Large Restaurant Franchisee - Wrongful Termination Case (Age Discrimination)

[tumtum56]

A franchise, by definition is a separately owned and operated business. A franchise is responsible for its own hiring and firing. There are certain rules that a franchise must follow in order to have consistancy within a chain, and perhaps corporate employees can make recommendations, but still, its up to the owner of each franchise to determine whether or not they will fire any particular employee. So, just because your employer chose to fire you for a failed inspection, does not require the owners of any other franchises to fire any of their employees for failed inspections.

But managers answer to the same person. - the same Area Coach and Regional Director. The same Regional Director that fired me decided to keep the other managers. It's not as though we had separate "bosses" and my boss happened to fire me. We all had the same boss. We just each operated a different restaurant.



Agghg.. I'm sorry. I'm trying to explain it the best I can. I can't afford legal counsel, but am trying to figure this out before submitting a rebuttal.
I might try a new thread inquiring solely on franchisee classification and not go through in the age discrimination questions.

Thank you for your response and help!

 

[Zigner]

But managers answer to the same person. - the same Area Coach and Regional Director. The same Regional Director that fired me decided to keep the other managers. It's not as though we had separate "bosses" and my boss happened to fire me. We all had the same boss. We just each operated a different restaurant.



Agghg.. I'm sorry. I'm trying to explain it the best I can. I can't afford legal counsel, but am trying to figure this out before submitting a rebuttal.
I might try a new thread inquiring solely on franchisee classification and not go through in the age discrimination questions.

Thank you for your response and help!

So, let's leave out any questions of "age discrimination"...

Your termination, while unfair, was not illegal.

 

[tumtum56]

So, let's leave out any questions of "age discrimination"...

Your termination, while unfair, was not illegal.

1. How can termination be both unfair and legal at the same time?

 

[cbg]

Because fairness is in the eye of the beholder. The law does not require that everything be fair. It only requires that it is legal.

 

[FlyingRon]

Because fairness is in the eye of the beholder. The law does not require that everything be fair. It only requires that it is legal.

For example...I can fire my best worker so I can give the job to my son. Is it fair? No. Is it legal? In most cases, Yes.

 

[Zigner]

1. How can termination be both unfair and legal at the same time?

You're 56 years old - you can't seriously expect us to believe that you haven't learned that not everything in life is fair...

 

[>Charlotte<]

1. How can termination be both unfair and legal at the same time?

Unfair and illegal aren't always the same thing. If something is not prohibited by law, it's not illegal. Whether or not it's fair has nothing to do with it.

 

[tumtum56]

But your problem is whether you can show that you were treated this way because of your age. The fact that you are 56 is irrelevant unless it is determined that that is the reason for your termination. If your manager just doesn't like you, your age is not a protection.

Are you aware of any other employees over the age of 40 who were arbitrarily terminated?

No, I do not know of any other employees over the age of 40 - there are very, very few people (I can't even think of one right now) that old working in the position of manager like I was.

I was replaced by a 25 year old.

Though I cannot directly prove age discrimination, I thought by proving managers NOT-as-old-as-me received special treatment by being allowed to keep their job after failing one or more inspections I was providing INDIRECT evidence.

From the employer's end - how does the supervisor explain firing me and NOT the other managers legally? Or are they somehow not required to investigate this once I claim it..?

 

[Zigner]

From the employer's end - how does the supervisor explain firing me and NOT the other managers legally? Or are they somehow not required to investigate this once I claim it..?

Employer: Every time I had contact with tumtum56, she would give me dirty looks. She made it very difficult to counsel her about her shortcomings in the way she did <xyz> so I felt that it was better to let her go.

 

[>Charlotte<]

1. How can termination be both unfair and legal at the same time?

Your understanding of this concept is the perspective you need to see the potential flaws in your age discrimination argument.

Welcome to the doctrine of at-will employment, which allows your employer the freedom to hire and fire as he chooses, except for some very specifically defined restrictions which protect us from being discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, etc. As long as your employer doesn't practice illegal discrimination (and not all discrimination is illegal), he can pretty much run his business the way he wants to.

 

[>Charlotte<]

No, I do not know of any other employees over the age of 40 - there are very, very few people (I can't even think of one right now) that old working in the position of manager like I was.

