Large Restaurant Franchisee - Wrongful Termination Case (Age Discrimination)

[tumtum56]

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...

Ummm -- thank you Zigner. You sure are a polite one, aren't you? lol I think that cbg explained the situation better. It's in the eye of the beholder. Like I said earlier, I have never taken any form of legal training. I know unfair, Zigner. I have learned it. I just didn't know it was all legal too. That's the disappointment in my idealistic soul. To say it's illegal to fire someone for age discrimination and then make it so it's nearly impossible to be able to prove...

And I guess I will suck this loss up and move on. This company was a big part of my life, though. My three children worked for the franchisee from 1996 - 2011. All three were managers. Combined, my family gave this company over 45 years of dedicated service. I was told I was only being kept around because they wanted my daughter to stay (never given a concrete reason as to why). She was the last of my kids still working for them in 2011. She finally left, and sure enough three months later I was terminated - after failing the first inspection of my career. An inspection several managers have failed over and over again.

My cynical husband had warned me something like that would happen for years. I was so afraid of telling him I lost my job because he was homebound with a weak heart. I was afraid of giving him a heart attack. I just stayed out searching for work all those hours I would have been working. I did that for A MONTH AND A HALF! He finally figured it out. He spent the last 4 months of his life worrying about me as I scraped up 1300 a month for our insurance, and that's not how I pictured the end to be. He died last month, and now I'm ..... lost.

So Zigner - I'm going against your signature. I am whining a little bit. Because it's all I apparently can do. And it feels good to least get it out a little. Even if it won't do me a lick of good.

I somehow was under the impression that the LAW is there to ensure everything is fair. Some new terminology, and a lot of help from some of the posters here has made me see things clearly.

 

[Zigner]

Ummm -- thank you Zigner. You sure are a polite one, aren't you? lol I think that cbg explained the situation better. It's in the eye of the beholder. Like I said earlier, I have never taken any form of legal training. I know unfair, Zigner. I have learned it. I just didn't know it was all legal too. That's the disappointment in my idealistic soul. To say it's illegal to fire someone for age discrimination and then make it so it's nearly impossible to be able to prove...

And I guess I will suck this loss up and move on. This company was a big part of my life, though. My three children worked for the franchisee from 1996 - 2011. All three were managers. Combined, my family gave this company over 45 years of dedicated service. I was told I was only being kept around because they wanted my daughter to stay (never given a concrete reason as to why). She was the last of my kids still working for them in 2011. She finally left, and sure enough three months later I was terminated - after failing the first inspection of my career. An inspection several managers have failed over and over again.

My cynical husband had warned me something like that would happen for years. I was so afraid of telling him I lost my job because he was homebound with a weak heart. I was afraid of giving him a heart attack. I just stayed out searching for work all those hours I would have been working. I did that for A MONTH AND A HALF! He finally figured it out. He spent the last 4 months of his life worrying about me as I scraped up 1300 a month for our insurance, and that's not how I pictured the end to be. He died last month, and now I'm ..... lost.

So Zigner - I'm going against your signature. I am whining a little bit. Because it's all I apparently can do. And it feels good to least get it out a little. Even if it won't do me a lick of good.

I somehow was under the impression that the LAW is there to ensure everything is fair. Some new terminology, and a lot of help from some of the posters here has made me see things clearly.

One is glad to be of service.

ETA: In this case, from the other side of the fence, you can see that if they couldn't fire you just because they didn't like you, then that is grossly unfair to the employer. So the law is about making things fair.

 

[commentator]

For many years I have been observant that people do not realize that things are not fair, that the labor laws are seriously skewed in favor of the employer, and they honestly believe as long as they are happily and gainfully employed that people who have trouble and lose their jobs arbitrarily and unfairly are just "whiners" and that the country is in fine shape and we all can get our piece of the pie if we just work hard and do our best. Unfortunately, it's more like the Golden rule prevails. He who has the Gold makes the rules, particularly when it comes to labor laws. Those businesses, job creators who are crying wildly to be given a free hand in the market place and to be relived of their regulatory responsibilities are kept in check only by the few labor statutes we have, such as EEOC. If we hadn't had labor unions, there would be much less regulation and our labor laws would be much less stringent than they are.

