against Defendant AT&T Mobility Services, LLC (“AT&T”) for violations 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.
`
`I.
`
`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, and under the guise of
`
`eliminating positions outside of so-called “hub” locations, AT&T undertook a course of action
`
`designed to terminate the employment of older workers through centrally planned workforce
`
`reductions beginning in or about January 2019. Through one such workforce reduction Plaintiff
`
`was placed on “surplus” status, presented with a fraudulent general release agreement, and then
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 5 of 37
`
`terminated after sixteen years of service, all while being falsely told by AT&T that she could not
`
`sue the company under the ADEA, when in fact she could.
`
`To the extent that location was in fact a consideration in Plaintiff’s designation for surplus,
`
`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 “location-based” workforce reductions were part of its long-term scheme and
`
`pattern or practice to replace older employees with younger ones. They were 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 these workforce reductions a “General Release and Waiver” that was
`
`materially identical to AT&T’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”).
`
`
`
`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 layoff 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 6 of 37
`
`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 not a release of their right to sue the company for age
`
`discrimination under the ADEA.
`
` Plaintiff, Sheri Thompson, a highly qualified and dedicated employee of A&T for sixteen
`
`years who worked in AT&T’s Channel Marketing and Data Analytics organization, a part of the
`
`broader Channel Marketing and Operations organization, was notified of her selection for surplus
`
`on January 28, 2019 and terminated from employment at age 48 on March 29, 2019. Contrary to
`
`representations made by AT&T to the EEOC, Plaintiff’s physical location had no bearing on the
`
`performance of her job duties. The work for which Plaintiff was responsible did not need to be
`
`performed in a hub location, and there was very little collaboration required for her position.
`
`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 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.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Sheri Thompson, is an individual and current resident of the
`
`Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing therein in Collegeville, PA.
`
`2.
`
`At the time of the age discrimination that is the subject of this action, Plaintiff lived
`
`in, and worked for Defendant out of Pennsylvania.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff was born in 1970, and is currently 50 years of age. She was 48 at the time
`
`of the termination of her employment.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 7 of 37
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court because, inter alia,
`
`the case arises out of or relates to the contacts of Defendant with the Commonwealth of
`
`Pennsylvania, the contacts of Defendant are continuous and systematic such that Defendant is at
`
`home here, and/or Defendant has consented to personal jurisdiction by personal service within the
`
`Commonwealth via an authorized agent of the corporation.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`At all times material hereto, Defendant employed more than twenty (20) people.
`
`At all times material hereto, Defendant acted by and through its authorized agents,
`
`servants, workmen, and/or employees within the course and scope of their employment with
`
`Defendant and in furtherance of Defendant’s business.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`The causes of action set forth in this complaint arise under the ADEA, as amended,
`
`29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.
`
`9.
`
`The District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 29
`
`U.S.C. § 626(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
`
`11.
`
`On or about July 12, 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 8 of 37
`
`12.
`
`On or about August 3, 2020 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).
`
`13. More than 60 days have passed since Plaintiff filed her EEOC charge with the
`
`EEOC.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff has fully complied with all administrative prerequisites for the
`
`commencement of this action.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`15.
`
`AT&T has engaged in systemic age discrimination against its employees age 40 or
`
`over (“older workers” or “older employees”), including Plaintiff.
`
`16.
`
`AT&T, by its actions set forth herein, has intentionally discriminated against its
`
`older workers, including Plaintiff.
`
`17.
`
`AT&T, by its actions set forth herein, has maintained a pattern or practice of age
`
`discrimination against its older workers, including Plaintiff.
`
`18.
`
`In the alternative, to the extent that AT&T has not intentionally discriminated
`
`against its older employees, AT&T’s use of one or more of each facially neutral policy or practice
`
`identified herein had a disparate impact on older employees, including Plaintiff.
`
`AT&T’s Expressed Intention of Transforming Its Aging Workforce
`And Its January 2019 Workforce Reduction In Furtherance Thereof
`
`
`19.
`
`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.”
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 9 of 37
`
`20.
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`AT&T’s former 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://www.nytimes.com, February 13,
`
`2016.
`
`22.
`
`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.
`
`23.
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`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.
`
`25.
`
`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 has been held to violate the ADEA.
`
`b. Former 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
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 10 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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&T Prepares for 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.”
`
`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.
`
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`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 levels has contemplated the overall replacement of its older
`workforce with a younger one, and set up its forced surplus reduction programs so
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 11 of 37
`
`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.
`
`c. 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
`surplus and they are thus exempt from possible termination; and that AT&T
`managers have asked their older employees if they plan to retire.
`
`d. 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 Servs., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177583
`(E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2016)(denying AT&T’s post-trial motion for judgment as a
`matter of law, and upholding the jury’s verdict).
`
`e. AT&T has, since Gerundo, continued to follow the same Surplus Guidelines in
`effect since 2011.
`
`f. 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 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2019).
`
`g. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 12 of 37
`
`28.
`
`AT&T has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against its older
`
`employees, including Plaintiff. Without limitation:
`
`a. It is AT&T’s standard operating procedure to violate the ADEA. AT&T has
`continued to present to its terminated older employees a purported General Release
`that a United States District Court has determined to be in violation of the ADEA.
`
`b. It is AT&T’s standard operating procedure to make affirmative misrepresentations
`to its surplussed employees regarding the data it is providing to them when
`considering whether to release their federal age claims.
`
`c. It is AT&T’s standard operating procedure to intentionally discriminate against
`older employees by conditioning the receipt of a benefit, severance, upon the
`execution of an unlawful General Release and Waiver. Terminated employees age
`younger than 40 are not required to sign an unlawful release in order to receive the
`same benefit.
`
`d. AT&T has communicated its age-biased personnel goals throughout the entirety of
`AT&T, including throughout its Channel Marketing and Operations organization.
`
`e. AT&T executives at the highest level openly express that older employees leaving
`the AT&T workforce would be a positive thing for the company.
`
`f. AT&T publicly expresses its desire to develop and retain younger employees to be
`its leaders of tomorrow.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`g. AT&T has offered programs to incentivize older employees to leave the company.
`
`
`29.
`
`In 2018, AT&T offered incentives to older employees to voluntarily terminate their
`
`employment, including a manager voluntary resignation offer and a one-time limited offer to retire
`
`by a certain date and take a lump sum pension benefit calculated based on interest rates that would
`
`yield a greater lump sum.
`
`30.
`
`In January 2019, in furtherance of its centrally planned scheme to terminate and
`
`defraud older workers, AT&T implemented a group termination and reduction in force identified
`
`as Business Case 18-491. Business Case 18-491 resulted in eleven employees from the Channel
`
`Marketing and Operations organization being selected for surplus, including Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-05419-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 13 of 37
`
`31.
`
`Contemporaneous with the implementation of Business Case 18-491, AT&T
`
`implemented a wave of group terminations across various other business units, including its
`
`Technology and Operations (“ATO”) division on January 4, 2019.
`
`32.
`
`In a January 4, 2019 message, Jeff McElfresh, President of ATO, sent an e-mail
`
`message to ATO employees announcing upcoming reductions to occur in the ATO organization,
`
`and others across the company, which were to begin later in January and take place over several
`
`months. Mr. McElfresh expressed that the company since 2014 has been saying that the
`
`org