Loser Technologies Inc. 
Truth and Integrity
This is a true story about sex discrimination in a major American corporation, Lucent Technologies, Inc. (formerly AT&T), as told by Sheilah Sabrah with supporting legal documents. Lucent Technologies Inc.'s actions in destroying the career of a long-term dedicated employee were horrifying to her. The lengths they would go, the lies they would tell, and the actions they would take were beyond Ms. Sabrah's wildest imagination. There is no truth or honor to Lucent's dealing with Ms. Sabrah. She was never even afforded a meeting to discuss her issues.
Ms. Sabrah worked as an account executive for Lucent Technologies, Inc. (originally Southwestern Bell, American Bell, AT&T Information Systems, and then AT&T Global Business Communications Systems which eventually became Lucent Technologies, Inc.) for more than thirty years, since she was sixteen years old. Since 1988 Ms. Sabrah worked in the marketing department of Lucent handling business clients telecommunications needs. She was a top performer and took excellent care of her customers. She never missed her sales quota the entire time she was in marketing, for more than fourteen years, and was three times recognized as being in the top three percent of the sales people in the country.
Her original complaint involved Lucent's failure to allow her the same opportunity as male account executives, technical support for her customers, management dishonesty and lack of stated values, pay discrimination and finally Lucent's failure to investigate her internal complaints as they did those of male employees. Lucent immediately began to take actions against her after her EEOC complaint was filed. Regardless, she did not go along with the good ole boy network which existed in the North Texas/Oklahoma branch of Lucent Technologies. When Ms. Sabrah spoke to Lucent's security department about this she was advised that it was a "good old boy network and that she just needed to depend on the man upstairs". Ms. Sabrah filed a lawsuit against her employer for refusing to investigate her internal complaints of discrimination even though they investigated and resolved similar complaints made by a male account executive. As her deposition by Lucent attorney's approached, Lucent stripped her of her customers, paid men for her sales, searched her office multiple times removing her files and personal items and later lied about it under oath, disciplined her for things she did not do and for things that others were not disciplined for.
Ms. Sabrah would be retaliated against for more than two years before being fired only three days after her trial. The facts of this case are eye-opening to those who may believe that they are protected from discrimination by federal laws. What Ms. Sabrah did not know is that Lucent Technologies, Inc., as a whole, operated under the same principles as the local Lucent office and ethics or "doing the right thing" were of no concern to Lucent officials including Lucent's internal EEOC group (called Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action at Lucent - "EO/AA") and top Lucent executives. When Ms. Sabrah asked if there would be an investigation into the acts of retaliation against her she was told by the Lucent general manager, "No, I'm not a spy." During this same time period Ms. Sabrah's immediate supervisor, a male Lucent employee, was accused of inappropriate behavior involving female employees. He also requested an investigation, but unlike Ms Sabrah, his request for an investigation was granted and he received an immediate investigation.
Coincidentally, the finding of his investigation was "inconclusive" even though he was suspended for his actions and the payroll records were later changed to reflect vacation instead. This Lucent Sales Manager is one of the Lucent officials to lie under oath. Lucent officials' testimony was a moving target, much like that of O. J. Simpson's dream team accusing Ms. Sabrah of multiple improprieties only be contradicted in later testimony. Their story changed from out right lies in their original sworn declarations (affidavits) submitted for Motion for Summary Judgment evidence (Motion for Summary Judgment is the point in a lawsuit where the judge determines if there is enough evidence to go to trial or the judge dismisses the case. It was at this point that Paula Jones' lawsuit against Bill Clinton was originally dismissed based on his sworn testimony), later under deposition their stories were different and in the courtroom they once again changed.
Disillusioned, heartsick and genuinely disgusted with what she realized the company she had dedicated her life to really represented, Ms. Sabrah wants to share what she has learned about employment law, the federal EEOC, how internal EEOC departments operate, what really happens during a lawsuit and trial, juries, attorneys, retaliation in the workplace, why the truth really doesn't matter, etc.
For attorneys see 1998 U.S. District LEXIS 17906 printed in FULL format.
SHEILAH SABRAH, Plaintiff, VS. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant
Civil Action No. 3:96-CV-2827-D
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION
1998 U.S. District LEXIS 17906
November 6, 1998, Decided
Ms. Sabrah was without counsel for a three day trial in Sidney A. Fitzwater's federal courtroom in Dallas, Texas. Eventually this site will post information about Ms. Sabrah's pro se status as well as the above Order, sworn declarations, depositions, and court testimony. Also see associated articles: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Retaliation), Ms. Sabrah's repeated requests for customer support for her customers and Lucent's deliberate refusal to provide her requested support, certified letters to Lucent management requesting multiple investigations (all were ignored), see Lucent's stated values and judge for yourself what their real values are, Lucent's internal EEOC exposed, hear messages from Lucent management, customer comments and declarations, etc.
![[Under Construction]](images/undercon.gif){kind=small}