 

[tranquility]

Conversely, I don't see why an employer should be a slave to the state and employee. Freedom, man. Freedom to contract, for one--and freedom to not contract if one does not like the conditions. We've all read The Jungle and no one wants to return to those days. But, that is health and safety. Things the government always had a hand in. Today's miasma of feel-good employment laws not directly related to health and safety has spawned entire industries on what some people think may or may not be "fair". We can only dream of the day more freedom will come to those who want it, rather than "fairness" to those the powers that be find their friend.

 

[las365]

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.

This bears repeating. Seek a consultation with an attorney. This is not a good DIY project.

 

[>Charlotte<]

This bears repeating. Seek a consultation with an attorney. This is not a good DIY project.

Seconded, which is why I said I think she should pursue it. Is the employer in violation of the law? I don't know, but it sounds like they certainly could be. In this case it certainly seems more possible than the posters who say they were fired because they were late every day for a month and surfed the Internet at their desks, but they're over 40 so they want to sue.

Tumtum, don't worry about what you can or can't prove. Contact the people whose job it is to figure it out.

 

[LdiJ]

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!

Then maybe you are mistaken in using the term "franchise". You cannot get completely accurate advice unless you give us accurate information. If you all have the same boss, then it doesn't sound like your store is a franchise of anything.

 

[tranquility]

To be fair, some franchises opt to use a general manager supplied by the company for many issues rather than making all decisions themselves. Some contracts require it for a time and will supply the expertise later if the franchisee wants to pay for the service.

 

[tumtum56]

Then maybe you are mistaken in using the term "franchise". You cannot get completely accurate advice unless you give us accurate information. If you all have the same boss, then it doesn't sound like your store is a franchise of anything.

I am completely correct with my terms, at least concerning franchise, franchisee, and franchisor.


This is a large restaurant chain.

There is a franchisor - the company that owns all the rights to the name, logo, etc.. But, I worked for the "franchisee" that pays to use these rights. In fact, it is the largest franchisee of this particular chain. It has over 100 restaurants in its system. But each location is incorporated. Each location is termed "independently franchised corporation".

My former employer is implying that, because each restaurant stands on its own, we are completely separate and what happens to a manager in one restaurant cannot be compared to a manager in another restaurant. Even though, we all operate with the same uppermanagement. We all have the same contracts, rules, boss, district meetings, etc. This is the main reason for this thread - not the age discrimination. I want to understand more about the legalities of franchisees.

I have come to understand that incorporation is a very good thing for the employer.... ?

 

[Cali408nia]

Conversely, I don't see why an employer should be a slave to the state and employee. Freedom, man. Freedom to contract, for one--and freedom to not contract if one does not like the conditions.

In a nutshell, capitalism.

 

[Zigner]

This is the main reason for this thread - not the age discrimination. I want to understand more about the legalities of franchisees.

This thread is titled: Large Restaurant Franchisee - Wrongful Termination Case (Age Discrimination)

 

[tumtum56]

This thread is titled: Large Restaurant Franchisee - Wrongful Termination Case (Age Discrimination)

Zigner - You told me not to start another thread regarding this topic, so I stopped. I'm trying to get information concerning franchisees, and I didn't know how to word the title more properly at the time. I needed the information for a wrongful termination case, yes.

Some of your replies are NOT helpful and seem only to serve someone's ego.

I'm not a lawyer or a student. If you perceive me as stupid, I don't really care. I came here for help.

If you don't have any HELPFUL information, please don't bother replying to my thread; move along and "help" someone else. Thank you.

 

[Zigner]

Zigner - You told me not to start another thread regarding this topic, so I stopped. I'm trying to get information concerning franchisees, and I didn't know how to word the title more properly at the time. I needed the information for a wrongful termination case, yes.

Some of your replies are NOT helpful and seem only to serve someone's ego.

I'm not a lawyer or a student. If you perceive me as stupid, I don't really care. I came here for help.

If you don't have any HELPFUL information, please don't bother replying to my thread; move along and "help" someone else. Thank you.

Ahh, the beauty of this forum. You don't get to choose who posts on your thread.

I don't perceive you as stupid.

 

[tumtum56]

Ahh, the beauty of this forum. You don't get to choose who posts on your thread.

I don't perceive you as stupid.

I wasn't "choosing." I had requested you to stop.

 

[Zigner]

I wasn't "choosing." I had requested you to stop.

Gotcha