April 24, 2014

AT&T Settles EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Retired Former Employees Should Have Equal Opportunity to Apply for New Jobs, Federal Agency Argued in Successful Action

NEW YORK – Telecommunications giant AT&T has agreed to cease discriminatory policies to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency announced today.

The EEOC had charged that AT&T, Inc. and a number of its subsidiaries discriminated against a class of retired AT&T workers by denying them the opportunity for reemployment solely because they retired under certain early retirement or enhanced severance programs. This practice violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the EEOC said. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, individuals who participated in the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program (VRIP – an AT&T Corp. program from 1998-1999, before its merger with SBC Communications from 2005 to 2007), the Enhanced Pension and Retirement Program (EPR – a pre-merger SBC program from 2000 to 2001), and the Change-in-Control Program (CIC – a pre-merger AT&T Corp. program conducted in connection with the merger) were restricted from being reemployed or engaged as contractors because they took one of these retirement packages.

The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. AT&T Inc., AT&T Corp., AT&T Services, Inc. and Pacific Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a/ AT&T California, Case No. 09-CIV-7323) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Aug. 20, 2009, after first trying to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. AT&T denied the allegations in the lawsuit, but agreed to change its policies related to the reemployment of retirees.

The consent decree settling the suit, entered on October 25, 2011 by U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken, prohibits AT&T from maintaining any policy that excludes from reemployment employees who left AT&T under one of the early retirement plans. The decree also prohibits AT&T from requiring a different process for selecting retirees than any other former employees.

“Many former employees who took an early retirement package years ago still need work, and will now have an equal opportunity to apply for new jobs at AT&T,” said Anna M. Pohl, a trial attorney in the EEOC’s New York District Office. “AT&T is to be commended for changing its policies and working with the EEOC to resolve this case.”

Elizabeth Grossman, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office, added, “All employees, regardless of their age, should be permitted to compete for jobs equally. That is the fundamental right the ADEA grants to older workers.”

According to company information, Dallas-based AT&T is the largest telecommunications company in the world by revenue, with $123 billion reported in 2009.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available

© Copyright 2013 - U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

About the Author

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Most employers with at least 15...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.