Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"non-taxpayer" status- getting hired!

Expand Messages
  • Mr Klon Shugart
    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
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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

      Texas.

      [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@...> writes:

      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
      Consulting.doc
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.