Remote AT&T lead alleges RTO move, bias ended her long career
AT&T is facing new allegations that its return-to-office push sidelined a long-time remote worker with disabilities, age and gender discrimination claims in tow.
In a case filed on Dec. 5, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, former AT&T Enterprises, LLC employee Kimberly Wall sets out how a mandatory return-to-office policy, layered over long-standing medical issues, allegedly led to the end of her employment.
Wall, who lives in Wilmington, N.C., says she joined AT&T on or about August 12, 2002, as a call center representative and was later promoted to a Lead role, including in project management and development. She alleges she met the company’s legitimate business expectations throughout her tenure.
According to the filing, AT&T allowed Wall to work remotely beginning around 2010 and approved her move to Wilmington in or around 2012 while she continued working from home. At the time of the events described, she was 51 years old, female and a two-time breast cancer survivor.
Wall says her medical history left her with complex regional pain syndrome, post-mastectomy pain syndrome and neuropathy. The filing describes “Wall’s Disabilities” as causing debilitating pain and uncontrollable muscle spasms, requiring her to manipulate her reconstructed chest area to manage symptoms, and substantially interfering with her ability to concentrate, sit for extended periods, interact with others, perform daily tasks and work. The complaint states that AT&T was aware of her record of disabilities.
The dispute, Wall alleges, began in or around May 2023, when AT&T implemented a mandatory return-to-office policy that applied to her. During the announcement, other employees reportedly raised concerns about losing older workers, and CEO John Stankey is alleged to have replied, “We need young people.”
Wall says she requested an accommodation to remain remote, backed by doctors’ notes stating that in-person work posed a danger to her health and would inhibit her ability to perform essential job functions. She claims AT&T rejected her remote-work request, instead offering a private office in Georgia. According to the filing, she told the company that this would not let her carry out her role, yet was told she could accept the arrangement or be terminated, rather than continuing in an interactive process.
The complaint describes four separate accommodation efforts: her first, third and fourth requests to continue remote work, and a second request on or about August 3, 2023, for short-term disability leave for surgery. Wall says AT&T granted the short-term disability and placed her on leave, but closed her accommodation request. Later, the filing states, AT&T turned her short-term disability into an employed leave of absence running alongside long-term disability and again denied remote work as an accommodation.
Wall also alleges that after her first accommodation request, she began receiving negative feedback from supervisors and was treated less favorably than younger, non-disabled male peers in terms of assignments, visibility and pay. She names several colleagues as comparators and claims AT&T ultimately forced her to resign, with her employment terminated on or about November 7, 2024, and her position later filled by a male coworker.
The filing brings claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, along with gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Wall asks the court to restore her to a position for which she was qualified, expunge negative documentation from her personnel file, and award compensatory and monetary damages “in an amount in excess of $ 25,000 per claim,” punitive damages “in an amount in excess of $ 25,000,” attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief the court deems proper.
These are allegations drawn from Wall’s filing. The document does not contain any final judgment or decision on her claims.
