.•

F I L E D ~-C Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 1 Filed 08/11/2005 Page 1 of 6

AUG 11 2005 Nf.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MICHAELW DOBBINS FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINO~LERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

PRIMPS L.L.C. D/B/A/ SUPERCUTS AND )

MANAGEMENT ADVANTAGE GROUP, INC. )

D/B/A! SUPERCUTS

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMAND JUDGE JOHN W OARRA'H

NATURE OF THE ACTION II.1AGISTRATE JU(;)GE MASON This is an action under Titlc VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employmcnt practices on the basis of national origin and

to provide appropriate relief to Mayra Arias, Rosa Gonzalez, Blanca Sauceda (collectively

referred to hereafter as "Charging Parties") and othcr employees of Hispanic national origin who

were adversely affected by such practiccs. The Commission alleges that Defendant Primps

L.L.C. d/b/a! Supercuts ("Primps") and Defendant Management Advantage Group, Inc. d/b/a

Supcrcuts ("MAG") discriminated against Charging Parties and a elass of Hispanic employees

by maintaining a policy requiring that employees speak only English.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

I. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345. TIlis action is ,lUthorizcd and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(I) and (3) of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(1)(I) and (3) and

Section 102 onhe Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a ("Title VII").

Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 1 Filed 08/11/2005 Page 2 of 6
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(1) and(3) ofTitie VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Primps has continuously been a limited liability company doing business in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant MAG has continuously been a corporation doing business in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Primps has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h). 7. At all relevant times, Defendant MAG has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70 I(b), (g) and (h) of Title Vll, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 8. More than thirty days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Charging Parties filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Supereuts (Defendants Primps
2

Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 1 Filed 08/11/2005 Page 3 of 6
and MAG). All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 9. Since at least 200 I, Defendant Primps has engaged in unlawful employment
practices at its facilities, in violation of Section 703(a)(l) of Title Vll, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). These unlawful employment practices include, hut are not limited to, requiring that Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees speak only English at work.
10. Since at least 2001, Defendant MAG has engaged III unlawful employment practices at its facilities, in violation or Section 703(a)(I) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). These unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited to, requiring that Mayra Arias and a class of Hispanic employees speak only English at work.
II. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 9 and 10 above has bccn to deprive Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic cmployees equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of thcir national origin.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9 and 10 above were and are intentional.
13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9 and 10 above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifferencc to the federally protected rights of Charging Parties and the class of similarly situated Hispanic employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Primps, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in cmployment practices which discriminate on the basis of national origin. B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant MAG, its officers, successors,
3

Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 1 Filed 08/11/2005 Page 4 of 6
assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in employment practiccs which discriminate on the basis of national origin.
C. Order Dcfcndant Primps to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Hispanics, and which eradicate the cffccts of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant MAG to institutc and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Hispanics, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
E. Ordcr Dcfendant Primps to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic cmployees adversely affected by the employment practices alleged above, by providing appropriate backpay with prcjudgment interest, in amounts to be determincd at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
F. Ordcr Defendant MAG to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees adversely alJected by the employmcnt practices alleged above, by providing appropriate backpay with prcjudgmcnt interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate thc effects of its unlawful employment practices.
G. Order Defendant Primps to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 9 and 10 abovc, in amounts to be determined at trial.
H. Order Defendant MAG to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, in amounts to be
4

Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 1 Filed 08/11/2005 Page 5 of 6
determined at trial. I. Order Defendant Primps to make wholc Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic
employees hy providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, including emolional pain, suffering, inconvcnience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
J. Order Defendant MAG to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic
employees by providing compensation lor past and future nonpccuniary losses resulting from lhe
unlawful practices complained of in paragraphS 9 and 10 above, including emotional pain, suffcring, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounls 10 be determincd at trial.
K. Order Defendant Primps 10 pay Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees punilive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct dcscribed in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, in amounts to be determined altria!'
L. Order Defendanl MAG to pay Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic cmployees punitivc damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, in amounts to bc determined at trial.
M. Grant such further relief as thc Court deems necessary and proper in the public inlerest.
N. Award the Commission its costs ofthis action.
5

Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 1 Filed 08/11/2005 Page 6 of 6
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, Eric Dreiband General Counsel James Lee Deputy General Counsel Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMTSSION
Supervisory Trial Attorney
a~
Ann Henry Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8558
6

