I seem to have missed a post in here somewhere . .

See and I guess I don't really either . . if they're marketing to a different crowd, changes will likely be needed.  They could have done it much differently, or they could have even tried to shift some things around or taken advantage of the experience they had, but I guess I don't think it's really discriminatory to take more into account than just a person's skills.  If someone's health could be a liability, sorry.  If a woman is pregnant and is going to miss a lot of work after birth, that's a  fairly significant factor that should be ok to consider.  Now, if her capabilities and skill outweighs the fact that she'll be out of commission and you'll be short handed for a couple months, cool.  I guess a lot of things people consider discrimination, I don't think are discrimination . . so apparently I'm an asshole like Milo lol. 

I seem to be in the minority here, and in no way am I a fan of Bowlmor, but I don't see where they are wrong.

A lot of companies will actually make existing employees interview for their current job when they buy a company. Tom Shannon and his company have every right to replace the existing people as they see fit.

Were some people let go that shouldn't have been? Possibly, but when you have millions of dollars of your own money on the line, you get a say in who does and who doesn't work for you.

Be a lot easier to take Bowlmor's side if they didn't friggin turn off the lights during the day for their hipster bowl business model.

First, none of us know the details behind various complaints that have been filed against Bowlmor for alleged discriminatory behavior against some of its former employees.
Yes, employers have wide latitude in determining who they want to hire and fire (some will argue they have too much latitude).  However, employers violate both federal and state laws if their decisions are based on discriminatory behavior (under the law). They are prohibited from basing hiring and firing decisions on race, sex (this includes pregnancy and childbirth), religion, disability or age. It will be up to the EEOC and perhaps the courts to determine if Bowlmor violated any of these employee's rights under the law.

These discrimination statutes are in place to protect all of us. If we live long enough, each of us will get old. If a 60 year old can still perform their job duties, an employer cannot fire, demote, or otherwise discriminate against him simply because he is 60 or simply because he has a few more wrinkles than a 30 year old. That is what the law says. Also, if an employee becomes ill or injured, the law says that the employer must make a GOOD FAITH effort in providing a reasonable accommodation for the injured employee. (The law also states that IF the employer made a GOOD FAITH effort in trying to provide a reasonable accommodation, but couldn't find one, the employer is under no obligation to hold onto that employee).

All it takes is for one of us, or a loved one, to become the target of discriminatory employer behavior to appreciate the fact that these laws are in place. Just as employees have an obligation to show up for work, do the best job they can with the
resources provided them, employers too, have certain reciprocal obligations to their employees under the law. And thank goodness for that.f

First, none of us know the details behind various complaints that have been filed against Bowlmor for alleged discriminatory behavior against some of its former employees.
Yes, employers have wide latitude in determining who they want to hire and fire (some will argue they have too much latitude).  However, employers violate both federal and state laws if their decisions are based on discriminatory behavior (under the law). They are prohibited from basing hiring and firing decisions on race, sex (this includes pregnancy and childbirth), religion, disability or age. It will be up to the EEOC and perhaps the courts to determine if Bowlmor violated any of these employee's rights under the law.

These discrimination statutes are in place to protect all of us. If we live long enough, each of us will get old. If a 60 year old can still perform their job duties, an employer cannot fire, demote, or otherwise discriminate against him simply because he is 60 or simply because he has a few more wrinkles than a 30 year old. That is what the law says. Also, if an employee becomes ill or injured, the law says that the employer must make a GOOD FAITH effort in providing a reasonable accommodation for the injured employee. (The law also states that IF the employer made a GOOD FAITH effort in trying to provide a reasonable accommodation, but couldn't find one, the employer is under no obligation to hold onto that employee).

All it takes is for one of us, or a loved one, to become the target of discriminatory employer behavior to appreciate the fact that these laws are in place. Just as employees have an obligation to show up for work, do the best job they can with the
resources provided them, employers too, have certain reciprocal obligations to their employees under the law. And thank goodness for that.f

We also don't know the conditions for the previous AMF employees to keep their job. If there was an evaluation period, then Bowlmor is probably in their rights.

My company is based in California and we are not a "right to work" state. So while our labor laws a very strict(much more so than the federal statues), employees can be terminated without cause, especially during the declared evaluation period.

Besides, we don't know the actual story behind these cases. I bowl in quite a few different houses and there are a lot of people working in bowling alleys who should be doing something else.