Around mid - November, I was calling various ski areas for employment opportunities as a ski coach or instructor, and I called Squaw Valley among others.  I spoke with Gary Pederson, head of race services, by phone, who said they might have an opening part time for a coach for their Masters (skiers aged 30-70) program.  A day or so later, I drove to Squaw to fill out an employment application at Gary's request.  I did not put any references, nor a social security number on the application.  Gary also said to stop by to see him if I could, and turn in my application to him, but I arrived too late in the day around 4PM; he had already left.

I then left the Tahoe area to go home for Thanksgiving for a week.

Sid Crocket, Gary's associate, called me in Grass Valley at the end of November, and asked me to stop by to interview for their Master's program, asking me to stop by sometime mid-week, Monday-Friday, the next time I made it up to Tahoe.

After several storms had passed, I drove to Tahoe on December 8th, the weekend.

Monday Dec. 10th:  I drove to Squaw to interview for the coaching position for their Masters Program. They said if I was hired, I'd be working with Chris Rawson, who actually runs the masters program, and suggested I ski with the coaches on Friday (just to "see how things go"), but that also Friday would be a day when they would need someone to help out for upcoming races that weekend. They were generally very enthused by my ski racing background, since I went so far as to race in the US Nationals, and I was ranked 50th in the nation in Slalom by the time I stopped racing at age 23. My racing background would be a great plus, since none of the other coaches had ever raced to that level of ability.  I asked what the pay would be as an afterthought, and they said $8.50/hr.  Chris said I should come back a day or so earlier, just to get comfortable on skis again, since I had not yet skied that year, and Chris, Sid, Gary and I all agreed would be Wednesday.

Wednesday, Dec 12th:  I showed up and got a lift ticket at no charge from Sid, and I skied by myself for two hours until Chris showed up to meet me at 11 AM.  Impressed with my skiing, Chris said there was absolutely no problem with my skiing ability, they wanted me as a coach, but also asking me to seriously consider buying new skis on pro-form (at half price for $500) as soon as possible, like within the week.  This would be good to increase my credibility as a coach, but also I agreed it would be great to have new skis, since my old skis are 9 years old.  Incidentally, Chris is also the Volkl representative, and Chris let me ski on his skis for several runs into the afternoon as we skied together, and he told me what the program was like and what the general expectations were for coaches.

At the end of the day on Wednesday, Sid and Gary gave me a "new hire" form to take to the personnel department, on which it said my pay was to be $8.50/hr.  I was also told to be fitted for a uniform, even though they let me know that uniforms would only be given after the new hire paperwork was completed, and after the season pass given.  The personnel department said to return it when everything was completed, which included things like getting an employee parking sticker, I-9, W-4, wellness questionnaire, general information sheet, and agreeing to terms of employment such as "at will", and "arbitration" for disputes of employment.

The process of the new hire paperwork also included a "wellness exam", which was to be by appointment only.  The earliest I could get a wellness exam was Friday afternoon, so I waited to turn in my new employee paperwork  after that.

Friday, Dec 14th.   I showed up at 7:45 when it snowed 18 inches, so there was no gate training for the upcoming races.  Instead, it was a mountain powder skiing day, and Chris said I would receive 2 hours compensation as a "minimum", which happens on days when you are called in, but not really needed, like on snow days sometimes.  I specifically asked about how wasn't my skiing to be evaluated on Friday, after which a hiring decision would be made, and he said "no, I was hired after or on Wednesday because my skiing was great."   I left early to go to my "wellness exam" which was at 3pm.  I passed the wellness exam.

Chris asked me to work on Saturday, Sunday, and maybe Monday or Tuesday.

Saturday, Dec 15th.  I worked/skied all day.  I brought in my paperwork with me, and Chris said to turn that in that afternoon after skiing, which I did.  While skiing in the afternoon, Chris asked me to wear another Coach's uniform Jacket, and after I wore the jacket, he had me give coaching tips to the masters who came down the slalom course.

Saturday afternoon at the Personnel department, I turned in my new hire paperwork, and I spoke with Jim Brady, the manager of the department.  He had a few questions on my paperwork, and he filled out the I-9 with my birth certificate and Colorado Driver's License.  I did not sign the I-9, asserting it was not required by law for me to sign "under penalty of perjury".  I also did not fill out the W-4, saying it was a voluntary agreement which I was not volunteering to sign.

He said that without a social security number, there would be a $50 fine from the IRS if they reported my earnings under a false number.  I told him that I'm glad he understood it was such a minor issue, and that with the forms I was providing, there could be no penalty for the business.

