ssn and right to work

[goldphoenix]

Hi all,


Here is an email I received from a company which fired me for not supplying a ssn. I wrote this person asking what laws upheld their company's position. This is assistant counsel replying.


Since my first emails were being ignored, I sent an email stating that his lack of reply would be considered a tacit&agreement to my position. Just curious what you all thought about this.


Best regards,


goldphoenix
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Let me explain a couple of things to you, Paul. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>First, I've not received any previous communication from you.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Second, I have taken no "stance" on any point.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Third, you are not entitled to assume any agreement, tacit or otherwise, with regard to any issue pertaining to the company or&its practices or&positions.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Fourth,&at this point the company is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to disclose to you the rationale behind the company's hiring practices or policies.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004></SPAN>&</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Fifth, your&failure to fully disclose your identity, circumstances, and complaint&in previous communications with company personnel has been disingenuous and&an unproductive use of&your time and ours. Neither the Legal&Department nor the Human Resources Department is disposed to debate abstract points of employment policy or law without relevant context.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004></SPAN>&</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Sixth, if you believe that you have been discriminated against or treated unfairly in an employment matter by the company or one of its&franchisees, you should&contact your local EEOC office and file a complaint.</FONT>&</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004></SPAN>&</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=369145013-25032004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>My advice is that you take this e-mail message and any materials you believe to be&supportive of your position&to an EEOC office and discuss your concerns with a representative.&The company will address any&legitimate complaints&you may care to present in response to an EEOC inquiry.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>

[suijuris]

Since they are not scared of the EEOC, find something they are scared of. How about a wrongful termination suit?

Get in writing the exact reason(s) you were fired. If it was failure to identify yourself, find the laws and cites that say the SSN cannot be and is not intended to be used as an identification number. Based on that, they had no lawfull reason to fire you.

Sui Juris

[goldphoenix]

Hello Sui Juris,


Thank you for your reply to my post!


My reply to&him was this: (and please forgive me if I come across as argumentative. I found his reply to be a bit nasty. Though I may have wrongly been reading into it. I really need to get away from arguing. Believe it or not, I did attempt to refrain from argument, and&I admit his response threw me a bit which might be apparent by my email response to him. Was this response of mine a poor one?)


Hello Rod, Thank you for your reply. I sent you an email either the end of last week or the beginning of this week. I also called your office and you were in a meeting with general counsel. I never suggested that you have already taken a stance. Without knowing who I am, please explain to me how you can know what I am entitled to and what I am not? When I was terminated from your company for not providing something which I do not have, at that point I became entitled to what is lawfully mine which is my right to work, which your company denied me by discriminating against my position. Please look up the following case which upholds my position: <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>In 1992, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) filed an action in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (CA3-92-0169-T) against Information Systems Consulting (I.S.C.) for firing Bruce Hanson (an employee) on 8-15-89 solely because he would not provide the company with a SSN that he did not have due to his religious beliefs.</FONT>


<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>This case was upheld in a case against Taco Bell. The man discriminated against walked away with a $10,000 settlement. If you have time, stop by a Taco Bell and take a look at their application. Please look for where a worker is to put his social security number on the employment application.</FONT> <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>As far as my being disingenuous, please note the following:</FONT> <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people are unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means "insincere" and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as "tough love." This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel. Most Panelists also accept the extended meaning relating to less reproachable behavior. Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning "playfully insincere, faux-naïf," as in the example "I don't have a clue about late Beethoven!" he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world's foremost concert pianists. Sometimes disingenuous is used as a synonym for naive, as if the dis- prefix functioned as an intensive (as it does in certain words like disannul) rather than as a negative element. This usage does not find much admiration among Panelists, however. Seventy-five percent do not accept it in the phrase a disingenuous tourist who falls prey to stereotypical con artists. </FONT>


<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>I reassure you that my right to privacy is not a disingenuous one. Despite that right, guaranteed by the Privacy Act, and upheld by law, I have indeed shared my situation in previous emails with your human resources department, who then referred me to you. My desire to discuss the issue openly with you, and my efforts to contact you via phone and email (the latter of which explained what questions I was seeking answers to) do not fall into the above category of intent.</FONT> <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>If you feel that my coming to you to resolve a situation in which I have been discriminated against by your company is a waste of my time, please explain to me why that is.</FONT> <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>Now that you know more, you can rest assured that I am not attempting to discuss abstract points of law.</FONT> <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>Are you telling me that you would rather me sue you than have me as a worker in one of your franchises? That would be presuming that I have no worth within your company.</FONT> <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>I do not need to go through the EEOC in order to file a complaint with a court of law. </FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>Please allow me to explain that I am not an enemy to your company. I am coming to you in good faith for a joint resolution to our situation. </FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>Again, I appreciate your response. And I await your response to my correspondence. Your lack of reply will be considered as tacit admission that the above case cited applies in this particular situation.</FONT> <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>All of my best to you and yours! </FONT><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>I pray that your company will continue to prosper.</FONT> <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>paul</FONT>

[Ice]

It has been my experience that the EEOC will do all it can to assist the company in regards to the SS matter.& They will find a way to work around that issue.& The only plan of attack that I believe is worthwhile is to initiate an action in court.& Wrongful termination would be the basis of the suit in this instance.


&

Hi, Paul....


