Seven women over the age of 50 have sued AT&T, alleging the company denied them termination pay after closing an Illinois office because they did not pass, or declined to take, physical tests for field positions unrelated to their existing jobs.
The federal lawsuit was filed on October 12, 2026, in the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that AT&T imposed different conditions for termination benefits on the women compared with younger and male employees affected by the closure of its credit and collections office in Peoria, Illinois.
According to the complaint, all seven women had worked for AT&T for more than 25 years as Customer Account Specialists, an office-based position. One employee had more than 45 years of service. The women collectively held seven of the 15 most senior positions among 33 employees in the department.
Physical tests became a condition of termination pay
AT&T announced the office closure on June 28, 2023. According to the lawsuit, the company identified several vacancies for displaced employees, but none were office-based positions in Peoria or matched the women's existing job titles or job groups.
The available roles included Customer Systems Technician, Engineering Assistant, Supply Attendant and Telecommunications Specialist positions at locations elsewhere in Illinois and in Indiana.
The complaint alleges that AT&T made termination pay conditional on employees taking tests for these field positions. The testing process included climbing a utility pole while carrying approximately 50 pounds of equipment, a physical requirement the women say was unrelated to their previous office-based responsibilities.
Each plaintiff either took the test and failed or declined to participate because she believed she could not meet the physical requirements, according to the filing. The women also allege that AT&T failed to offer retests despite a company policy that required them.
The complaint further alleges that AT&T subsequently discontinued the testing process and paid termination benefits to younger and male employees without requiring them to take the same tests or express interest in the available field positions.
Dispute over termination benefits
The financial consequences are central to the lawsuit.
Under AT&T's collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 21, termination pay was calculated according to employees' years of service. The complaint states that this benefit would have been substantially greater for the long-serving employees than payments available through the Supplemental Income Protection Program (SIPP).
The women allege that AT&T provided them with the smaller SIPP benefit instead of the termination pay they believe they were entitled to receive.
The complaint also describes objections raised during the closure process. In an email dated August 8, 2023, sent on behalf of office members, employees questioned the requirement for long-serving, older workers to qualify for benefits by taking physical tests for jobs involving lifting requirements and pole climbing.
Several employees also allegedly raised concerns about discrimination with union representatives.
The lawsuit describes further tension in the days before the closure. On September 11, 2023, two days before the previously announced termination date, the office supervisor allegedly informed employees that the office was closing that day. The complaint also accuses the supervisor of discouraging employees from raising concerns about the process.
These accounts remain allegations in the lawsuit and have not been established as court findings.
Claims under federal and state discrimination laws
The plaintiffs are bringing claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Illinois Human Rights Act. They allege discrimination based on age, sex and the combination of both, as well as retaliation for raising concerns.
The office supervisor is also named in state-law claims alleging retaliation and aiding and abetting discrimination.
The women are seeking back pay, including the termination benefits they say were withheld, lost benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other relief.
The allegations have not been tested in court, and no findings on the merits have been reported in the material underlying this article.
What HR teams should consider
For HR teams managing office closures, redundancies and redeployment, the case highlights the importance of establishing clear, consistent and job-related criteria for access to alternative roles and termination benefits. Employers should also document how decisions are made, apply relevant policies consistently, and ensure employees can raise concerns without fear of retaliation.
The dispute ultimately raises questions about how redeployment requirements interact with negotiated termination benefits, particularly when alternative roles have substantially different duties and physical requirements from employees' existing positions.