I handed him several forms in lieu of the w-4 and I-9, forms which asserted and testified to the fact that I do not have a social security number.  See forms P-1, P-2, P-3 and W-4T. He accepted the forms, and said he had to look things over, and I asked him to call me if he had any questions or concerns.  I also gave him about 28 pages of legal citations and examples which explained the purpose of the forms, and the various laws relating to the subject matter.

Sunday, Dec. 16th.  My third day of work.  In the morning in the locker room, Chris told me to keep track of my hours; 2 on Friday, and 8 on Saturday, and to remind Sid to have them be added to the pay period of the new week, since I wasn't yet in the system.  In the morning on the lift, Chris told me the personnel department called Sid the afternoon the day before about my lack of a social security number indicating it was a problem.  I told Chris that I'd handle the issue and I'd talk to the personnel department about it, and that he shouldn't worry about it.  Later, Chris also said not to mention to the personnel department that I'd already started work, since it "could be a problem".  I told Chris I already mentioned to Jim on Saturday, when I turned in my paperwork, that I actually began work already.

Also on Sunday, I did not get a lift ticket since nobody who could authorize one was working that morning.  Jeff and Chris, the on-hill coaches, said to just hope none of the lift operators ask, and that wearing a borrowed coaches uniform Jacket, which they wanted me to wear anyway, would probably help.

When I came down the hill for lunch, and Gary saw me, he informally asked me why I didn't have the uniform hat on, and he asked me why I did not have a social security number.  I said I did not have the hat because I didn't get my uniform yet, and I didn't have a social security number because of religious and personal reasons, and because it's not required by law.  He said it was the law.  I asked which law; the law of Squaw Valley, or the United States, and he said, "the law of the real world".   I said "I hate to tell you that you are wrong, but that there was no U.S. law requiring a social security number to work."   He said that unless I get a lawyer to tell them that, he would not believe it.  I said fine, I can work on that.  He said "the bottom line is, you can't work for Squaw Valley if you don't get a social security number."  I said I didn't have one, and didn't intend to get one.  He said there was no reason then, for me to go back up the hill.  I almost thought I was fired, but later I learned that Gary simply did not want me on the hill until after I got things fully straightened out with the personnel department.  I removed the jacket, also upon request.  I felt bad that I was unable to meet Chris after lunch, who was back up on top of the hill.

I went to the personnel department, and spoke to Julie, an assistant.  The conversation was abrupt, and she flatly said that I would not be hired by Squaw Valley if I did not have a social security number.  I said I didn't have one for religious reasons, and that it was a Title VII violation to not hire someone on the basis of religious discrimination.  She said that unless I could show them where in the law there were exemptions for not having a social security number, I would not be hired.  I said, fine, I can do that.  Since I did not have any paperwork with me, I asked if they had any computers online at the office, and that I could show them some web sites.  She said she did not have the time for that.  So, basically, the conversation was,
"I demand you show me the law.
Fine, I can show you the law.
I don't have time to look at the law."

After being told twice in one day that I could not work unless I had a social security number, in conversations with people who had no interest in listening to either the religious or legal reasons why I did not have nor need one, I was a little upset.  I went and spoke with Katja Dahl, with whom I grew up skiing, who works as head of the PR department at Squaw.  I said, hey let's talk in your professional capacity, since I had a problem that might result in a lawsuit and bad PR for Squaw.  She was understanding and we had a nice conversation.  She said to simply give the HR department time to look over the issue, and that Jim Brady is really the one to talk to, since he's the head of the department.  I thanked her for being willing to listen to me for more than 60 seconds, and I mentioned how it was a Title VII violation to deny someone the right to work based on religious reasons, such as not having a social security number, and I also mentioned how it was a criminal violation to unlawfully demand the social security number, which is a felony of up to 5 years, (42 USC Sec 408)

Sunday afternoon, I drove home to get my manual on living without the Social Security number.  I returned to Squaw that afternoon to speak again with Katja and Gary.  Katja said to not worry about it, and to not press the issue, since Squaw was an "at will" employer, and that they would not want to hire "troublemakers" if I spoke about how Squaw was doing things illegally.

I returned to speak with Gary to give him a more complete answer to his question as to why I did not have a number, and to answer his question as to which lawyers have said it is not required.  His tone this time was much more pleasant, and he said that he didn't really have any real personal interest in knowing the answers to those questions, since it wasn't his deal and that he didn't have any authority over it, but that he just couldn't hire me and put me on the hill until after the personnel department gave the ok.  So, he was just doing what the HR department told him.

