The allegations read like a textbook case of what HR teams should avoid
A 27-year AECOM employee alleges she was paid far less than younger male peers — and terminated after raising concerns about it.
Lisa A. Psenicska, a 59-year-old marketing manager, filed a federal lawsuit on April 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Psenicska v. AECOM, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-02304), claiming the multinational infrastructure consulting firm subjected her to gender and age discrimination, retaliation, and a pretextual layoff after she flagged pay gaps between herself and younger male colleagues.
Psenicska spent nearly three decades at AECOM and its subsidiary, AECOM Technical Services, Inc., serving as DMV/GPA Marketing Manager out of the company's Philadelphia office. According to the filing, she was a strong performer — generally earning satisfactory or above-satisfactory evaluations, receiving bonuses and merit recognition, and never once facing progressive discipline. In the October–November 2024 timeframe, her territory was expanded to include new geographies, a move she says reflected her track record.
The filing tells a different story when it comes to pay. Psenicska alleges she earned approximately $118,500 while Brian Taylor, a younger male Regional Manager in a comparable role with less tenure and experience, earned roughly $153,000. Another colleague, Mariusz Koper, held a subordinate-level position for about a year yet allegedly drew a similar salary to hers.
Starting in November 2024, Psenicska says she raised these concerns with her supervisors, specifically pointing to age and gender as factors. By mid-2025, according to the filing, the response was not an investigation but escalation — increased scrutiny from management, a heavier workload compared to peers, and what she describes as public embarrassment on team calls. Shortly before her termination, one of her supervisors allegedly asked how much longer she planned to keep working and whether she planned to retire soon.
On October 30, 2025, Psenicska received a letter stating her position was being eliminated effective November 14, citing a need to reduce the workforce for business reasons. She contends the rationale does not hold up: younger, less experienced male managers in similar roles were kept on, the company was allegedly hiring nationally around the same time, open positions she was qualified for were not offered to her, and she was given a severance package — something not available to employees let go for performance or cause-based reasons.
What came next may be the detail that draws the most attention from HR professionals. After Psenicska filed a charge with the EEOC, the company allegedly changed its explanation for her departure, citing "poor performance" — a reason absent from the original termination letter.
No final determination has been made in the case, and AECOM has not yet responded to the claims. But the pattern described in the filing — unaddressed pay equity concerns, retirement inquiries before a termination, shifting justifications — reads like a checklist of what employment lawyers warn HR teams to avoid.
For HR leaders watching from the sidelines, the takeaway is straightforward: when employees raise compensation concerns tied to protected characteristics, the response matters as much as the outcome. And when the reason for a termination changes after a regulatory filing, it tends to raise more questions than it answers.