I was replaced by a 25 year old.

Though I cannot directly prove age discrimination, I thought by proving managers NOT-as-old-as-me received special treatment by being allowed to keep their job after failing one or more inspections I was providing INDIRECT evidence.

From the employer's end - how does the supervisor explain firing me and NOT the other managers legally? Or are they somehow not required to investigate this once I claim it..?

Not that I'm speaking for anyone else, but I don't think anyone is telling you to not pursue this. On the contrary, I think you should. We're just trying to give you a realistic idea of what you're actually dealing with, and trying to correct some misconceptions you may have.

 

[tumtum56]

Not that I'm speaking for anyone else, but I don't think anyone is telling you to not pursue this. On the contrary, I think you should. We're just trying to give you a realistic idea of what you're actually dealing with, and trying to correct some misconceptions you may have.

Charlotte, thank you so much, and I appreciate all the help.
Zigner - thank you for your help as well. I know how tough it will be to prove - maybe impossible. But I truly believe this happened to me because of my age. This is exactly what I needed. Understanding and help getting there. Thanks to everyone responding to my thread. I appreciate it tremendously. For you guys to take your free time and share your knowledge is amazing to me.

 

[tumtum56]

I read that it it is harder than ever to prove age discrimination because of a somewhat recent law change. No longer can age discrimination be proved as one of the factors, but it has to be proved as the MOTIVATING factor behind termination. I'm racking my brain trying to find a scenario in which a person could actually prove age discrimination...... It seems the only way to prove age bias is for a superior to flat-out tell you you're too old and therefore deemed unfit to run a store, and then have witnesses to that? UNLIKELY. Like most employers would ever admit verbally to getting rid of you for age. Yet, I'm sure many people really ARE discriminated against (especially the physically demanding jobs - 65+ hour work week of a restaurant manager - on their feet all day and night). ......*sigh* what a frustrating situation.

They also said my restaurant sales #s were not "good" in their position statement - though I was not told this the day they fired me. They gave ONE REASON for my termination: the single failed inspection. But I have a document that shows the entire region's controllable costs (food, labor, and cash costs - top 3 forms of mgr performance measurements) for the entire year of 2010. I came in 9th out 34 stores in our area. I also have several group emails from the vice president of company stating Colorado as a whole was performing poorly in sales compared to the other states the franchisee operates stores in. The VP of company even moved to Colorado for 2 months to help the entire "region" improve. I was nowhere near the bottom of the pack.

After reviewing everything in this thread, I'm starting to understand that I can't connect the dots to age discrimination without any smoking gun evidence, huh? That's what you're trying to tell me, and my stubborn self is finally understanding. I am going to still submit my rebuttal with a concise list of facts and events and see what happens anyway. Again, thank you everyone for your help.

 

[ecmst12]

It's not your job to find all the evidence. That's what the EEOC does. You can also consult an employment attorney. Consults are usually free or low cost. If the attorney believes you have a case, he/she will agree to represent you on contingency. If they say you need to pay money up front, that means you don't have a strong case.

 

[tranquility]

I read that it it is harder than ever to prove age discrimination because of a somewhat recent law change. No longer can age discrimination be proved as one of the factors, but it has to be proved as the MOTIVATING factor behind termination.

Not so much a change, but a clarification. Pure statistical arguments have always been disfavored. It's just that some have noted that any time there are a group of people fired, there is always going to be some protected group disproportionately affected. (Absent very large layoffs where statistics can be a better guide.) True, the large layoff still has a problem with the Supreme Court's decision not allowing WalMart employees a class action based on similar theories of discrimination, but they focused on the fact that there really wasn't any evidence of discrimination on the facts which applied to all in the putative class. They did not eliminate the possibility of statistical suits, it is just the court required them to point to the policy that discriminated against them. (Otherwise, each firing had to be looked at on it's own facts.)

I'm racking my brain trying to find a scenario in which a person could actually prove age discrimination...... It seems the only way to prove age bias is for a superior to flat-out tell you you're too old and therefore deemed unfit to run a store, and then have witnesses to that? UNLIKELY.

Now you understand. Just like the cop's "furtive movement", unless a company has a true intention of trying to discriminate illegally, it *is* hard to prove--and should be.