On Wednesday, AT&T Inc. and AT&T Services Inc. (collectively AT&T) moved for dismissal of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) class action brought by a former employee terminated at the age of 57. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania lawsuit alleged that AT&T systematically eliminated older employees through an overhaul of its Technology & Operations (ATO) department, including the plaintiff, an AT&T employee of almost four decades.
The plaintiff’s termination, pursuant to the company’s move to obtain a “faster, leaner and more agile” workforce, was essentially an age-motivated decision that violated the ADEA, the complaint argued. Upon notification that she was “selected for surplus,” the plaintiff was presented with a severance package and accompanying “General Release.” The agreement contained an explicit collective action waiver as well as a severability savings clause, stating that“[i]f a court determines that any part of this General Release and Waiver is not valid, the other parts will still remain valid and enforceable.”
The plaintiff filed suit in January 2020 and stated several claims for relief under the ADEA for disparate treatment, impact, and that AT&T failed to comply with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. She further alleged that the collective action waiver was invalid and, among other things, sought an order certifying the case as a collective action.
In response to the plaintiff’s complaint, AT&T moved to compel individual arbitration, arguing that the plaintiff’s employment agreement, equipped with an arbitration clause, governed the dispute, superseding the General Release. The district court found otherwise, specifically that the General Release controlled. AT&T appealed to the Third Circuit, and the appellate tribunal affirmed.
Now, AT&T moves to dismiss the suit on grounds that it is barred by the collective action waiver. On the face of the plaintiff’s complaint, “and considering the terms of the General Release, which is explicitly referred to in the complaint, she cannot legally pursue a collective action,” the motion says.
Previously, the plaintiff argued that the General Release was an enforceable agreement between her and AT&T to avoid her prior agreement to arbitrate these claims. According to AT&T that now binds her as law of the case and nullifies her arguments as to uneforceability.
In addition, the General Release’s collective action waiver is valid and not unconscionable, AT&T argues, pointing to precedent concluding the same. As support for the latter point, the defendant contends that the plaintiff can show neither procedural nor substantive unconscionability, conjunctive requirements under governing law.
The plaintiff is represented by Console Mattiacci Law LLC. AT&T is represented by Littler Mendelson P.C. and Paul Hastings LLP.
