It might be of interest that the young Mr. Thomas, the focus of this post, did not seek
employment from Taco Bell after the case was settled.
Excerpt from conversation with Mr. Aurther Thomas, father;
The "Taco Bell" Case
Date: October 26, 1997
Subject: Taco Bell Employment Application
Social Security number optional?
To all interested parties:
This evening I spoke with Mr. Arthur Thomas, whose son's encounter
with Taco Bell in 1993 resulted in an out of court settlement in
favor of the young Thomas as well as a Taco Bell employment
application with a box stating "Social Security Number(optional)".
As I have heard all manner of reports and speculations regarding the
Taco Bell situation, I will first briefly clear up the basic facts of
this matter, as reported to me by Arthur Thomas.
Mr. Thomas' son applied for a job with Taco Bell in 1993 and was told
he could not be hired without supplying a Social Security number.
Arthur Thomas put together some paperwork which informed Taco Bell
of the pertinent law on the subject and provided the company with a
copy of the EEOC case against Information Systems Consulting of
[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.]
It is important to note that a court case was never filed by
the Thomases. Taco Bell entered into a settlement agreement with the
the young Mr. Thomas prior to the filing of any legal action and
"settled amicably for money [the amount young Thomas would have
earned working for Taco Bell during that summer] and an offer of
employment on condition he would agree not to sue."
It is true that Taco Bell, subsequent to this matter, did change its
employment application to show the Social Security number as
"optional"; however, according to Mr. Thomas, the "offer of
employment" made by Taco Bell in its agreement with his son did not
indicate that they would hire him without a Social Security number.
After the settlement, young Thomas did not pursue employment with
Taco Bell or further challenge the Social Security number issue,
choosing instead to go on a mission for his church.
Further, according to Arthur Thomas, Taco Bell's stated policy
through its current parent company, Pepsico (a multi-national
corporation), is to not hire anyone without a Social Security number,
as a "political issue consideration" -- this in spite of their job
application which says "Social Security Number (optional)".
Apparently this policy has been voiced by employment office
personnel, but Arthur Thomas has not actually seen the policy in
writing; to his knowledge, no one since his son's case has
challenged Taco Bell (Pepsico) on this policy.
--- Occupant Family <lookin2c@...
> wrote: Greetings all,
See EEOC v Information Systems Consulting item attached. This was used to get hired
by Taco Bell. Note that Taco Bell's current employment application form states that the
SS# is (optional).
Deo volente, Jim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Mon, 29 Dec
2003 19:12:18 -0700 Suzanne Shell <dsshell@...
Alan Bacon (sui Juris) wrote:
I have used the "non-taxpayer" argument trying to get jobs - nada!
ATTACHMENT part 2 application/msword name=EEOC v Information Systems