A longtime manager claims Atmos Energy forced him out after nearly 40 years, alleging a pattern of age discrimination and retaliation
A longtime operations manager has accused Atmos Energy of age discrimination and retaliation, claiming he was pushed out after nearly 40 years with the company.
Jerome Barrios, 63, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against Atmos Energy Corporation and its affiliate, Atmos Energy Services, LLC. In his complaint, Barrios alleges that his decades-long career ended abruptly in January 2025 after he was subjected to what he describes as a campaign of age-based bias and workplace hostility.
Barrios, who began working for Atmos Energy on or about February 18, 1985, rose to the position of Operations Manager. According to court documents, he claims that during his final year at the company, the environment became increasingly hostile. The complaint outlines a series of alleged actions by Atmos Energy’s management and human resources leaders that Barrios says amounted to discrimination and retaliation because of his age.
Among the allegations: Barrios says he was repeatedly denied opportunities for promotion, including a position as Damage Prevention Manager. He contends he received a written counseling based on false grounds, was given negative feedback on his performance evaluation without justification, and faced mounting pressure to retire. The complaint further alleges that Barrios was accused of poor leadership, placed on forced administrative leave, and subjected to what he calls a biased and pretextual investigation into his management style—all while younger, less-experienced employees were promoted or favored for advancement.
Barrios alleges that in December 2024, senior management and HR leaders threatened him and placed him on administrative leave, allegedly to force him into retirement or set the stage for his dismissal. He says he reported his concerns about discrimination and the company’s attempt to push him out without a fair severance package. According to the complaint, less than a week after raising these concerns, Barrios was informed that his employment would be terminated as of January 2, 2025.
The complaint states that Barrios was offered a severance package “roughly equivalent to two or three months’ compensation,” but only if he agreed not to sue the company for age discrimination and retaliation. Barrios refused, and his employment ended.
Barrios alleges that Atmos Energy’s actions violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and that similarly situated, substantially younger, and less-qualified employees were treated more favorably. He claims that the company failed to investigate his complaints or take corrective action.
The lawsuit seeks actual and compensatory damages, including lost wages and benefits, damages for future wage loss, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and equitable relief such as reinstatement.
Atmos Energy Corporation, a Texas-based company, and its affiliate are both named as defendants. The complaint asserts that the two companies operated as joint employers and shared management, payroll, and personnel policies.
As of now, these are allegations only. The case remains in its early stages, with no findings of fact or liability. The outcome will depend on the court’s review of the evidence and any potential settlement or trial. For HR professionals, the case serves as a reminder of the legal and reputational risks associated with workplace discrimination and the importance of robust, fair employment practices.