 
 Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 28 Filed 01/31/2006 Page 1 of 7 Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 22-2 Filed 01125/2006 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JAN 31 Zoos

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

".01’sr Sr Cou r

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05 C 4592

PRIMPS L.L.C. D/B/A/SUPERCUTS AND MANAGEMENT ADVANTAGE GROUP, INC. OF ILLINOIS D/B/A/SUPERCUTS
Defendants.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin and to provide appropriate relief to Mayra Arias, Rosa Gonzalez, Blanca Sauceda (collectively referred to hereafter as "Charging Parties") and other employees of Hispanic national origin who were adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that Defendant Primps L.L.C. d/b/a/ Supercuts ("Primps") and Defendant Management Advantage Group, Inc. of Illinois d/b/a Supercuts ("MAG") discriminated against Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees by maintaining a policy requiring that employees speak only English.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 133t, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(0(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a ("Title VII").

Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 28 Filed 01/31/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 22-2 Filed 01/25f2006 Page 2 of 7
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(1) and(3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Primps has continuously been a limited liability company doing business in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and has continuously had at least 15 empIoyees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant MAG has continuously been a corporation doing business in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Primps has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g)and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e(b), (g) and (h). 7. At all relevant times, Defendant MAG has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Parties filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Supercuts (Defendants Primps

Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 28 Filed 01/31/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 22-2 Filed 01125/2006 Page 3 of 7
and MAG). All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 9. Since at least 2001, Defendant Primps has engaged in unlawful employment
practices at its facilities, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). These unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited to, requiring that Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees speak only English at work.
10. Since at least 2001, Defendant MAG has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). These unlawful employment practices include, but are not limited to, requiring that Mayra Arias and a class of Hispanic employees speak only English at work.
11. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 9 and 10 above has been to deprive Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their national origin.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9 and 10 above were and are intentional.
13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9 and 10 above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected fights of Charging Parties and the class of similarly situated Hispanic employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Primps, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the basis of national origin. B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant MAG, its officers, successors,

Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 28 Filed 01/31/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 22-2 Filed 01125f2006 Page 4 of 7
assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the basis of national origin.
C. Order Defendant Primps to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Hispanics, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
D. Order Defendant MAG to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for Hispanics, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
E. Order Defendant Primps to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees adversely affected by the employment practices alleged above, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
F. Order Defendant MAG to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees adversely affected by the employment practices alleged above, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices.
G. Order Defendant Primps to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
H. Order Defendant MAG to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, in amounts to be

Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 28 Filed 01/31

Page 5 of 7

Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 22-2 Filed 01t25/2006 Page 5 of 7

determined at trial. I. Order Defendant Primps to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic
employees by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, including emotional pain,

suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in arno,s to be determined

at trial, J.

i=: " Order Defendant MAG to make whole Charging Parties ~ a class of Hispanic

employees by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the

unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined

at trial. K. Order Defendant Primps to pay Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic
employees punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 9

and 10 above, in amounts to be determined at trial. L. Order Defendant MAG to pay Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees

punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 9 and 10 above,

in amounts to be determined at trial.

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest.

N. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 28 Filed 01/31/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 22-2 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 6 of 7
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on allquestions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
James Lee Deputy General Counsel
Gwendolyn Young Reams Associate General Counsel
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
1801 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507
s/John Hendrickson John Hendrickson ARDC # 1187589 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM/SSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Itlinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: j ohn.hendrickson@eeoc.gov
Attomey for Plaintiff
s/Diane I. Smason Diane I. Smason ARDC # 6626130 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-7526 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: diane.smason@eeoc.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff

~ocument
Case 1:05-cv-04592 Document 22-2 Filed 0112512006 Page 7 of 7
s/Ann M. Henry Ann M. Henry ARDC # 6272394 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Chicago District Office 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone: (312) 353-8558 Fax: (312) 353-8555 E-Mail: ann.henry@eeoc.gov
Attorney for Plaintiff

 
 ,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT 01<' ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQlJAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

and

)

)

ROSA GONZALEZ AND

)

BLANCA SAUCEDA,

)

)

Plaintiff-Intervenors,

)

)

v.