Monday Dec 17th:  I was scheduled to work, as one of two coaches, but assumed I still could not get on the hill unless the paperwork was done.  It snowed about 4-5 inches, and was snowing mildly in the morning, but very overcast, almost dark.  I showed up at about 7:30, and was the first to arrive.  I found out where they keep the key to the locker room.  I spoke with Sid again, about the social security problem, and explained why I was absent for the second half of Sunday, which confused Chris.  Sid said that my sudden unexplained disappearance "did not sound like Jason", since I've generally been trying to keep them informed of my progress with the paperwork.  I also shoveled some snow, since I arrived early.  John, the other coach for the day, had not yet arrived by 8:50, so I headed down to the board to let the Masters skiers know what was on schedule for the day.  I met Chris coming from the board, who was just arriving to work in my place, since it was unknown whether I would be allowed to work that day.

Chris introduced me to Sue, the woman in charge of the Members' locker room, and said I was one of the new coaches that hopefully will be joining them this season.  Sue typically posts the daily training schedule so the Masters know what is happening.

Chris also asked me to be very polite when going to the personnel department regarding this issue, which I think was good advice.  He also said that both Gary and Sid and himself all told the personnel department to be accommodating if they could to my concerns, since they all really wanted me as a coach this year.

I showed up at the personnel department, with my "Social Security Number not required Policy Manual" in a green binder around 9AM, I saw Jim right away.  Initially, he said he did not have time to talk about my social security issue, since he had "new employee orientation" that morning, and a group was forming upstairs.  I asked if I should joining that group, and he said yes.  I went upstairs, and got my "Seasonal Team Member Handbook.".  About 3 minutes later, Jim asked me to speak with him for a moment.

We went downstairs and began a nice, long, polite talk about my lack of a social security number.  Initially, he was saying he would have to continue to look into the matter, since there were issues and exceptions that would have to be made, such as hand writing my check.  I fully understood, and said if it took a week, that was fine.  He was interested to know if any of my former employers needed my social security number, and I said I worked as a manager for Healthy Habits Restaurant, but that they were now out of business.   Most of my life, I've either been a ski racer, or self employed.  I think he was looking to see if what I was saying had any real validity, by checking to see if other employers were "willing to stick their neck out" so to speak for someone without a number.  I said I knew of other employers who were willing to hire people without social security numbers, and that I could show him court cases where employers lost a dispute, and were forced by the courts to not discriminate against people for not having a social security number.

He also said my Colorado Driver's License was not acceptable for the I-9 form.  I said that the state of Colorado still does not require a social security number, but that it was a bit of a hassle to get one, because I had to assert what the law was to the clerk, who only upon my firm instance, got the paperwork out for me to sign where I affirmed that "I do not have a social security number".  I said that the California supreme court recently decided "against us", in that they recently over-ruled a lawsuit which went against the DMV's social security requirement, and affirmed the DMV's right to require a social security number for a driver's license.

He began saying that he would not hire me because it would cause "undue hardship" on the business, such as hand writing checks, and that it would cost the business extra time and therefore money, since they would have to look at the law.  I pointed out that it would actually cost their business less to hire me, since they would not have to pay any worker's compensation insurance for me, since I was ineligible to apply for such benefits without a social security number, and that in addition, I was willing to sign away any rights to making any such worker's compensation claim.  He said that didn't matter, and that they'd have to pay for worker's compensation anyway, so there would be no savings.

He pointed out that in addition to the $50 fine he mentioned on Saturday, there might also be a $500 fine.  I told him that I could show him the specific IRS law in the paperwork I gave him (the 28 pages) which says the employer cannot be fined, specifically intending to refer to 26 USC Section 6724a which states:

"No penalty shall be imposed under this part with respect to any failure if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect."

But he said that laws can be interpreted any number of ways, and that therefore, he was uninterested in looking at what the law said.  And that furthermore, he had no way of knowing whether any law that I might show him was, in fact, the true law.

I replied that I could quite him the title and section number, which he could then go and look up, but again, he replied that would cause an "undue burden" on his business, and he could not be bothered with reading any such laws.

He said that the bottom line was that he consulted with his boss on the issue, who I later found out is Ron Welton.  He said that his boss would not let him hire me without a social security number, and that since he wanted to keep his job, he just had to follow orders, since he liked his job and wanted to keep it.

I told him that just "following orders" is no excuse for violating the law, and ignorance of the law is no excuse and that he personally could be held criminally liable.

