|
|
Jason Hommel Monday, Jan 7th, 2002
general delivery (via certified mail)
Homewood, CA 96141
(530) 525 5525
Permanent Address:
12641 Anvil Road
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 274-3450
Hans A. Burkhart, General Manager
Squaw Valley Ski Corp,
P.O. Box 2007
Olympic Valley, CA 96146
Dear Mr. Burkhart:
Ron Welton has been unable to satisfactorily resolve the matter of my employment with SVSC. It appears as if he has done a bit of research into the issue, and that he understands a few things, but he, alone, with no basis in law whatsoever, is attempting to illegally deny me continued employment on the basis of my not providing a social security number to SVSC. I do not use the social security number based on my religious beliefs, which are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Furthermore, it has now been over two weeks since I worked for SVSC for three consecutive days, and I have not yet received a check for my 14 to 20.5 hours of employment at $8.50/hour, which comes to a total of $119.00 or $174.25. The difference is whether or not we should include the time I spent at SVSC trying to resolve this paperwork issue revolving around my new hire packet not containing a social security number. Where should I go to pick up my check, or will SVSC mail it to me? It is illegal for SVSC to continue to withhold wages from me at this point.
SVSC now finds itself in a bit of a problem. As payment is withheld from me, then SVSC is in clear violation of the law. If payment is made, then SVSC will prove my point that they can legally hire and pay an individual who does not have or provide a social security number to their employer. Therefore, if my employment is not continued, it must not be due to the law, but due to religious discrimination.
I worked all day on Friday, Dec. 14th, which was a snow day, but Chris Rawson in the Race Department said I would be credited 2 hours pay, because of the snow, but that I was free to ski all day if I wanted. I skied all day. I worked all day on Saturday, Dec. 15th, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. for which Chris said I would be credited for 8 hours of employment. On Sunday morning Chris said that I should keep track of those 2 and 8 hours, and have Sid Crocket add those 10 hours to the next week, since my new hire paperwork had not yet been processed. That Sunday, Dec. 16th, I worked for a half day, just the morning, from 8 a.m. to noon for 4 hours, and then was told by Gary Pederson to resolve the paperwork issue of the lack of my having a social security number, before continuing to coach. I tried to resolve the paperwork problem all afternoon, during which time I was originally scheduled to be "on the clock", or the next 4 hours. I also showed up on Monday, Dec. 17th to continue to try to resolve the paperwork problem with human resources at Squaw, and I was able to work from 8 a.m. on that day, but I was again denied work, and unable to resolve the issue. On Monday, I was at SVSC from 8 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., still dealing with the HR department. Unfortunately, I am still trying to resolve this matter.
Past legal cases such as mine which involve discrimination against someone without a social security number have resulted in employees receiving all the back pay for the time they would have been working, in one case up to $10,000.00, so you might want to think of me as "on the clock" as long as certain individuals at SVSC continue to illegally deny me employment. Since I was hired for "part time work", 2 days a week, and for 4 days a week for February, then, by now, I should have been employed for 3 weeks, for 16 hours each week, plus the 10 hours on Fri-Sat Dec. 14-15, for a total of 58 hours x $8.50, for a total of $493.00. I think it is very unfortunate for SVSC that ultimately SVSC will have to pay me, but that the masters program has not been able to receive my coaching services for which I was hired.
I have tried to resolve this matter as quickly as possible by providing all necessary legal references to the HR department (which was entirely unnecessary for me to do). However, the longer this continues, the more expensive it may get for SVSC, not only because of my lost wages adding up, but also because SVSC will eventually have to start spending money on legal fees if this issue is not quickly resolved. Even though my civil rights have clearly been violated, as of now, I would be willing to compromise and relinquish my claim of the difference between $493 and $119 if this matter could be resolved by the end of the week, and if I resumed working and coaching again on snow for SVSC. I am making this offer because I genuinely want to provide SVSC with the value of my services, and I do not wish for SVSC to lose any more than necessary due to the poor decisions made by a few people in the accounting and human resources departments who continue to choose to remain willfully ignorant of the law. But if this is not resolved within the week, then I do not waive my right to the lost wages that I am being denied illegally. Nor do I waive my right to receiving wages for 4 days a week for February, and for 2 days a week for the rest of the ski season.
I am not making any threats, I am merely stating my intent to stand up for all of my legal rights under the law.