)

)

PRIMPS L.L.C. DIBIAI SUPERCUTS AND )

MANAGEMENT ADVANTAGE GROUP, INC.)

OF ILLNOIS OllIlA! SUPERCUTS

)

)

Defendants.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05 C 4592 JUDGE DARRAH MAGISTRATE JUDGE MASON

CONSENT DI<:CREE

THE LITIGATION

1. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC" or

"Commission") filed this action alleging that Defendants Primps L.L.C. d/b/a Supercuts and
or Management Advantage Group, Inc. Illinois d/b/a Supercuts (collectively "Supercuts")

discriminated against Rosa Gonzalez and Blanca Sauceda (collectively "Charging Parties") and a

class of IIispanic employees by maintaining a policy requiring that employees speak only

English, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act uf 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights

Act of 1991. Charging Parties Rosa Gonzalez ilnd Blanca Sauceda filed a complaint intervening

in the action. Supercuts filed Answers to these complaints denying that it maintained il policy

requiring that employees speak only English in violation of Title VII.

2. In the interest of resolving this matter, and as a result of comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties have agreed that this action should be finally resolved by entry of this Consent Decree. This Consent Decree fully and finally resolves any and all issues and claims by EEOC arising out of the Complaint filed by the EEOC on behalf of the Class Members and the Complaint liled by the Charging Parties in this action. The Consent Decree resolves any claims that were or could have been asserted in the Complaints against all Defendants and any of their successor and aC!lliated entities.
3. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be deemed to constitute an admission by any party with respect to the claims or defenses of any other.
FINDINGS 4. Having carerully examined the terms and provisions or this Consent Decree, and based on the pleadings, records, and stipulations of the parties, the Court finds the following:
a. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and of the parties.
b. The terms of this Consent Decree arc adequate, fair, reasonable, equitable and just. The rights of the parties, class members, and the public interest are adequately protected by this Consent Decree.
c. This Consent Decree conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title VII and is not in derogation of the rights or privileges of any person. The entry of this Consent Decree will further the objectives of Title VII and will be in the best interest of the parties, the class members, and the public.
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: INJUNCTION AGAINST RETALIATION
5. Supercuts, its officers, agents, employees, assigns, and aU other persons, acting in concert with jt shall not cngage in any form of unlawi'ul retaliation against any person because sueh pcrson has opposed any practice madc unlawful under Title VTl, filed a Charge of
Discrimination under Title vn, testified or participated in any manner or investigation,
proceeding, or hearing under Title VII, or asserted any rights under this decrec. MONETARY RELIEF
6. Defendant shall pay the aggregate sum of$5000.00, inclusive of attorney's fees and costs, to resolve this lawsuit. EEOC will mail a copy of a release agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit A) to each Charging Party and Class Member whom EEOC has previously identi fied to Defendants (collectively, "Class Memhers"). Each Class Member must execute and return a release agreement to EEOC. EEOC will then send the executed release agreements to Supercuts.
7. Within five (5) business days aller receipt by Supercuts ofthese release agreements, Supercuts shall issue checks by certified mail in accordance with the terms oi'the release agreements and send copies of the checks to EEOC.
DISPUTE RF:SOLUTION 8. In the ewnt that either party to this Consent Decree helieves that the other party has failed to comply with any provision(s) of the Consent Decree, the complaining party shall notify tl1e other party of the allegcd non-compliance and shall afford the alleged non-complying party ten (10) business days to remedy the non-compliance or to satisfy the complaining party that the alleged non-complying party has complied. If the alleged non-complying party has not remedied the alleged non-compliance or satisfied the complaining party that it has complied within ten (10) business days, the complaining party may apply to the court for appropriate
,
-'

relief. DURATION OF DECREE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
9. All provisions of this Consent Decree shall be in eni:ct (and the Court shall retain jurisdiction of'this matter to enforce this Consent Decree) for a period of one (I) year immediately following cntry of this Consent Decree provided that Defendants do not resume
If: conducting business as a Supercuts salon during that period. however, at the end of the one
(1) year period, any disputes under paragraph 9, above, remain unresolved, the terms of the Consent Decree shall be automatically extended (and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Consent Decree) until such time as all such disputes have been resolved.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 10. Each party to Ulis Consent Decree shall bear its own expenses, costs and attorney's fees.
II. The tenns of this Consent Decree arc and shall be binding upon the present and future representatives, agents, directors, officers and assigns or Supercuts.
12. When the terms or this Consent Decree require the submission by Supercuts of materials to the EEOC, they shall be mailed to: Supercuts Settlement, c/o Ann Henry, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, II, 60661. When this Consent Decree requires submissions by the EEOC of materials to Supercuts they shall be mailed to: Davi Hir~ch, Klein Dub & Holleb, Ltd., 660 LaSalle Place, Highland Park,IL 60035.
4

FAX NO.

