AT&T Says Proposed Age Bias Class Action Barred by Job Pacts

AT&T Inc. will tell the Third Circuit on Thursday that a release of legal claims signed by a former manager when she was laid off, as well as her earlier promise to arbitrate, bar her age bias lawsuit against the company and a subsidiary.

Patricia Kantz lost her job at age 57 when she was included in a reduction in force conducted by AT&T and AT&T Services Inc.’s technology and operations business unit.

She sued in January 2020, alleging the RIF targeted workers 40 and older and that the general release she signed to receive a severance package didn’t include all the information federal law requires for older workers to voluntarily waive age bias claims. Kantz seeks to represent a class of all former employees of AT&T and related affiliates who were similarly affected by the alleged systemic bias.

But she’s bound by an arbitration agreement that requires individual arbitration and forbids her to raise employment-related disputes in court, according to the companies. It remains binding despite the separate general release, the companies said in their pre-argument briefing.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania mistakenly found in a March 19 ruling that the general release superseded the arbitration pact and that Kantz isn’t required to individually arbitrate her Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims, AT&T said.

‘Comfortably Co-Exist’

The arbitration agreement and general release had different aims and can “comfortably co-exist,” AT&T said.

The arbitration agreement sets the forum for resolving employment disputes, and the release exchanges legal rights for money. Nothing in the release mentions the arbitration agreement or arbitration generally, so the release had no effect on Kantz’s longstanding consent to individual arbitration, it said.

It was up to Kantz to prove the later-signed release was intended to eclipse the earlier arbitration pact, and she failed to do so, according to AT&T.

Courts across the country have consistently rejected efforts to evade valid arbitration agreements and class action waivers, the companies said.

Characterizations Faulty

AT&T mischaracterizes the nature of the two agreements, Kantz said in her briefing filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The pacts share the same central subject—the resolution of disputes arising out of or related to her employment or termination, Kantz said.

That the two agreements serve different purposes doesn’t mean they address different subjects, she said.

Like arbitration, the claims foreclosure that was the aim of the release is a method of dispute resolution, Kantz said.

And both agreements contain terms beyond those highlighted by AT&T, she said. The release even includes language stating that it set forth the entire agreement between her and the companies regarding her termination, Kantz said.

Console Mattiacci Law represents Kantz and the proposed class. Paul Hastings LLP represents AT&T.

The case is Kantz v. AT&T Inc., 3d Cir., No. 21-01620, oral argument 1/13/22.