Thread regarding AT&T layoffs

I just was made aware of this action. AT$T took my position and gave it to a younger coworker from another group. Who knew? Through the past year I trained my friend on the aspects of my position. When the layoffs happened they grouped our teams together. Even with more experience of doing that position and no corrective issues on my part, I lost my job! My Team mates were stunned. How could someone from another unaffiliated group replace a tenured more experienced employee. I would have loved being part of this action, to tell my story. Yes another person on my team had the identical situation. Whats worse even though they knew I was looking for a job they continued to hire when I was told their are very limited opportunities.... I explained to my family, they let me go, but my job (title&position) was given to someone else. I lost my career.

Has anyone spoken to attorney about latest general release and waiver for those leaving 9/10 or 10/19?? Reading waiver appears if retirement eligible we lose medical benefits and will have to pay cobra after 6 months if we sign. I spoke to HR on several occasions and verbally told company will continue to subsidize??

I have a question... who is att,s outside counsel? It can’t be inside counsel because those folks can barely get a contract together let alone .arguing a case in a trial !

AT&T lost a bid to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging the company discriminates against older workers.

Lead plaintiffs allege in their class action lawsuit that AT&T schemed on a company-wide level to remove older workers.

Further, said the plaintiffs, the severance package offered to them and proposed Class Members did not meet standards laid out in a federal law meant to protect older workers.

AT&T attempted to dodge the age discrimination class action lawsuit by arguing that the case couldn’t be brought in New Jersey because the company isn’t based there.

The judge pointed out in the court order that AT&T’s alleged discriminatory policy affected “residents of New Jersey and the claims in this matter [arise] out of these activities.”

According to the AT&T class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs, who are residents of various states including Arizona, Florida, and New Jersey, were systematically terminated from their employment under a “2020 Scheme” to remove older workers.

The AT&T workers allege that their positions were fraudulently terminated as surpluses under the scheme. Those who were under 40 years old were hired into available positions, say the plaintiffs, while older workers were not rehired.

AT&T attempted to argue that it did not have sufficient contacts in New Jersey for the New Jersey federal court to exercise jurisdiction. U.S. District Court Judge Brian R. Martinotti dismissed that argument.

The judge noted that AT&T and specifically the allegedly discriminatory scheme to rid itself of older workers as well as the severance pay plan affected the plaintiffs, some of whom are New Jersey residents.

“Plaintiffs have established INC purposefully directed activities (the 2020 Scheme) at New Jersey residents and the claims in this matter clearly arise out of the 2020 Scheme, which included the INC Severance Pay Plan,” states the order. “Moreover, personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair because INC should have anticipate being hauled into court due to its Severance Pay Plan.”

Judge Martinotti did dismiss some of the AT&T class action lawsuit allegations. The judge trimmed one of the plaintiff’s claims over the severance agreement because she had signed the agreement that included an ADEA release.

The judge refused to toss the AT&T class action claims that all Class Members did the same work, but noted that it was unlikely the plaintiffs would be able to establish those claims.

The AT&T age discrimination class action lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs and other potential Class Members are victims of a scheme by AT&T to replace older workers by 2020. They say that even the severance package offered under the 2020 scheme is unfair because it requires workers to sign away their right to a lawsuit in order to get the severance.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages as well as a court order forcing AT&T to notify ex-employees that accepting the severance package does not affect their right to file a lawsuit against the company.

The plaintiffs are represented by Stephen Console, Susan M. Saint-Antoine, Laura Mattiacci, Brian C. Farrell and Emily R. Derstine-Friesen of Console Mattiacci Law LLC.

The AT&T Age Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit is Roy Horowitz, et al. v. AT&T Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04827, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Just signed for updates, if the class. Action suit is approved. I LOVE IT!!!!!!@

EVERYONE affected - don't delay in filing an age discrimination claim with EEOC ! The more that do it, the larger voice we all will have!. You don't need to retain a lawyer to do this, but you can if you wish. You can file the complaint online.

I hope Randy boy gets what he deserves, pink slip.......sweet

I Heard that they were attempting to get away with losts of workcomp cases,upon technicians dismisal

It is called Karma!. And it is a b--ch, LMao

If the CAS preveils, will be a good day for all the American Workers displaced by greed

Good info, Thanks

Hahaha! They did that to Steve from Mission Valley!

I worked in Technology operations, and the company targeted the only 4 engineers in our group , all with 23+ yrears of service, all 50+, with the pretense of job elimination, how that is posdible? they were our support team? 3 weeks after their departure we got new people the not experienced newbies and the company just added the word ececution totheur subtitle, how is that fair?

they "eliminated" my job last year and it was given to about 3 younger people and about 10 off shore resources.

I AM WAITING PATIENTLY FOR MY LETTER

If you know how to read, the article attest that many workers had inside knowledge of the tactic used, THEY were replaced, by someone younger,so the job elimination is bogus, it happens all the time, get the old and sick and replaced them.

"One of the most common excuses used to get rid of older workers is “job elimination.” However, that may just be an excuse for what is really age discrimination."

Or, it could be that everything is consolidating on Internet Protocol, and that support of legacy technologies is no longer needed.

Good info. Of course ATT wants to get rid of all the workers they hired from 1996 to 2002.Its just good business on there part.Upper management has never given a rats behind about us.Sign nothing !!

Class Actions will allow you to receive instant updates on this case, you can ‘Follow’ on our website. A link to creating an account may be found here: https://topclassactions.com/signup/. You can then ‘Follow’ the article above, and get notified immediately when we post updates, and other actions you may be entitled under the law.

Plaintiffs are asking the court for an order notifying Class Members about this AT&T class action lawsuit, including notice that the waiver did not truly eliminate their right to sue. They also seek awards of damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, court costs and attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Stephen G. Console, Laura C. Mattiacci, Susan M. Saint-Antoine and Emily R. Derstine-Friesen of Console Mattiacci Law LLC.

The AT&T Age Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit is Roy Horowitz, et al. v. AT&T Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04827, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

UPDATE: On April 25, 2018, AT&T lost a bid to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging the company discriminates against older workers.