Oct. 192006 11:14PM P2

. --~-------------,,-''' .,

ENTERED AND APPROVII,'J) IraQ,
'1'01' Iho HQUAL EMPLOYMIlNT OPPORTlJNITY COMMISSION
1801 L 811",:1, N.W.
WSlihinp,lon. D.C. 20~07
RONAI.U coorr::R
General Counsel
JAMES I.KR {Jep1'ty C;"n~r"1 Cnun.cl
GWENDOLYN YOUNG Rb:AMS ASIi()ciall! O"".ral Counsel

Fo! PlUMPS and MANA(JI,I.MJiNT Af)VANTMln ,nOlll'.1NC.01'
::11.- ---
Klein 1)1111 & I'lolloh, I.td. M() L~Ss.l1c PI",," Highl..,d 1'.,,.k, II. 6()()35
(847) 681-9100

.. -_....

'"

-.-.-~.

KAMRAN MEMON

200 Soul11 MlchillM i\veOllO, Suit. 1240

Chicago, IL 60604

I

liNTER:

,

,.-.J ... . /
,...... , -

{'
~

I......

~-

...

,.-5"'- t>f:,

i.)ate

EXHIBIT A

1, _ _ _ __

RELEASE AGREEMENT in consideralion for $ __________ paid to me by

Primps, L.L.c. and Managemenl Advantage Group, Inc., in conneclion with the resolution of ro~EOC v. Primps. L.LC. d/b/a Supercllts and Management Advantage Group of Jllinois, Inc.

d/b/a Supercuts, 05 C 4592 (N.D, 111.), waive my right to recover fi,)r any claims of nalional

origin discrimination arising under Tille VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., that I had against Primps, L.L.C. d/b/a Supercuts and Management

Advanlage Group of Illinois, Inc. d/b/a Supercllts prior to the date of this rekase and that were

included in the claims alleged in EEOC's complaint in EEOC v. Primps, L.L.c. d/b/a Superculs

and Management Advantage Group ofIJIinois, Inc. d/b/a Supercuts, 05 C 4592 (N.D. Ill).

Date: _ _ _ _ _ __

Signature: _ ..........."_.__________.__".~_

 
 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 1 of 6

CLOSED, MASON
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-cv-04592

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Primps L.L.C. Assigned to: Honorable John W. Darrah Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 08/11/2005 Date Terminated: 10/25/2006 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Ann M Henry Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 W. Madison Street 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312)353-8558 Email: ann.henry@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diane Ilene Smason United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7568 Email: diane.smason@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeanne B. Szromba United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-7546 Email: jeanne.szromba@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Hendrickson United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 500 West Madison Street Suite 2800

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?703838220398993-L_353_0-1

6/6/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 2 of 6

V. Defendant Primps L.L.C. doing business as Supercuts and Management Advantage Group, Inc. doing business as Supercuts, Inc.
Intervenor Plaintiff Rosa Gonzalez
Intervenor Plaintiff Blanca Sauceda

Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 353-8551 Fax: (312) 353-8555 Email: john.hendrickson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Davi Lynn Hirsch Klein, Dub & Holleb, Limited 660 LaSalle Place Highland Park, IL 60035 (847) 681-9100 Email: dhirsch@labor-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kamran A. Memon Law Offices of Kamran Memon 200 South Michigan Avenue Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 961-2354 Email: discrimination@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kamran A. Memon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/11/2005 08/11/2005 08/11/2005
09/01/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Jury Demand.(cdy, ) (Entered: 08/12/2005)

2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (cdy, ) (Entered: 08/12/2005)

3 ATTORNEY appearance for plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by John C. Hendrickson, Ann M Henry, Diane Ilene Smason (cdy, ) (Entered: 08/12/2005)