He asked me what I would do next if they refused to hire me because of my lack of social security number.  I said that I would go back to Gary, Sid, and Chris, and ask them all to come down to his office, and ask him if he could really do us the favor of writing the hand checks, since it's such a burden, but that it would be worth it since all three of them really wanted me as a coach, and that all four of us would be grateful.

He then said, "and what then if I still don't hire you?"

And I said, well, I suppose the next step would be arbitration, since that's what I agreed to in the initial paperwork.

Then he said he wanted to go to arbitration, and said he thought it would be a good learning experience.  I asked him how we go about that, then, and he said that basically the ball was in my court ---that he had stated his position, that they would not hire me, and now it's up to me to have "my people" call "their people" to set it up.

Those were the essential details of our conversation.

I returned to the race shack, and spoke with Sid, Chris, and Gary about my conversation with Jim in HR.  They were generally all very supportive, and hoped I'd prevail since they all really wanted me to coach this season.  Gary even asked if I could show them how to stop the tax withholdings from their paychecks.  Since I had my binder with me, I told them I could show them the law that says the w-4 agreement is voluntary and can be terminated at any time at the request by either the employer or employee.  But I think they were just kind of half-joking, since they were not interested in reading any laws, that they believed me.  But Gary also said, "Hey, maybe I ought to call HR and ask them to stop with holding."

Chris even suggested I get an attorney to help me at arbitration.  Sid said that since I'm young, this process and problem will bug me for the rest of my life.  I said I know.  I apologized for the entire situation, and that I wasn't able to resolve it yet, and said I'd work to resolve it as quickly as possible, and that I'd keep them updated on the situation.

I left by about 10:30AM.

By the end of the day I decided to contact the higher ups in the Squaw organization in hopes of being able to resolve the matter without going to arbitration.

I called and left a message with Ron Welton, Controller, who the secretary of the General Manager said was the supervisor of Jim Brady according to their organizational chart.

I also called the three coaches, and told them I'd be waiting to hear back from Ron Welton.

Tuesday Dec 18th:

9AM, Ron Welton called me and confirmed to me that he was Jim Brady's supervisor, that he did speak with Jim about this issue, and that they would not hire me if I did not have a social security number.

I quoted some laws about how that was a felony and religious discrimination, and he challenged both assertions.  One argument he made was that SVSC hired about 100,000 people in the past 10 years, and they have all had social security numbers.  The other argument was that he was required by law to get my number, but he was unable to say which law that might be.  I began to mention the EEOC's involvement in similar cases, and he challenged whether not hiring me was religious discrimination.

The conversation ended when I said something to the effect of "Well, that's something for the courts to decide", and he hung up on me.  I did get a chance to mention that I was writing him a letter on this subject, but I was cut off before being able to quote the two most important laws referenced in my letter, 26 USC Sec 6724 and Treas Reg 301.6109-1(c).

I finished writing my 5-6 page letter, and I made 6 copies by the end of the day, after the post office had closed.

Wednesday, Dec 19th.

9AM, I mailed 6 copies of my certified letter to Squaw, to the six people mentioned in the letter.

Friday, Dec 21st.

9AM or so, Ron called me again, saying he would not hire me because the EDD requires a social security number.  I asked who the EDD was, and he said they were the California state agency to whom they report the SSN's to.  I thanked him for the call, and letting me know what his decision was.

10-11AM, I researched the EDD on the internet, and found their web page.  Although stating that it is the law for employers to report employee's SSN's, they did not quote which law that might be.  Two calls to the EDD help line were unsuccessful in getting a quotation of a title or section of which law this might be, nor were the people who were supposed to help employers "understand the law" able to even say whether the law was State or Federal.  On the second phone call, I spoke with a woman who was going to mail me a 100 page document listing the EDD rules and procedures.  But she admitted that the manual, page 60, which referenced the subject of reporting SSN's, did not mention which law authorized or required such a rule.  Upon further questioning, she admitted there would be no penalty to an employer who employed a person without a SSN, as long as the employer made a statement saying that they attempted to get a SSN from their employee.  Failure to get a number would not result in a penalty, as long as the employer showed "intent" to get one from their employee.  Next, she said she would transfer me to an "auditor" within the EDD department.

The auditor also said that there is not an absolute requirement for a SSN, but that she would have to get a supervisor to research the law, who would get back to me on the requirements of the actual law.  I mentioned that this person doing research might also reference the two federal laws mentioned above, 26 USC Sec 6724 and Treas Reg 301.6109-1(c), and she took down those citations.  I said that I needed to hear back in order to be able to work, since I didn't have a SSN, and that this was an ongoing dispute between me and my prospective employer, who would not hire me otherwise.

