Posted by Common Right Group on August 04, 1997 at 06:04:14:
In Reply to: use of SS# to get a job posted by F.E.Murray on August 03, 1997 at 14:10:02:
: back 94 or 95 I saw somthing about a supreme court decision somthing about that we do not need to have a SS# ro give it to get a job. I am looking for the full decision.can you help?
Yessir. Only thing is, we don't know of any supreme Court cases per se, but the ISC (Information Systems Consulting) and the Taco Bell (Pepsi Cola) cases are both referenced at http://www.ime.com/none/
Note that the State of Washington had at least on case wherein some judge (sic) ruled that a SSAN IS required to work in that state. On might then be advised to seek ou the legal definition for "in this state" in the State of Washington. A surprise may be in store.
Another note is that the SSAN issued before some date is to be used for Social Security Purposes only, not for identification. It says so right on the card. One may stand on the original contract.
Now, take a serious study of the Privacy Act of 1974 found at Title 5 of the United States Code, Section 552(a) to the end of the act. There are even provisions at 552(e) for fines and sanctions plus costs for those who deny rights while acting as agents for government if they deny rights or privileges to anyone not supplying a number.
There are cases where, once one is hired, the company comes in later to ask for the number "left off" of their forms. At this point, to discharge (fire) someone for not providing the number is Wrongful Termination.
However, notwithstanding any or all of the above, it behooves you to understand the definition of the word "covenant" as compared to "contract" and "agreement." Also to understand the "covenant" nature of a driver's license and voter registration, privileges accorded by covenant only to U.S. citizens if applied for through normal procedures.
The best "free" information you will get off the internet is that which tells you to move your bunk into the Law Library for as long as it takes. Do not assume anything about your standing, status, rights, or privileges and imunities. Know that you must be an agrieved party before you have standing to sue in court, and the suit must be based on a Liberty (Common Law Tort) or Property (equity) interest that has been transgressed or trespassed upon. Due Process violations are an important element to almost every suit of this nature. Many would-be employers and their legal counsel are operating under assumption or the presumption that you will operate under assumption born of habit. Fraud is generally not an element or an issue, as all of the information is available to everyone as much as to any attorney. For fraud to be an issue, it must be provable by preponderance that the defrauding party made deliberate attempts to conceal material information or to mislead the victim. The victim believing what he/she wants to (assuming) doesn't quite fit the criteria. "Your assumptions are not someone else's problem" is an operative term.
Hope what we've said is helpful, even though we know it isn't necessarily what you want to hear. Sorry about that part of it.