Skip to main content
Technology

AT&T, Inc.

402 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (20072026)

26 trusted published court opinions across 21 distinct cases · 19 docket-only cases without a recorded end date

What public court records show

Public federal court records list AT&T, Inc. as an employer in 402 distinct federal employment cases between 2007 and 2026.

Of the 26 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 11 ended in a ruling for the employer, 5 had a mixed result, 4 settled, and 4 were dismissed.

Plaintiffs won 1 of 21 adjudicated opinions (5%).

The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Breach Of Contract, and Failure To Accommodate.

Cases were filed across 11 states, most often in CA.

These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.

26
Published Opinions Analyzed

Written decisions across 21 distinct cases.

5%
Plaintiff Win Rate

1 of 21 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.

Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.

11
States

Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

About this employer

AT&T, Inc. appears in 26 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:

Lewis v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC (2025) — Defendant Win. Lewis filed a lawsuit against AT&T Mobility Services, claiming the company discriminated against him, failed to provide accommodations for a disability, retaliated against him, and harassed him at work. Read the ruling.

Calloway v. AT&T Corp. (2024) — Dismissed. An AT&T employee named Calloway filed a lawsuit against the telecommunications company, claiming the employer violated federal wage and hour laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA sets rules about minimum wage, overtime pay, and other workplace compensation requirements. Read the ruling.

Beans v. AT&T Services Inc (2022) — Defendant Win. Employees at AT&T Services Inc. sued the company, claiming they were not paid overtime wages as required by federal law. The workers argued that AT&T violated overtime protection rules by failing to compensate them properly for extra hours worked. Read the ruling.

The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination (8 of 26), Breach of Contract (6 of 26), Failure to Accommodate (4 of 26). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Breach of Contract and Failure to Accommodate.

Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: Title VII (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e – 2000e-17) — Title VII is the cornerstone federal anti-discrimination statute. ADEA (29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634) — The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects employees and job applicants who are 40 years of age or older from discrimination based on age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, and other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. See the Title VII, ADEA reference pages for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. Title VII and ADEA.

Published opinions span California (10), Illinois (3), Washington (2), Texas (2). California is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. California rulings, Illinois rulings, Washington rulings and Texas rulings.

These published opinions sit within the technology sector, where age-discrimination, non-compete, and whistleblower-retaliation claims appear frequently.

Opinion Outcomes

Defendant Win
11 (42%)
Mixed Result
5 (19%)
Settlement
4 (15%)
Dismissed
4 (15%)
Plaintiff Win
1 (4%)
Remanded
1 (4%)

Opinion Stages

26 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.

Appeal
3 (12%)
Summary judgment
7 (27%)

Of the 7 summary-judgment opinions, 4 ended the case in AT&T, Inc.’s favor and 3 let the worker’s claims continue.

Motion to dismiss
11 (42%)
Settlement / consent decree
4 (15%)
Other rulings
1 (4%)
What do these stages mean?
Appeal
A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
Summary judgment
A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
Motion to dismiss
An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
Settlement / consent decree
The two sides resolved the dispute by agreement, sometimes with court approval. Most settlements are private and never show up in published opinions.
Other rulings
Procedural decisions and orders that do not fit the main stages above.

Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.

Facing something similar? Check your rights →

What these numbers mean

A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.

A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.

Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.

Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.

Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.

Federal court cases

public court records

One row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted

Employee v. AT&T Inc.
N.D. Ga. · May 2026
Employee v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC
M.D. Fla. · Apr 2026
Employee v. AT&T, INC.
D.N.J. · Apr 2026
Employee v. AT&T Services, Inc.
M.D. Fla. · Mar 2026
Employee v. AT&T Services, Inc.
W.D. Mo. · Mar 2026
Employee v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC
W.D. Wash. · Feb 2026
Employee v. AT&T Services, Inc.
N.D. Tex. · Oct 2025
Employee v. AT&T Services Inc.
E.D.N.Y. · Oct 2025
Employee v. AT&T Corp.
M.D. Pa. · Sep 2025
Employee v. AT&T Mobility LLC
N.D. Ga. · Aug 2025
Employee v. AT&T Inc.
N.D. Cal. · Jul 2025 · California · Breach of Contract
3 opinionsMixed Result
Employee v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC
N.D. Okla. · Jun 2025 · Oklahoma · Discrimination
Defendant Win
Employee v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC
S.D. Fla. · Apr 2025
Employee v. AT&T Services Inc
N.D. Tex. · Apr 2025 · Texas
Dismissed
Employee v. AT&T CORP.
D.N.J. · Sep 2024
Employee v. AT&T Services, Inc.
E.D. Mich. · Apr 2024
Employee v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC
N.D. Okla. · Mar 2024
Employee v. AT&T Corp.
N.D. Ill. · Mar 2024 · Illinois · Wage Theft
Dismissed
Employee v. AT&T CORP.
S.D. Fla. · Mar 2024
Docket closed
Employee v. AT&T Corp
D.S.C. · Mar 2024
Docket closed
Employee v. AT&T Services, Inc.
D.R.I. · Feb 2024
Employee v. AT&T SERVICES, INC.
E.D. Pa. · Feb 2024
Employee v. AT&T SERVICES, INC.
E.D. Pa. · Feb 2024
Employee v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC
E.D. Cal. · Jan 2024 · California
3 opinionsSettlement
Employee v. AT&T Services, Inc.
N.D. Ga. · Dec 2023
Docket closed
Showing the 25 most recent of 402

Understand your employment rights

Free, private, no sign-up required.

Check My Rights

Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.