Horowitz v. At&T Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-4827-BRM-LHG |
| Parties | ROY HOROWITZ, LINDA LARSON, KEMPTEN POLLARD, KATHERINE SEAMAN, and KATHLEEN SWEENEY, Plaintiffs, v. AT&T INC., AT&T CORP., AT&T SERVICES, INC., and AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Before this Court are: (1) AT&T, Inc.'s ("INC")1 Motion to Dismiss against Roy Horowitz ("Horowitz"), Linda Larson ("Larson"), Kempton Pollard ("Pollard"), Katherine Seaman ("Seaman"), and Kathleen Sweeney ("Sweeney," collectively "Plaintiffs") for lack of jurisdiction (ECF No. 21); (2) AT&T Services, Inc. ("SERVICES") and AT&T Mobility Services, LLC's ("MOBILITY") Motion to Dismiss Larson and Pollard's claims for lack of jurisdiction (ECF No. 23); and (3) AT&T Corp. ("CORP"), SERVICES, and MOBILITY'S Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 22).2 Plaintiffs oppose all motions. (ECF Nos. 41, 42, and 43.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(a), the Court heard oral argument on April 10, 2018. For thereasons set forth below, INC's Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED; SERVICES and MOBILITY'S Motion to Dismiss Larson and Pollard's claims for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED; and CORP, SERVICE, and MOBILITY'S Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
For the purposes of the motions to dismiss, the Court accepts the factual allegations in the Complaint as true and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs. See Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court also considers any "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997). This matter involves violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") in which, it is alleged, Defendants engaged in a "company-wide plan" to replace the aging workforce in Defendants' corporations with a younger one by the year 2020 (the "2020 Scheme"), with a three-step "surplus" then termination and fraudulent release scheme.
Horowitz is a citizen of the state of New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 1.) He was hired by AT&T in December 1995, and was employed at the company for more than 20 years before his termination effective June 21, 2016, at the age of 56. (Id. ¶ 141.) At the time of his termination, he worked in the Bedminster, New Jersey office and received his W-2 from CORP. (Id. ¶¶ 143-44.) From approximately 2014 until the time of his termination, he served as the Professional - Client Services Project Manager and reported to Peter Marcinkowski ("Marcinkowski"), AT&T's Senior Program Project Manager. (Id. ¶ 142.)
Larson is a citizen of the state of Arizona. (Id. ¶ 3.) She was hired by AT&T in 1973, and was employed at the company for approximately 34 years before her termination effective March 7, 2016, at the age of 61. (Id. ¶ 100.) At the time of her termination, she worked "for AT&T from her home in Lake Havasu City, Arizona" and received her W-2 from SERVICES. (Id. ¶¶ 102-03.) From 2013 until the time of her termination, Larson served as the Manager of Sales Planning and reported to Glen Greenwell. (Id. ¶ 101.)
Pollard is a citizen of the state of Florida. (Id. ¶ 5.) He was hired by AT&T in May 2006, and was employed at the company for more than 10 years before his termination effective June 21, 2016, at the age of 69. (Id. ¶ 178.) At the time of his termination, Pollard worked for AT&T from his home in Bradenton, Florida and was assigned to an AT&T office in Tampa, Florida. (Id. ¶ 181.) He received his W-2 from SERVICES. (Id. ¶ 182.) From 2008 until the time of his termination, Pollard served as the Professional - Client Serves project Manager and reported to Marcinkowski. (Id. ¶ 179.)
Seaman is a citizen of the state of New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 7.) She was hired by AT&T in August 1986, and was employed at the company for more than 30 years before her termination effective March 27, 2017, at the age of 49. (Id. ¶ 255.) At the time of her termination, Seaman worked for AT&T in the Bedminster, New Jersey office and received her W-2 from SERVICES. (Id. ¶ 258-59.) From September 2004 until the time of her termination, she worked as a Director in marketing. (Id. ¶ 256.) Specifically, from January 2015 until her termination, she held the position of Director-Marketing Management in AT&T's Entertainment Group and initially reported to Annette Isom, then Roger Hyde, then Craig Shirk, and ultimately David Banks. (Id. ¶ 257.)
