Does anyone know if legal a population of RTO impacted employees has started pursuing a legal class action? If so, is it fair/reasonable to share the name(s)? Also does anyone know if severance acceptance would hinder participation in class actions? Does anyone have initial understanding of prospective federal/state/local law violations associated with these? One has to assume The Company has secure outside counsel to examine their risk exposure, so has a class of employees done the same?
19 replies (most recent on top)
Stop crying already and get back to work. If it is so hard for you to report to an office then you should be gone. Sick of hearing these cry babies pass and moan that thier job co.es with expectations.
“There are no grounds to sue.”
Sue anyway. Sue for $2,000 in small claims court for work related electric bills during pandemic when deemed a teleworker. It’ll cost AT&T $25,000 to defend the suit. If they send no one, you win automatically. They laid off accounts payable, and when they pay the $2,000 late, you’ll get a larger settlement and create more work for legal. Every state and every judge will find for your case in your favor. If 15,000 people sue, AT&T does not have enough lawyers. They’ll have to send store reps to attend court. Take ‘em to court. Maybe Steve Harvey will hear your case!
There are no grounds to sue. However, if one were to complain to his state legislators and other politicians, they might come after AT&T for eliminating jobs in their state and for generally being corporate sociopaths. There are not nearly as many rules in the regulatory game as their are in the courts, and I suspect the bribe money has run dry.
The lawsuit will be based on cruelty and emotional distress company caused by the way RTO was handled. This RTO policy is premeditated to inflict deep emotional scar to employees menthal state, anxiety and PTSD.
"To the really, really, weird a$$hat that keeps posting this everywhere ^^^^^^^
GFY. You are not in charge here. Nor is AT&T. Bite me."
Well said!
What's really strange is there are other threads on here where people post copy/pastes of internal communications or policies - some of those clearly are COBC violations. But he doesn't post it there.
This one simply raises a discussion about potential lawsuits, which is a right any employee has and not something any company remotely has a legal right to suppress.
We all take the course every year and nothing in it says "you can't ever talk to other employees about suing us."
On what basis? Poor employee career choices?
" This post is a COBC violation and needs to be removed."
To the really, really, weird a$$hat that keeps posting this everywhere ^^^^^^^
GFY. You are not in charge here. Nor is AT&T. Bite me.
Call Washington Post (and/or New York Post) and tell them headline: “Stankey touts AT&T AI as 15,000 layoffs begin” and get the Dems and Repubs whipped up into a frenzy and they pass legislation penalizing companies and executives for stealing knowledge worker’s contributions with AI and putting us out to pasture. When they subpoena Stankey’s texts, they will discover the whole RTO is a scheme to trim older workers from Ameritech, Bell South and Pacbell and replace them with younger interns in ATL and DAL.
"This post is a COBC violation and needs to be removed."
You don't like it, don't look. AT&T doesn't own these boards.
This post is a COBC violation and needs to be removed.
* "Kind of silly for people to be so scared of having to leave their mommy's basement" *
Dude, don't judge others based on your own life situation. I have my own basement, thank you very much.
There is no legal basis for a lawsuit.
And don't get me wrong, I am likely to be affected, and I believe what they are doing to people is extremely underhanded, shady, and reprehensible. But I don't see anything illegal about it.
Suplused here. With that said... If you accept the severance, you're basically giving up your rights to sue. Taking that money is like agreeing AT&T hasn't done anything wrong to you, and it will be documented. You will sign off on that, you better believe they'll make sure that happens before you see any of it. So can you still sue or not, IDK, but personally, I feel like it's just unethical. You're free to refuse the severance and pursue any claim you want, but if you take it, then you accepted whatever had happened. That's the way I look at it.
Kind of silly for people to be so scared of having to leave their mommy's basement and actually report to an office to work.
boo hoo little snowflakes........
You have no case. You have no contract with the company and they can move your work anywhere they want at any time. It’s up to you if you go or not. No lawsuit. Move on with your life.
You are an at-will employee. If you get surplussed look for a new job and move on.
Lawyers get a huge chunk out of the law suit if you do win, leaving just the changes for you. Either way, lawyers make money from you for all kind of fees, regardless you win or not.
A forced arbitration agreement signed upon accepting an offer of employment would negate any suit of that sort.
People tend to not pursue class actions. Lawyers do. And there's no reason to assume there is a basis for one. I'm not saying this to troll, as I'm affected. But as many times as this question has been asked (it's been a lot), there is absolutely no reason any attorney would think of taking something like it on. On what grounds?