AT&T Settles EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit

PRESS RELEASE
10-26-11

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 at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-26-11.cfm

EEOC SUES AT&T FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release
September 25, 2009

Telephone Company Refused to Hire Qualified Diabetic Applicant Because of Disability, Federal Agency Charges

AUSTIN, Texas – AT&T Services, Inc., doing business as Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, L.P. (AT&T), a major telephone company, violated federal law by refusing to hire an applicant simply because he is an insulin-dependent diabetic, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, AT&T violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to hire an applicant as a cable splicer technician in Austin only because of his “insulin use” for type 2 diabetes. Indeed, according to the EEOC, the applicant indisputably had the necessary experience and expertise to perform the job and had previously safely performed a similar job for AT&T for many years after he was diagnosed with diabetes.
Refusing to hire a qualified individual because of his or her disability, record of disability, or because the employer perceives a person as being disabled, violates the ADA. After the EEOC’s San Antonio Field office determined that AT&T had violated the law, it filed suit (CASE NO. A09CA700JN) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for the victim, as well as injunctive relief.
“Hiring decisions should be based on an applicant’s qualifications and not on myths, fears and stereotypes about actual or perceived disabilities related to diabetes and insulin use,” said Senior Trial Attorney Eduardo Juarez of the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office.
According to its web site, Dallas-based AT&T “is recognized as one of the leading worldwide providers of IP-based communications services to businesses.” Further information about the company is available at its web site, http://www.att.com.
“Employers must make hiring decisions based on the applicant’s ability to perform the duties of the job,” said Supervisory Trial Attorney Judith G. Taylor of the EEOC’s San Antonio Field Office. “This company flatly refused to consider an applicant for employment simply because he is an insulin-dependent diabetic. AT&T should not have relied on generalized and grossly incorrect assumptions about a diabetic’s ability to perform a job, especially considering that the applicant worked for about 13 to 14 years in a similar job for AT&T, approximately ten years of which he was an insulin-dependent diabetic.” The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Obama's civil rights nominee should be ready for a fight

Thomas Perez will be put through the grinder for the rights post, 'arguably the most difficult position to fill in the federal government when it comes to Senate confirmation,' one official says.By Paul WestApril 5, 2009Reporting from Washington — In the annals of capital partisanship, their names are boldfaced: the candidates for America's highest civil rights post who never got confirmed.During the last Democratic administration, conservatives succeeded in blocking Senate approval of Lani Guinier and Bill Lann Lee to head the civil rights division at the Justice Department.Now they're gearing up to put Thomas Perez, a Maryland lawyer and President Obama's nominee for the job, through the grinder. Senate sources have predicted that the Harvard Law graduate will be confirmed, but history suggests it won't be without a fight."This is arguably the most difficult position to fill in the federal government when it comes to Senate confirmation," said Roger Clegg, a former official in the civil rights division. "Both sides feel so strongly about the issues that the division handles."The more than 300 lawyers in the division enforce rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, religion and national origin. Lawyers also oversee voting-rights cases, which are likely to increase after next year's census and the resulting redistricting.In interviews, current and former lawyers at the Justice Department and on Capitol Hill said that under Obama and Perez, the civil rights division is likely to step up prosecutions of police misconduct and racial profiling.The administration also may promote legislation that would give the division added responsibilities to make voter registration more uniform and make it easier for people to vote.Other areas that may get renewed attention include conditions in prisons, mental health facilities and nursing homes. The last area could mesh with Perez's work as a University of Maryland law professor on the relationship between healthcare and civil rights.Perez, 47, currently serves as Maryland's labor secretary. And his selection to be the nation's leading civil rights enforcer came as a surprise.Some Latino civil rights advocates reacted angrily, viewing Perez as a replacement for a highly regarded Mexican American civil rights lawyer in Los Angeles who had been expected to get the nomination. Cruz Reynoso -- the first Latino on the California Supreme Court, who also helped lead a review of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for the Obama transition -- expressed concern that the president had withdrawn the expected appointment of Thomas Saenz, an advisor to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, to avoid a confirmation fight over immigration issues....
Affirmative action, a focus of the confirmation fights of the 1990s, could also play a role."I was just reading a law review that Perez has written that was very favorable toward the use of racial preferences," said Clegg, a conservative who advocates colorblind public policies. Obama "has indicated that he's not entirely comfortable with racial preferences," Clegg said. Perez "may be more liberal than the president himself is."

Full Story: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-perez5-2009apr05,0,6405519.story

A Poor Choice on Civil Rights

The New York Times
March 17, 2008
Editorial
A Poor Choice on Civil Rights
President Bush has made yet another ill-considered nomination to the Justice Department, this time selecting Grace Chung Becker to be assistant attorney general for the civil rights division. It is a critically important job, responsible for protecting the rights of racial and religious minorities, the disabled and other groups. The division has been improperly politicized in recent years, and it has worked to undermine the very rights it is supposed to protect.
Ms. Becker is now the acting head of this troubled office, and at her confirmation hearing last week, she failed to show that she is up to the task of setting it right.
The civil rights division has been in sorry shape for some time. At Congressional hearings last year, its former head admitted that he boasted of hiring Republicans for nonpolitical attorney positions.
The division also has repeatedly taken anti-civil-rights stands. Notoriously, it endorsed a Georgia voter ID law that was widely likened to a poll tax because it charged people for the ID they needed to vote.
The Senate should only confirm a division head who demonstrates a commitment both to fixing these problems and rooting out the damage that has been done. Ms. Becker fails on both counts. When Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, asked about the department’s politicized hiring, she insisted it was improper for her to answer because an investigation is under way.
That is a made-up rule. Congress, which oversees the Justice Department, has a right to have its questions answered. If Ms. Becker is this contemptuous of the Senate’s role at her confirmation hearings, it is disturbing to think how dismissive she will be if she is confirmed.
Ms. Becker has also taken stands that undermine civil rights. She signed a brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold an Indiana voter ID law that would disenfranchise many minority voters. The position she took was helpful for the Republican Party, but it hurt the people she was supposed to look out for. When asked why she signed the brief, Ms. Becker again stonewalled.
Before the Senate Judiciary Committee votes, it is expected to give Ms. Becker written follow-up questions. Perhaps she will have better answers then, but it is hard to see how she can overcome the serious concerns that have been raised about her nomination.