Former AT&T director alleges return-to-office mandate drove out older workers

The allegations paint a troubling picture for anyone in human resources. According to the filing, Stankey told employees during a July 2023 company-wide Town Hall that AT&T “needed younger people working at this company” and described the restructuring as an opportunity to “say goodbye” to experienced workers and “build the next generation.” Months later, at an open-mic event in New Jersey, he allegedly referred to himself as “an old guy” with “a lot of gray hair” who was “not going to work much longer,” while telling younger employees in the room they “look wonderful.”

What makes this case especially relevant for HR leaders is what allegedly did not happen next. Lopez claims no one in leadership or human resources pushed back on the remarks. No correction was issued. No apology followed. Employee complaints submitted through a post-Town Hall survey went unaddressed, according to the filing. And when Lopez herself raised an age discrimination concern to her direct supervisor in June 2024, she says it was simply ignored.

The operational details are worth noting. Lopez had been assigned to AT&T’s Bedminster, New Jersey office — one of the company’s nine designated “core” locations — and was performing well from that site. Yet in April 2024, she was told to relocate to Atlanta with no reimbursement for moving expenses. She alleges that younger colleagues in comparable roles were allowed to stay in non-core locations, work hybrid arrangements, or transfer to more favorable offices with relocation support. When she declined the move, AT&T declared her “surplus” and ended her employment.

The filing also alleges AT&T continued hiring younger employees into her organization — including recent graduates of internal leadership development programs — even as it moved to terminate her. One new hire was 24 years old. Another was 31.

This is not AT&T’s first encounter with age discrimination claims. The lawsuit references two prior jury verdicts against the company in federal court in Pennsylvania, as well as several other pending or settled cases raising similar allegations.