RE: [tips_and_tricks] Social Security Benefits:
- Tim --
You are quite correct. Allow me to add some detail.
There was never a court case filed. His dad filed an EEOC complaint in 1993
against Taco Bell. The Justice Department filed a brief in favor of the
family, claiming it was illegal discrimination against Americans and in
favor of foreigners because the only people in America REQUIRED to have an
SSN were foreigners. To require an SSN in order to hire someone was a form
of illegal discrimination against individual Americans exercising their
right to not have the number.
Part of the "settlement" was to give out a 2 page description of why
employees did not need a SSN or federal withholding to all management
applicants, and to modify the application for rank and file employees to put
the word "voluntary" in the block for SSN.
The dad's name was Arthur Thomas, of Cincinnati, and the son was Arthur, Jr.
There was, however, a court case out of Dallas from 1992 that covered the
same issues with almost the same result. It was EEOC v Information Systems
Yours in financial freedom,
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Tim Costello
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Social Security Benefits:
They actually settled out of court for things not released and then Taco
Bell rehired him. Of course he did not want the job then.
It was actually an Ohio case.
> They won't let you work without showing it,Yahoo! Groups Links
> This is true, however, this will also set them up for a wicked law
> suit, their is a Taco Bell suit where a young lad got 9 million for
> this same behavior from Pepsi Cola who owned Taco Bell, I don't have
> this case if anyone finds it please send it. It is a California case.
- On May 2, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Grant Innes wrote:
> The problem is that a certificate may be needed by the child in theWhy would one "need" a passport, as opposed to just desiring the
> future, for example, getting a passport.
convenience it may afford? Most countries have provisions for
accepting foreigners without them having a passport. A passport just
means that the current US regime will vouch for you to a foreign
government. People who are not foreign to that particular government
can do the same thing. The USA may be respected somewhere still, but
usually a country respects its own citizens more. With most countries,
an invitation to visit from one of their nationals, plus that person's
agreement to be responsible for you while you are there, is enough.