I've been sitting here for nearly an hour, reading and re-reading his "response." THAT is EXACTLY the kinds of responses I get, each time, every time, from every agent I've ever dealt with.


You, Ice, everyone else around here, are so much more decent and gracious than I am....


The guy is a patronizing, condescending, arrogant bastard and needs to be told as much, especially since he's clearly distancing himself from any and all culpability in this matter.


Oh, hell. I'm outta here....


Randy

[goldphoenix]

Hi Randy,


I was surprised by his response as well.


Here was a second response I received and am not sure how to take. Sounds to me like he's fishing for information on me, rather than saying one way or the other whether he agrees with the issue the franchise has raised. I figured I would tell him that the owners directed me to them, and ask him in what way he believes he can be of "assistance".


Despite his fishing for info on me, I found this response to be much less "attitudinal". This was a different indivudual than before. The first guy who responded was "co-counsel" which is underneath "general counsel" in the legal pecking order.


Peace,


goldphoenix
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN class=208581018-31032004>Dear Paul,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN class=208581018-31032004></SPAN></FONT>&</DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN class=208581018-31032004>& While we periodically receive phone and e-mail inquiries of an employment nature, the first thing we need to be able to help you is your name, address and the store at which you were employed or were seeking employment.& Although there are over 400 restaurants in our chain, we only own two of them.& If you are having a problem with a franchised location we can still help, but we need to know&which franchisee&we should contact and who is raising the issue.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN class=208581018-31032004></SPAN></FONT>&</DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN class=208581018-31032004>& I hope you understand the need for this information and will forward&it if you would like our assistance.& </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN class=208581018-31032004></SPAN></FONT>&</DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN class=208581018-31032004>Thank you, </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN class=208581018-31032004></SPAN></FONT>&</DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN class=208581018-31032004>Keith Clark</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN class=208581018-31032004>SVP - Corporate Development</SPAN></FONT></DIV>

Hi, Paul....


I'd write him, that's for sure. But only to document what a peckerhead agent #1 was about the entire thing.& And yes, I think he's simply "fishing."


God. I hate employers more than BB and all its minions. What am I saying? Employers ARE part of BB!


Sure will be glad when the mothership comes back for me.


Randy

[Ice]

Paul,


Whether or not the store is a franchise or one they own really doesn't matter... all of them should be properly informed of the law and be held accountable to it.


Maybe just pointing this out, along with citing the law, and asking if it is or will be thier policy to insure that their franchises, as well as their "corporate" stores, keep to the letter of the law will elicit some further reaction.& This should put them on the "defensive", bearing the burden to prove any other policy to be adequate in regards to the Law.


Ice

[goldphoenix]

<DIV><SPAN class=255035222-05042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Paul,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=255035222-05042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=255035222-05042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>You seem to like to ask questions, but not answer them.& Franchised operations are not related to ("our corporation"), Inc. in any manner other than the franchise agreement.& They are not subsidiaries, operating divisions or otherwise.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=255035222-05042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=255035222-05042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>As I have told you in every e-mail I sent you, until you provide us with your name and the location of the restaurant in question we can be of no assistance to you.& We would be happy to help if we can, but this is not a legal aid clinic.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=255035222-05042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=255035222-05042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>If you choose to provide us with this information so we can help, we will act on it promptly.& If you choose to not provide this information, we can not help you.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----

</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Hi again, Keith,</DIV>
<DIV>&</DIV>
<DIV>Thank you for your response. </DIV>
<DIV>&</DIV>
<DIV>I would like to point out that regardless of whether you own the franchise, they are a subcorporation of your corporation, correct? And whether or not they are properly informed of the law, they are held accountable to it, true? therefore they should be properly informed of it.</DIV>
<DIV>&</DIV>
<DIV>Are you familiar with the law, Keith? Is it or will it be your policy to insure that&the&("corporation")&franchises, as well as your corporate store, will keep to the letter of the law?&</DIV>
<DIV>&</DIV>
<DIV>Your answers to these questions will help me to determine whether you will be of assistance to me if I decide to ask for it. </DIV>
<DIV>&</DIV>
<DIV>thank you again, Keith. I appreciate your patience, politeness&and understanding in this matter.</DIV>
<DIV>&</DIV>
<DIV>Sincerely,</DIV>
<DIV>&</DIV>
<DIV>Paul
</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt ;


Thank you, Ice. Perhaps you didn't mean for me to send a verbatim response, however, I sent the&above response and received the above reply. Apparently, it doesn't sit well with him that I am not providing the info he wants. Info being: my& name and&which&franchise&I was terminated from. He never really came out and said in what way he could be of assistance/help specifically. And he took my questions as if I was asking advice. I didn't cite law because I had previously sent the case which the Taco Bell case was based on in an email to general counsel of the corporation.&I was terminated for not supplying a ssn and for not signing w-4's (fed and state).


Thought you might find it slightly interesting. I imagine most corporations would react in a similar way. I'm wondering if they want to know where it is to actually help me, or to merely suggest to the franchise what to do in order to deal with me to their advantage.


Peace,


Paul (goldphoenix)

So let's see:


According to him "franchises" are NOT "related" to the "corporation." Well, IF that's true (and I have no bloody clue), then he's offering to help....why? Oh, yeah. 'Cause he's a nice guy. Right.& CYA-time is all that's on his mind.&


Randy&