1:10PM, Tony at the EDD called me back:

Tony (916) 464 2500

Tony cited two-three laws the EDD relies upon to request the SSN from employers; and the employers request the number "on the behalf of the State", so it's really the state that is asking for the number.  Laws cited:

1211(b)
 tax reform act of 1976 : 1 use the SSN for ID for tax laws and to require to

TITLE 42 USCA 405 (c)(2)C allows the state to request the information

3rd law:  public law vol 2 80-759 sec 12(e)  refs title 42.

I said that I didn't have a dispute with those laws, that I know the employer has a right and obligation to "ask" me for the number.  The question is whether the employer can compel a number from me when I don't have a number, and whether the employer can be penalized for not obtaining a number from me.  In both cases, Tony said the employer cannot be penalized for not obtaining a number.

On the other hand, Tony said that a SSN was required for the I-9 form, which employers need.  I said that was a separate issue.

Basically, Tony and I agreed that if the employer was refusing me employment, denying me employment based on what the EDD said, that the employer was acting on his own, not based on any EDD requirement to not hire if a person did not have a SSN.

I asked Tony if he could either put that in writing or call my employer on my behalf, and Tony opted to call my employer, and I gave him Ron Welton's phone number, and Tony asked if he could use my name in referencing the matter, and I said sure.

Then, I followed up the phone conversation by writing a letter, asking Tony or someone else within the EDD, to provide written confirmation of the policy and law regarding the EDD and employers reporting an employee's social security number.

Thursday, Dec. 26th, I sent a letter to the EDD asking for written confirmation of the details of what Tony confirmed with me over the phone.

Monday, Dec. 31st, I sent a letter to Squaw regarding my contact with the EDD, regarding the phone conversation, and my request for a written response from the EDD.  (But I forgot the enclosure, the letter I sent to the EDD)

Wednesday, Jan 2. 10:45AM  Ron Welton called me, in response to my second certified letter to him (squaw3.htm), again saying his bottom line was that he would not hire me unless I had a social security number.  He said that the bottom line was that if I needed to contact whomever I was going to contact to initiate any legal proceedings, I should do just that because "he knows he's right".   He read something from "Pub 15 in circular E" to me, saying something to the effect that employers are required to furnish SSN's to the IRS.  He said he also spoke to the IRS. He said it was totally clear.  I asked him if what I sent was not clear; the law that stated that the employer is merely required to ask for the number, and if the employer doesn't get it, the employer simply has to state that, and then there would be no penalty, is there anything not clear about "no penalty"?  A bit of a pause, and he said he understood that there would be no penalty if he could show "cause", and that he understood from the IRS who told him that there was an exemption for the Amish, so he asked me "Are you Amish?".  I think I said something like "So you know there's a religious exemption, but you refuse to apply it to me?" (I didn't mention that that is the very essence of religious discrimination.) I think he responded to the effect of, "I don't know what your deal is, but if there is an exemption for you, that's between you and the IRS."  It seemed as if he would not accept any "cause" except "being Amish".  (And that response just blew me away, because it seems like such an absurd excuse to discriminate against me; furthermore, that is exactly what I was trying to convince Ron earlier, that I'm responsible for paying any tax liability on my own since there will be no withholdings.) Finally, he also said that he was also required to give the social security number not only to the IRS, but also to the Social Security administration, and to the State of California, so there's more requirements that I don't know about or something.  So I said "well, then I guess I should contact the EEOC, because obviously we are not getting anywhere."  And the conversation ended.

Wednesday Afternoon Jan. 2.

I went with my friend Greg Shepard to Homewood, Alpine and Squaw, since he was looking for a job as a snowboard instructor.  At Squaw, I saw Jim Brady, and he and I said hi very casually, like "How's it going?"  He let me know that Ron replied to me in writing to my two certified letters, and asked me if I received them.  I said no.  He said the content of the letter was the EDD requirements.  I said I sent a second letter regarding my contact with the EDD, which confirmed the opposite.

Thursday, Jan 3rd, Greg and I skied at Homewood, and  Greg dislocated his shoulder, so I didn't have time to go to the post office.

