As many of you know, I retired from AT&T in 2008 and have been trying to find a job. I apply and apply and cannot seem to get a call back. I’ve even tried to get rehired at AT&T. I have been wondering why this is happening and after reading the following article I think I may have found the answer.

By Jonathan Stempel — Thursday August 20th 2009

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued AT&T Inc on Thursday, accusing the nation’s largest phone company of discriminating against workers over 40.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the EEOC said Dallas-based AT&T had “no legitimate business or reason” for its nationwide policy not to rehire employees who had retired under various retirement and severance programs.

The EEOC said tens of thousands of retirees covered by the programs, including a Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program and an Enhanced Pension and Retirement Program, are harmed by the policy, which it said took effect in October 2006.

“From what AT&T has told us, there are in excess of 50,000 individuals subject to these plans,” said Louis Graziano, an EEOC lawyer handling the case, in an interview. “At most, very few people under 40 would be affected.”

Graziano said that for many years prior to 2006, the programs let retirees reapply for jobs after a six-month waiting period. The current AT&T was created in 2005 when SBC Communications Inc bought what had been AT&T Corp.

Marty Richter, an AT&T spokesman, declined to comment on the lawsuit. He said the phone company makes diversity a top priority, and that discrimination of any sort, including on the basis of age, “is not tolerated.”

AT&T employs 294,600 people, according to its website.

The EEOC is seeking the rehiring of and payment of back wages to affected employees, an injunction against further discrimination, and other remedies.

It brought the case on behalf of John Yates, who was 57 years old when AT&T turned him down for employment.

Yates could not immediately be reached for comment.

The EEOC filed a similar federal case in Missouri against a unit of the insurer Allstate Corp in 2004. That case is still ongoing.

Now my wife showed me the article when I went to visit her for lunch last week and I started to do some investigating. Another website I found information at was Lawmemo.com and it contained the EEOC’s press release wich follows:

EEOC v. At&T class action for age discrimination
August 20, 2009 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

Today EEOC filed a class action suit against AT&T, Inc. and a number of its subsidiaries alleging age discrimination.

The basic claim: AT&T discriminated against a class of retired AT&T workers by denying them the ability for reemployment solely because they retired under early retirement plans including the Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program (VRIP), the Enhanced Pension and Retirement Program (EPR) or other retirement plan.

The EEOC press release:

NEW YORK – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed an age discrimination lawsuit against AT&T, Inc. and a number of its subsidiaries, the agency announced today. The EEOC charged that AT&T discriminated against a class of retired AT&T workers by denying them the ability for reemployment solely because they retired under early retirement plans including the Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program (VRIP), the Enhanced Pension and Retirement Program (EPR) or other retirement plan. The effect of this denial of reemployment results in a disproportionate number of older workers not having the same opportunity to apply for reemployment, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Case No. 09 Civ 7323, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, John Yates, who filed the discrimination charge with the EEOC, and a class of other retired AT&T workers, are denied reemployment because they had participated in the VRIP, EPR or other retirement program. Yates and all other retirees who are age 40 or older are protected by law from discrimination because of their age. The result of AT&T’s policy is to exclude this class of older workers because of their age from being reemployed by AT&T regardless of their qualifications. This violation has been ongoing since at least October 1, 2006, the EEOC said.

“We’ve been taking a new and hard look at age discrimination recently, and we’re intent on enforcing the ADEA strategically and vigorously,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “This particular case highlights the Commission’s commitment to combating age-based disparate impact discrimination.”

EEOC Trial Attorney Louis Graziano said, “Federal law prohibits employers from instituting policies that adversely affect workers because of their age. AT&T’s policy has that effect.”

EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis added, “All employees, regardless of their age, should be permitted to complete for jobs equally. That is the fundamental right that the ADEA grants to older workers. We hope this lawsuit sends a message to such employers that the EEOC will seek relief when it finds the law has been violated.”

According to company information, Dallas-based AT&T is the largest telecommunications company in the world by revenue, with more than $124 billion in 2008.

In July of this year the EEOC held a public hearing on recent developments in age discrimination, including the effect on older workers of widespread layoffs, threats to employee benefits and controversial recent court decisions. The Commission also issued a technical assistance document on waivers of discrimination claims as part of severance agreements. Further information is available at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-15-09.html and http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_severance-agreements.html.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

A copy of the filing can be downloaded here.

“Marshall, Will and Holly, on a routine expedition met the greatest earthquake ever known. High on the rapids, it struck their tiny raft, and plunged them down a thousand feet below. To the land of the lost.” How old were you when you first heard those lines sung on television? I myself was 16 years old and a Science Fiction fanatic, a little old for a Saturday Morning children’s show.