Sweeney is a citizen of New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 9.) She was hired by AT&T in November 1997, and was employed at the company for more than 18 years before her termination effective July 22,2016, at the age of 51. (Id. ¶ 216.) At the time of her termination, Sweeney worked for AT&T in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, but travelled for work to field offices in various states, including New Jersey, and occasionally worked from her home in New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 219.) She received her W-2 from MOBILITY. (Id. ¶ 220.) From 2007 until the time of her termination, Sweeney served as the Director of Sales (from January 2014 through April 2015, she held the position of Director of Sales Operations), and reported to Tiffany Baehman until 2016 and then Judy Cavalieri. (Id. ¶ 217.)
"[INC] is a Delaware corporation that is the parent company of several wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary corporations, including [SERVICES], MOBILITY, and [CORP]." (Id. ¶ 11.) It has its headquarters in Texas. (Id. at 1 (see caption).) CORP is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Bedminster, New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 14.) CORP is duly registered to transact business in New Jersey, with a registered agent located in New Jersey for service of process. (Id.) SERVICES is a Delaware corporation. (Id. ¶ 15.) It is registered to transact business in New Jersey, with a registered agent located in New Jersey for service of process. (Id.) "It maintains several places of business located throughout the state of New Jersey, maintains systematic and continuous activity such that it is at home in New Jersey, and employs many people in the state of New Jersey." (Id.) MOBILITY is a Delaware limited liability corporation. (Id. ¶ 16.) It is duly registered to transact business in New Jersey, with a registered agent in New Jersey for service of process. (Id.) "It maintains several places of business located throughout the state of New Jersey, maintains systematic and continuous activity such that it is at home in New Jersey, and employs many people in the state of New Jersey." (Id.)
Plaintiffs contend Defendants share "common ownership, management, administrative services, personnel, policies and employment practices." (Id. ¶ 17.) Defendants hold themselves out to the public and their employees as a "family of companies" known as AT&T. (Id. ¶ 18.)
Plaintiffs allege AT&T engaged in an intentional "pattern and practice of age discrimination adversely affecting [] Plaintiffs and similarly situated Older Workers." (Id. ¶ 39-40.) AT&T allegedly came up with a corporate-wide plan to replace its older workforce with a younger one by 2020. (Id. ¶ 44.)
(Id. ¶ 57.) Plaintiffs claim the decisions as to who will be placed on surplus status are subjective and based on age discriminatory bias. (Id. ¶ 58.)
Employees selected for surplus had the opportunity to apply for alternative positions in AT&T by the end of the surplus period. (Id. ¶ 67.) However, at the conclusion of the surplus period, if an employee placed on surplus did not find an alternative position, their employment was terminated. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege "[t]he application and selection for available position process isinfected with age bias." (Id. ¶ 68.) "During the 'surplus' period, many employees who were notified of 'surplus' status, including those under age 40, secured available positions." (Id. ¶ 77.)
After termination, the employees had an opportunity to receive a severance payment under the INC Severance Pay Plan if he or she executed the "GR&W-AT&T-Non-CA-GG-Amended September 2014" (the "General Release and Waiver"), which was presented to employees on the same day as the AT&T Surplus Notification Letter, as part of a standard uniform package. (Id. ¶¶ 62, 80.) "The General Release and Waiver purports to release all claims against AT&T with respect to the recipient's employment and termination of employment, and to waive the right to be in or participate in a class, collective, or representative action on claims arising prior to signing, including under the ADEA." (Id. ¶ 63.) The General Release and Waiver form was also accompanied by a standard form "stamped on the bottom as 'Amended September 2014' and entitled 'AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT (ADEA) INFORMATION NOTICE UNDER THE OLDER WORKERS BENEFIT PROTECTION ACT" (the "OWBPA Notice"). (Id. ¶ 64.)
Plaintiffs argue the General Release and Waiver is invalid and unenforceable as to rights and claims under the ADEA, contains...
To continue reading
Request your trial