Jason
Hommel Tuesday,
Dec. 18th, 2001
general delivery, Permanent
Address:
Homewood, CA 12641 Anvil Road
(530) 525 xxxx Grass Valley, CA
95945
(530) 274-xxxx
Squaw Valley Ski Corp,
P.O. Box 2007
Olympic Valley, CA
96146
To Hans A. Burkhart, General Manager: If Ron Welton is unwilling or unable to satisfactorily resolve this matter, you will be the final person I will be able to appeal to before contacting the appropriate law enforcement agencies. I believe that as the General Manager, you should have both the intelligence and the authority be able to figure out what is the best thing for SVSC to do.
Dear Ron Welton,
It has come to my attention that you instructed Jim Brady, head of the HR department at Squaw Valley, to not hire me because I do not have a social security number. Jim indicated to me that because of his conversation with his boss, he had no choice in the matter if he wanted to keep his job. I spoke with you on the phone briefly at about 9AM on Tuesday, December 18th, and you confirmed to me that you were the one who told Jim that, and you reaffirmed to me that you would not hire anyone who did not have a social security number.
This letter is to officially inform you of the potential liabilities of your current decision, but also to inform you that if you changed your mind, why you would be protected by the laws which say that there are no penalties for hiring a person without a social security number as long as you show the failure to obtain a number is due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.
Not hiring someone (which would be "compelling the disclosure") on the basis of them not disclosing a social security number is a felony, and can result in criminal prosecution.
42 USC Sec. 408 provides that;
Whoever... (8) discloses uses or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
Title 42 above mentions Title 18 which follows:
18 USC Sec 242 and 42 USC Sec 1983 provides that:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; 42 USC Sec 1983 further provides that a violator shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
Over the phone, you laughed and protested because you believed that the laws require you to only employ people who have a social security number, and that you are making this decision to avoid prosecution by the IRS. Unfortunately, your excuse is what is described as "under color of any law" in the statute above. You may think you are abiding by IRS laws, but you are not, and the courts have ruled against other employers who have made similar mistakes.
The laws do not mandate that every person hired by an employer actually have a social security number, and below, I will quote both the law and a court decision which says that. Employers are only required to ASK their prospective employees for a social security number, and that is a huge difference and distinction. And the law makes clear provision for what to do in the event that the employer is not able to get a social security number after asking: Please carefully read the following:
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."
These two laws above were quoted at the bottom of form P-1, (Reasonable Cause Affidavit by Payor) which I filled out and gave to Jim Brady.
Therefore, since Squaw Valley Ski Corp., (SVSC) can show that it has a reasonable cause that SVSC was unable to obtain a social security number from me (that it is against my religious beliefs, and I signed a statement saying I did not have a Social Security number), and SVSC can easily prove that SVSC was not being willfully neglectful by providing a simple statement (or affidavit) to the effect that SVSC asked me (again, I provided such a form in my employment application), then filing the simple forms I provided SVSC with my application will prove that SVSC has fully complied with 26 USC Sec. 6724 and Treas Reg 301.6109-1(c), then there can be "no penalty" against SVSC for hiring a person like me who does not have a social security number, again, as long as SVSC proves that SVSC did their legal duty and actually asked for the number.
If SVSC is interested in understanding why I believe having or using a SSN is a violation of my religious beliefs as a Christian, may I direct you to the following sermon at the following url: http://www.mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/ssnarticle.htm Basically, I believe the social security system is a system of idolatry and slavery, which is inconsistent with my beliefs in the Holy Bible. In addition, it is a fraudulent scheme like a ponzi scheme that no non-government agency would be able to legally administer, and it is very similar to the Mark of the Beast system as described in Revelation 13; which, if people participate in, will damn their souls. There are many other fundamentalist Christian religious groups throughout the U.S. who do not use the social security number for similar religious reasons, the most widely known of which might be the Amish.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has successfully prosecuted several employers for discriminating against people who do not have social security numbers due to their religious beliefs.
In 1992, in Civil Action No. CA3-92-0169-T, the EEOC sued an employer for discriminating against Mr. Hanson, who did not have a social security number for religious reasons, and the EEOC stated that the only requirement imposed upon a businesses by the various tax laws was that employers must "request" an employee's or potential employee's taxpayer identification number, and that there was be no penalty for a business not succeeding in obtaining one. The EEOC, itself a federal government agency, stated in its "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss" that:
"the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the code do not contain an absolute requirement that an employer provide an employee social security number to the IRS."
In February 2001, the EEOC again said basically the same thing in another similar case.
"Charging Party (the employee) alleges that he was denied reasonable accommodation and discharged because of his religion, Protestant.