Although you might think this is all rather silly, since you are an "at will" employer, I assure you this is a serious issue. Any human resources textbook will tell you that Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 is a standard exemption to the "at will" employment doctrine. For example, you could not refuse to hire someone "because they are black", and think you are covered by "at will". Similarly, I am being illegally denied employment because of my religious belief to not have or use a social security number, and this is illegal. Therefore, once again, I urge you to resolve this matter quickly so that SVSC does not incur any loss due to having to pay for my lost wages or expensive attorney's fees, as both civil and criminal suits are likely to follow depending on which government agencies will be compelled to take up the case.
I will fill you in on the latest communication I have had with Ron Welton, and I am sure that you will be able to quickly and clearly see the glaring error in his reasoning process, an argument that will not stand up in court.
On Wednesday, Jan 2. 10:45 a.m., Ron Welton promptly called me, on the very morning he received what was my second certified letter to him (squaw3.htm). Again he said that the bottom line was that he would not hire me unless I had a social security number. He said 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". Based on that comment alone, I should think that Ron Welton deserves a reprimand from someone in authority over him, since he is obviously not looking out for SVSC's best interests, and he acts as if he wants SVSC to incur the costs of a lawsuit. In fact, he is the third employee at SVSC who has told me to sue SVSC, the other two were Julie and Jim Brady in the human resources department. In contrast, I have been exceedingly patient, and have engaged myself in writing this series of letters to people in authority at Squaw in hopes of avoiding a lawsuit.
Ron Welton went on to 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 do not dispute that at all. And there is nothing in such a statement that gives authority to employers to illegally discriminate against someone based on a valid religious belief to live a life without a social security number.
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 in its filings, and then there would be no penalty. I asked Ron, "Was there anything not clear about "no penalty"?" Ron paused a bit, 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 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."
Incredible! It seemed as if he would not accept any "cause" except "being Amish"!!! But the law does not say what "reasonable cause" is, nor does it identify that reasonable cause is strictly limited to "being Amish"! It merely says that if the employer shows "reasonable cause" AS OPPOSED TO "willful neglect", then there will be NO PENALTY to the employer for hiring someone such as myself.
26 USC Sec. 6724 : "No penalty shall be imposed [to the employer] under this part with respect to any failure [to obtain a social security number from an employee] if it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect."
Further, Treasury Regulation 301.6109-1(c) provides: ... "When the person filing the return statement, or other document does not know the SSN of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph, he shall sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service so stating. A payor is required to request the identifying number of the payee. If after such request has been made, the payee does not furnish the payor with an identifying number, the penalty ($50.00) will not be assessed against the payor, if it is shown that
such failure is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect."
All SVSC has to show is that they were not being willfully neglectful of their legal duty to ask me for the social security number, and SVSC is covered, and will incur NO PENALTY for hiring someone like me. If anything, Ron Welton is being willfully ignorant of that abundantly clear fact of law, which I have quoted for him several times now in certified mail. Therefore, any further reason he has to not hire me must be because he, personally, is deciding to discriminate against my religious beliefs. Of course, saying "you are not Amish so I don't have to hire you" is the very essence of religious discrimination! I should point out that I do not think there is any such law that mentions the Amish specifically, so his comment and reason for not hiring me at this point is just totally absurd. I believe that such comments show that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency who handles Title VII violations such as this one, would have an extremely rock solid case against SVSC, as they have against other employers in similar cases.
Personally, I am outraged at Ron Welton's comments that imply he would be willing to hire an Amish individual who did not have a social security number, and not me, as if my religious beliefs are not valid! Further, I am almost in disbelief that Ron Welton can show that he knows there is a valid religious exemption, but that he simply decided to discriminate against me anyway. Not only is that rather careless of him, but it is completely irresponsible of him to urge me to sue SVSC over this matter.
Furthermore, he said, "If there is an exemption for you, that's between you and the IRS." And this has been my exact contention all along, that I'm responsible for paying any tax liability on my own since there will be no withholdings because I don't have a social security number. Even if I did have a social security number, the W-4 withholding agreement can be terminated at any time, either by the employee or employer, as I have already shown by citing the appropriate law in my previous letters.