This was not your typical Saturday Morning faire, this was a show written by some of the top Science Fiction writers of the time, including Larry Niven, Theodore Sturgeon, Ben Bova, and Norman Spinrad, and a number of people involved with Star Trek, such as Dorothy “D.C.” Fontana, Walter Koenig, and David Gerrold.

It was created by Sid and Marty Kroft for release in 1974. It was the fifth series they created and produced, and the first that was not specifically for children. Where H. R. Puffinstuff, The Bugaloos, Lidsville and Sigmud and the Sea Monsters were innovative and fantastic comedies, Land of the Lost was more realistic and a drama. The show appealed not only to kids but teens, parents and grand parents.

The Premise

Land of the Lost details the adventures of the Marshall family (father Rick, his son Will, and younger daughter Holly) who are trapped in an alternate universe inhabited by dinosaurs, a primate-type people called Pakuni, and aggressive humanoid/lizard creatures called Sleestak. The episode storylines focus on the family’s efforts to survive and find a way back to their own world, but the exploration of the exotic features of the Land of the Lost is also an ongoing part of the story.

The Marshalls are brought to the mysterious world by means of a dimensional portal, a device used frequently throughout the series and a major part of its internal mythology. This portal opens when they are swept down a gigantic 1,000 foot waterfall. We later learn in what should have been the series finale (titled “Circle”, which explains the time paradox) that this portal is actually opened by Rick Marshall himself, while in Enik’s cave, as a way for the current Marshall’s to return to earth, resolving the paradox and allowing Enik to also return to his time.

Outfitted only for a short camping trip, the resourceful family takes shelter in a natural cave and improvises the provisions and tools that they need to survive. Their most common and dangerous encounters are with dinosaurs, particularly a Tyrannosaurus rex they nickname “Grumpy” who frequents the location of their cave. However, many of the dinosaurs are herbivores, posing no threat to the Marshalls. One is a particularly tame young Brontosaurus whom Holly nicknames “Dopey,” and whom the family looks upon as a pet.

They also tangle with menacing Sleestak (lizard-men) and “cave men” called Pakuni (one of whom, Cha-Ka, they befriend), as well as a variety of dangerous creatures, mysterious technology, and strange geography.

The main goal of the three is to find a way to return home. They are occasionally aided in this by the Altrusian castaway Enik. At the start of the third season Rick Marshall is accidentally returned to Earth alone, leaving his children behind, and is replaced by his brother Jack. Spencer Milligan’s absence was explained by having Rick Marshall disappear after he was trying to use one of the pylons to get home, and that Jack had stumbled upon his niece and nephew after he embarked on a search of his own to find them.

Though the term “time doorway” is used throughout the series, Land of the Lost is not meant to portray an era in Earth’s history, but rather an enigmatic zone whose place and time are unknown. The original creators of these time portals were thought to be the ancestors of the Sleestak, called Altrusians, though later episodes raised some questions about this.

Many aspects of the Land of the Lost, including the time doorways and environmental processes, were controlled by the Pylons, metallic obelisk-shaped booths that were larger on the inside than the outside and housed matrix tables — stone tables studded with a grid of colored crystals. Uncontrolled time doorways result in the arrival of a variety of visitors and castaways in the Land.

2009 Movie

In the summer of 2009, Universal Studios released a big budget movie version of the show, which got bad reviews by the reviewers but good reviews from the fans of the show. More on the 2009 movie later.

Before anybody gets in an uproar over this post, read through it carefully. I am all for the constitutional meaning of the separation of church and state which states in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state the words “Separation of Church and State”, the amendment give all Americans the right to choose what religion they want to be part of, Be it Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or any other religion.

In my opinion, the First Amendment is the single most important part of the Constitution. It protects some of the most basic human rights and reflects a view of the dangerous places government might tread.  Some of the first colonists of the nation for which the Constitution was written had been seeking to escape religious persecution. The constitutions of several of the states prohibited public support of religion (though some did explicitly support or demand adherence to Christianity). Above all, the many varying sects of Christianity in America required that to be fair to all, there could be preference to none. It would have been disgraceful for anyone to wish to leave the United States because of religious persecution. So the authors decided it best to keep the government out of religion. This is not to say that the United States was not or is not a religious nation. Religion plays a big role in the everyday life of Americans, then and now. But what the authors were striving for is tolerance… something I fear contemporary Americans are lacking.

So while we all are debating over should prayer be allowed in schools or before a city council meeting, maybe those who are saying we should not have it should read the constitution more fully and not try to dictate their beliefs on everyone, just as those religious fanatics should not try to fore their view on those that do not agree with them.

That’s all I have to say at this time. Any comments will be looked at and are appreciated.