The evidence reveals that the respondent (the employer) could have accommodated the Charging Party without undue hardship. All that was necessary was that it request a social security number and so notify the Internal Revenue Service by affidavit, that it had done so.
Based on the foregoing, it is concluded there is a reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as emended, by failing to provide Charging Party with a religious accommodation and discharging him from employment."
I provided such an "affidavit" with my application, see form P-1, which I gave to Jim Brady. It seems obvious that the EEOC, in the second paragraph above, was referring to 26 USC Sec. 6724 and/or Treasury Regulation 301.6109-1(c), both of which I quoted above, and again, were contained on from P-1.
In addition, regarding the W-4 form, it is not a mandatory agreement, but a voluntary one that can be terminated at any time by either the employer or employee.
26 CFR Sec 31.3402 (p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements
(2) An agreement under section 3402 (p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee mutually agree upon. However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other.
This law was quoted at the bottom of form W-4T, which I filled out and gave to Jim Brady.
Therefore, since the law says the W-4 agreement is voluntary and can be terminated at any time by the employee, you cannot validly claim that the law is that it is mandatory for all employees. If you try to hide behind the "color of law" in making your decision, you will not prevail.
Furthermore, the Social Security administration itself has said, "The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number (SSN) to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one."
Therefore, since there are both criminal violations (Title 18 and 42 of the US Code) and civil violations (Title VII of the Civil Right Act) for the decision to not hire someone on the basis of a refusal to provide a social security number, and no legal requirement that it is needed to work, and no legal penalties to the employer for not obtaining a social security number from an employee once the employer shows they have asked for the number, I strongly suggest you change your decision, and not continue to refuse to allow me to work for Squaw Valley as a ski coach part time.
Just to let you know more about me, in 1993 I was ranked about 50th in the nation in Slalom. I went to the U.S. Nationals, and was quite a serious ski racer. But I am far more serious about this social security issue than I ever was about ski racing! All the coaches that I have worked with so far, Chris Rawson, Sid Crocket, and Gary Pederson all expressed their strong desire that I join the masters program, and they all wished me the best in being able to resolve the conflict I have with the personnel department at Squaw Valley. These three coaches and I all believe that SVSC will benefit by employing me as a ski coach for the masters program. If you can assist with this process in any way, we would all be grateful.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions, or if you wish to discuss this matter further. Ron Welton, if this letter does not convince you to change your mind, and if I do not hear from you within 7 days after you receive this letter by certified mail, either by phone or by mail, I will have no further choice but to contact either the District Attorney or U.S. Attorney and demand that they file criminal charges against you, Ron Welton, personally, since it is quite obvious from the statements given to me by Chris Rawson, Sid Crocket, Gary Pederson, that they had to do what the HR department said, and Jim Brady, the head of HR, indicated that the decision was yours, Ron Welton, alone, and that Jim Brady had to simply "follow orders", because he "liked his job and wanted to keep it". I feel confident that a criminal investigation would show that you, Ron Welton, were responsible for the illegal discrimination and creating the illegal Squaw Valley policy of "mandatory disclosure" of the social security number. In addition, if I do not hear from you, and you do not change your mind, I will have no choice but to also contact the EEOC and demand that they file a civil complaint.
However, I would hope, and I am asking, that after you carefully reconsider this matter in light of the laws quoted above, that you do what is right and what will be the safest and wisest course of action for SVSC to take, and tell Jim that it's ok to go ahead with the paperwork and hire me. I think that would be the best decision for Squaw Valley Ski Corporation, since my skiing ability is appreciated and requested by both the coaches and masters with whom I've already skied, and also, this tiny paperwork problem would go no further, and there would be no penalties of any kind to anyone. In addition, I sincerely hope that neither SVSC nor I will have to waste any money on arbitration if we can help it.
Lastly, you don't have to take my word for it, nor do you have to believe
the EEOC or the Social Security administration quotes above. Nor do you
need to hire any costly attorneys to figure out how to deal with this
matter. Simply instruct any attorney or legal clerk or Jim Brady to
confirm what 26 USC Sec. 6724 and Treasury Regulation 301.6109-1(c) actually
says. Or, you can call your local law library, and the law librarian will
probably be able to assist you free of charge. The Placer County Law
Library is 350 Nevada Street , Auburn, 530-886-4500 or
(530) 823-2573.
Sincerely,
Jason Hommel
cc
Hans A Burkhart, General Manager
Ron Welton, Controller
Jim Brady, Head of HR
Gary Pederson, Head of Ski Services
Sid Crocket, Race Department
Chris Rawson, Race Department