One legal reason that Jim Brady attempted to give in his attempts to discriminate against me was to say that it might cause an "undue burden" upon your business to hire me. This legal argument was overruled in other cases, because all that needs to be done is to file a simple statement, such as I have already provided, in lieu of the W-4 form, which would then cover you so that the law regarding "no penalty", as mentioned above, would be in effect. Handwriting checks is not enough of a burden on your business to claim an "undue burden". Handwriting a check might be slightly annoying or bothersome, but many business were able to stay in business just fine during the era when all checks were handwritten, so such a claim is totally baseless; such a burden is simply not an "undue burden". Nor can you say that "being forced to learn about the law" is an "undue burden".
In conclusion, I sincerely hope this problem can be resolved without expensive litigation. I sincerely hope to provide Squaw Valley with my valuable services as a part time master's race coach. The coaches on the staff have told me how valuable my prior racing experience is to the program, and I am eagerly looking forward to being able to share my race experience with those people who come to Squaw Valley looking for the very best ski experience possible. I am absolutely sure that I would prove to be an extremely valuable employee for SVSC, since I was told that typically people with my race experience would cost more than the master's program can afford. As it was, I spent $40,000 per year for several years in my attempt to become the very best skier possible, eventually achieving a national raking of top 50 in slalom. That SVSC would be able to obtain my services at a mere $8.50 an hour would definitely be a great benefit to SVSC.
Prior to applying to SVSC, I was merely looking for a fun job for the winter, as a refreshing break from all my religious and legal studies. However, since I started working for SVSC, the coaching staff has made me feel so welcome and appreciated that I realize that they are right, and that I am worth more than $8.50/hour. Therefore, while I have your attention, I would also like to take this time and opportunity to ask for a raise. I suppose that most coaches with level three certification do not have as much technical ability and/or race experience as I have. I realize that the wage of $8.50/hour is for someone who has no race experience, perhaps someone who has skied recreationally only for a few years or so. Since I have so much experience, I would appreciate a wage that is commensurate with my abilities, perhaps somewhere in between $8.50/hour and the wage of a level three certified coach, whatever that wage may be. If not that, then certainly something above $8.50/hour, and I leave it to your good judgment to discuss an appropriate wage with the coaching staff such as Sid Crocket and Chris Rawson. One of the other benefits I can give to the masters program is that I was willing to show up on days that I was not scheduled, "just to train and ski with the team", because I love skiing so much. Chris Rawson said that would certainly be an additional benefit to the program, and that they would love to have me show up "unpaid", as often as I was willing. In addition, I was going to work out in the gym with some of the masters and be a free personal trainer to the team in my off hours.
Please help me and SVSC to resolve this matter promptly. It is up to you, now, to either attempt to comply with the law that I have shown you, and hire me and direct your employees to comply with the provisions in 26 USC Sec. 6724 and Treasury Regulation 301.6109-1(c) regarding "no penalty", or you can do nothing and allow the decision of Ron Welton to stand, not knowing which laws, if any, exist to protect SVSC and Ron Welton against illegally denying me my right to work. I expect reasonable people to make a decision which is in compliance with the law and protects SVSC from unnecessary litigation.
Hans Burkhart, judging by what you wrote in the introduction to the Seasonal Team Member Handbook, "offer our guests more than they expect", and given that I have demonstrated that I live up to that guiding principle, and that I have given SVSC far more than they expect in many ways, from bringing race experience to the table, from doing more than my job required with regard to showing up on my days off, from being patient with your staff who have rejected me, from taking the time to educate everyone about the law, from doing my best to avoid litigation that would be costly for SVSC, I expect that you will be
reasonable and recognize that I am a very valuable employee, and that you will invite me to continue to work for SVSC.
I await a minimal check for $119 for actual work performed. If you decide it would be appropriate, I also await an offer of a new wage. I also eagerly look forward to getting back on snow to coach the masters once you over-rule the poorly-conceived and illegal decisions made by Ron Welton.
Sincerely,
Jason Hommel
cc:
Alexander C. Cushing, Founder and Chairman
Nancy R. Wendt, President
Ron Welton, Controller
Jim Brady, Human Resources / Personel
Gary Pederson, Race Services
Sid Crocket, Race Department
Chris Rawson, Race Department
http://www.linkjesus.com/squaw4.htm
For online copies of prior correspondence regarding
this matter see
http://www.linkjesus.com/squaw3.htm
http://www.linkjesus.com/squaw2.htm
http://www.linkjesus.com/squaw1.htm
 |