The waiver has already been found in violation by a federal judge. Follow this case. More people need to step up and file. https://www.consolelaw.com/3rd-circuit-rejects-atts-appeal-of-judgment-striking-down-its-release-agreement-as-being-in-violation-of-us-age-discrimination-law/
15 replies (most recent on top)
The ADEA list is BS unless they did the same thing with a list of the ages of the people that replaced the laid off worker.
@1vah,
under the ADEA, T has to create a report for every surplus describing each job position, the age of the individual holding that job and if they were retained or surplused. T sends that report to all the impacted employees during a surplus. So it's not fair to say the age demographic of those impacted is a secret. ADEA provides protection for those over 40.
I've always been of the opinion that the whole " Collaboration Zone " BS was just a smokescreen for getting rid of folks who are grandfathered into the pension plan. Show of hands, does the CZ excuse for laying folks off make ANY sense to anyone ? It doesn't to me. ( Nor any other sane company on the planet )
Of all the folks I personally know of who have been let go, only one of them had less than twenty years of service ( 18 years ) which puts every one of them into the age category of 36 and up.
You'll have to file a complaint with the EEOC before they will start looking into what T is really doing.
If it turns out the number of older workers let go constitute a larger majority, then there might be something there for the EEOC to get involved with.
It's tough to say because T keeps the numbers of folks they have let go ( and their demographics ) a closely guarded secret. They even went so far as to requiring management to sign a " I won't sue AT&T clause " in order to obtain their severance pay.
Personally, I say file the complaint and see what the EEOC finds out. T can hide the numbers from us, but it isn't quite to simple to hide them from the Government.
"That is what you get for going to management and not backing craft employees. Cry me river" and I didn't miss the other lame brain worthless tech comments attacking mgrs. Fricking worthless employees calling themselves out with really stupid comments.
To the original poster, no you can't sue and win. AT&T just s—s. They are not the baby bells who at least pretended to care. Since Whitaker left in 2008(?) and we picked up the leftovers from legacy T, who couldn't make it anywhere else because they're inbred, this company has turned into a rotting carcass. Take a couple reams of copy paper with you as you go. There's your severance. Don't believe the frighteningly self-proclaimed "leaders" at one of their pat-on-the-back town halls where the managers in attendance always appear to be held captive or waiting to say their canned question. I know a fast track manager who told me she was handed a canned question and I saw her ask it on stream.
I'd say show up and do your job everyday and let the pieces lay where they fall but in this case you were probably discriminated against. But you can't afford to fight att.
If youre within 2 years of retirement date you can still retire but I think there is a cost of severance.
Call the bbb thay sometimes help
@gpb, what skills, you should be a negotiator - your probably the guy in the yard everyone has to follow after and fix all your mistakes...it’s obvious you did not read my post
Typical how managers cant even spell
@10J2KPkV-ymk, you do realize that wireline is not the only part of the company where there are managers right? Your narrow minded view of how important you are to the business and your narrative of craft vs MGMT is old and tiresome. It’s mostly made up bullsh$t. Seriously walk out of your time warp and start paying attention. The OP is asking a legitimate question. Most managers want craft people to make a good living just like they want to themselves, and suffer no ill will towards anyone.
That is what you get for going to management and not backing craft employees. Cry me river
Waste of time unless there are additional aggravating circumstances and even then, there's a very low probability of success.
A law would have to be broken before you can sue. You could try to claim age discrimination but that might not work. You would have to prove the reason was age and nothing else. If the employee was terminated as part of the surplus, and ONLY older workers were targeted then maybe. If some older workers were retained, some younger workers let go, then you probably can't prove discrimination.
Although it's unethical, I am not aware of laws prohibiting termination close to but not at retirement age.
If you want to sue them, then you must not sign the surplus agreement (which means you don't get the severance).. it may be a long shot if you try to sue them.. Mgmt have pretty good lawyers fighting for them... Good luck!
No, AT&T covered their bases. To be sure have consultation with Attorney.