They had 25+ years at their desks - then came the 50-pound climbing gear
Seven women who spent decades in AT&T's call center allege the company tied their termination pay to a pole-climbing test.
The workers filed a federal lawsuit on October 12, 2026, in the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging AT&T denied them the termination pay their years of service had earned when it closed its credit and collections office in Peoria, Illinois.
Each of the seven was over 50. Each had worked for AT&T for more than 25 years as a Customer Account Specialist - an office-based role. One had been with the company for more than 45 years. Together, they held seven of the 15 most senior positions among 33 employees in the office's credit and collections department, according to the complaint.
When AT&T announced the closure in June 2023, the complaint alleges, the company identified a handful of vacancies for displaced employees. None were office roles. None were in Peoria. None matched the workers' job title or title group. The openings included outdoor field positions in Indiana and various Illinois locations - roles like Customer Systems Technician, Engineering Assistant, Supply Attendant, and Telecommunications Specialist.
Then came the test.
According to the filing, AT&T conditioned termination pay on employees testing for those field positions - a process that included climbing a utility pole while carrying approximately 50 pounds of equipment. Climbing a utility pole, the complaint alleges, had nothing to do with the office work the women performed.
Each of the seven either took the test and did not pass, or declined because she knew she could not meet the physical requirements, according to the filing. AT&T did not offer them a retest, even though company policy required it, the complaint alleges.
Here is where the case turns. The complaint alleges AT&T abandoned the entire testing process shortly after the seven women went through it and paid termination pay to younger and male employees - without requiring them to test or even express interest in the field vacancies.
Under AT&T's collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 21, termination pay was calculated based on years of service. For long-tenured employees like these seven, termination pay substantially exceeded the alternative - a Supplemental Income Protection Program (SIPP) payment, the complaint states. AT&T gave the workers the smaller SIPP benefit instead.
The filing describes a tense final stretch. After the June 28, 2023, closure announcement, the complaint alleges the office's supervisor rarely left her office and actively avoided employees who tried to raise concerns about the process. When one worker attempted to speak with her union about the situation, the complaint alleges the supervisor instructed her to go back to her desk and work.
Several of the workers complained to union representatives that the testing and pay process was discriminatory, according to the filing. An August 8, 2023, email sent on behalf of office members objected that AT&T was requiring "an office full of employees that has dedicated anywhere from 21 - 44 years with this company" and who were "at the end of their careers, older, heavier and with a few more ailments" to test for positions with "weight restrictions, lifting requirements and possible pole climbing."
That email warned the process would "eliminate most of the office from receiving termination benefits," the complaint states.
On September 11, 2023 - two days before the announced termination date - the complaint alleges the supervisor, accompanied by an armed guard, told employees AT&T was closing the office that day. After individual separation meetings, the workers say they learned from coworkers that AT&T had paid other employees termination pay while denying it to them.
The lawsuit brings claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Illinois Human Rights Act. The workers allege AT&T discriminated against them on the basis of age, sex, and the combination of both - and retaliated against them for complaining about it. Their office supervisor is named individually on state-law claims for alleged retaliation and aiding and abetting.
The workers are seeking back pay including the denied termination pay, lost benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, among other relief.
For HR teams managing office closures and reductions in force, the case puts a sharp question on the table: if you tie severance eligibility to physical tests designed for entirely different roles, can you defend that process when it disproportionately screens out older women?
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested, and no court has made any findings or rulings on the merits.