Friday, Jan 4th, I signed for a letter from Ron Welton, which contained a two page fax from the EDD.   The following two statements on page two were highlighted:

Tax Reform Acts of 1976
Section 1211(b) of the Tax Reform Acts of 1976 specifically authorizes State tax agencies: (1) to use social security numbers for identification purposes in the administration of tax laws within their jurisdiction and (2) to require any individual, who is or appear to be affected by these tax laws, to provide his or her social security account number(s).

Privacy Act Statement
EDD requires disclosure of social security account numbers on a mandatory basis to comply with UI Code Sections 1253 and 2627; with Title 22, California Administrative Code Sections 1085, 1088, and 1326; and with Title 20.  Code of Federal Regulations, Part 652.

Friday evening, I wrote another letter, referencing Ron Welton's absurd phone comments about him asking me whether or not I'm Amish.

Jan 14th.  I received a letter from Hans Burkhart, dated Jan 9th, in response to my last letter, saying he had confidence in Ron Welton to handle this matter.

Feb 14th.  I received a letter from the EDD, dated Jan 11th, in response to my letter to them, supporting my claims that no SSN is required, and that there are no EDD regulations that forbid an employer from hiring someone without a SSN.

Feb 14th.  I visited Ron Welton and gave him a copy of the EDD's response.   He read the letter, and his attitude was "so what?  There are other agencies which require a SSN like the IRS."  I told him that was not true, that I already provided him the laws regarding the IRS requirements.  I had a brief conversation with him, covering these issues.  He said that all people have to pay taxes, and that he was not going to help me in my fight.  I told him I didn't expect him to help me break the law, that I only expected him to follow the laws. I asked him if he wanted me to sue, and surprisingly, he said no.  I asked who else can I go to in order to resolve this problem, and what did he expect me to do?  He said I could simply accept SVSC's policy.  We re-hashed a few of our earlier arguments to each other, and I concluded by telling him I thought he was making a mistake since there was no risk and no penalty for hiring me, and a large potential legal risk for taking the course of action he was choosing. 

Feb 25th.  I mailed civil and criminal complaints.  See squaw5.htm and squaw6.htm  Each contained a copy of the other complaint, and all past letters, and this journal up to Feb 14th.  About 65 pages total.

I spent the next two days trying to contact the EEOC and/or Darlene Turner, the "Investigative Support Assistant" who sent the initial response letter.  I finally spoke to someone about my complaint, and they said they would send out a questionnaire that I needed to fill out and return before my interview.

The various questions asked during the EEOC interview, which lasted only about 15-20 minutes, were:

This is a religious discrimination claim?
What is your religion?
Is there any official religious position or doctrine on the SSN issue?

Have you ever used a SSN before?
How long have you not used your SSN, or when was the last time you used it?
(How long have you had these religious beliefs?)

Did you, or how did you, inform SVSC of your religious belief?
Is this belief your private interpretation?
Are there other people who believe as you do?  How many?
Is there any evidence of your religious belief and/or what evidence is there that you believe this, such as Church affiliation or doctrine?
Besides your website, is there anything else that shows your religious beliefs?

Did SVSC employ other "Christians"?  (Did SVSC employ other people without SSNs?)

What were the reasons that SVSC, or people at SVSC, gave for not hiring you?

What was your last day of employment, when were you fired?
-------------

After I answered these questions, she said she was going to read through my complaint and the documents I sent, and then write up the complaint.  Then, she was going to call me back to allow me to review her write up.  She called back, and read a simple one paragraph summary, including no details.

Then she explained what would happen next:  She would send me the complaint, have me sign it, and then it would be issued a case number.  From there, the EEOC would then notify SVSC that a complaint had been filed.  Next, the EEOC would attempt to determine whether or not to investigate the case and/or whether to attempt mediation.  If mediation failed, the EEOC would determine whether the case had enough social importance, and whether they had the funds, for them to take the case.  Regardless, they said the EEOC would issue a "right to sue" letter.  If their investigation supported my claims, they would issue a "right to sue" letter with cause.  When I receive a "right to sue" letter, I would have 90 days to file my own claim in court.

Heajung Kim called back again and left two brief messages on my answering machine.  She said she took it to her supervisor, and he said that SVSC would have an "undue burdon" to accommodate me because the INS and IRS required a SSN from employees.  She also said that she would send me a copy of the EEOC ruling on this.

This suprised me, because her supervisor probably did not have time to read my complaint that I filed, in which I explained that the INS and IRS laws regarding this subject are in my favor.  It is an outright lie to say the INS and IRS require all people who work in the U.S. to have SSNs; there are merely reporting requirements regarding SSNs, and in these requirements, there are rules for what to do for people who do not have SSNs.