4 MINUTE entry before Judge John W. Darrah : Status hearing set for 10/12/2005 at 09:00 a.m. Docketing to mail notices. Mailed notice (cdy, ) (Entered: 09/02/2005)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?703838220398993-L_353_0-1

6/6/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 3 of 6

09/08/2005 09/08/2005 10/05/2005 10/12/2005
10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/17/2005 11/10/2005 11/10/2005
11/17/2005
12/14/2005 12/14/2005 12/14/2005

5 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Primps L.L.C. waiver sent on 8/18/2005, answer due 10/17/2005. (cdy, ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
6 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Primps, L.L.C. d/b/a Supercuts waiver sent on 8/18/2005, answer due 10/17/2005. (cdy, ) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
7 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 10/05/2005)
8 MINUTE entry before Judge John W. Darrah : Status hearing held. Discovery ordered closed on 6/30/2006. Dispositive motions to be filed in open court on 7/25/2006 at 9:00 a.m. Pretrial conference set for 10/25/2006 at 01:30 p.m. Jury Trial set for 10/30/2006 at 09:00 a.m. (mjc, ) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
9 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Primps L.L.C., Primps L.L.C., Primps L.L.C. by Davi Lynn Hirsch (Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
10 ANSWER to Complaint by Primps L.L.C.(Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
11 NOTICE by all defendants re answer to complaint10, attorney appearance9 (Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
12 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Jeanne B. Szromba (Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
13 MOTION by Rosa Gonzalez, Blanca Sauceda to intervene (gma, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/10/2005 (gma, ). (Entered: 11/10/2005)
14 NOTICE of Motion by Rosa Gonzalez, Blanca Sauceda for presentment of MOTION by Rosa Gonzalez, Blanca Sauceda to intervene 13 before Honorable John W. Darrah on 11/17/2005 at 09:00 AM. (gma, ) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
15 MINUTE entry before Judge John W. Darrah : Motion by Rosa Gonzalez and Blanca Sauceda to intervene as party plaintiffs 13 is granted. Responsive pleadings to be filed by 12/15/05. Defendant to provide plaintiff with materials stated in open Court by 12/15/05. Status hearing set for 1/26/06 at 9:00 a.m. for scheduling. (mjc, ) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
16 Amended ANSWER to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Primps L.L.C.(Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
17 NOTICE by Primps L.L.C. re answer to complaint16 of Filing (Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
18 ANSWER to Complaint of Intervenors by Primps L.L.C.(Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 12/14/2005)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?703838220398993-L_353_0-1

6/6/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 4 of 6

12/14/2005 12/29/2005 01/13/2006 01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/30/2006 01/31/2006
01/31/2006 02/10/2006 02/13/2006 03/10/2006

19 NOTICE by Primps L.L.C. re answer to complaint18 by Intervenors (Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
20 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 11/17/05; Before the Honorable John W. Darrah. (mjc, ) (Entered: 01/03/2006)
21 MINUTE entry before Judge John W. Darrah : Status hearing set for 1/26/06 is re-set to 1/31/06 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (maf, ) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
22 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for leave to file First Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed First Amended Complaint)(Henry, Ann) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
23 NOTICE of Motion by Ann M Henry for presentment of motion for leave to file22 before Honorable John W. Darrah on 1/31/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
24 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for order to show cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held In Contempt (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D)(Henry, Ann) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
25 NOTICE of Motion by Ann M Henry for presentment of motion for order to show cause, 24 before Honorable John W. Darrah on 1/31/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
26 RESPONSE to Motion For Order to Show Cause and Motion For a Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.26(c) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A to Resp. to Mo. to Show Cause# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B-D Resp. to Mo. to Show Cause# 3)(Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
27 MINUTE entry before Judge John W. Darrah : Status hearing held. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, instanter, 22 is granted. Response by 2/28/06. The pending rule to show cause why defendant should not be held in contempt of Court is denied without prejudice with leave to re-file. Defendant to turn over documents in compliance with this Court's order, instanter. Defendant's motion for a protective order is briefed as follows: response by 2/10/06, no reply needed, ruling by mail. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
28 FIRST AMENDED complaint by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Primps L.L.C. (mjc, ) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
29 RESPONSE to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Barnes v. Julien J. Studley# 2 Exhibit EEOC v. Midwestern Distrib., Inc.)(Henry, Ann) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
30 ANSWER to amended complaint First Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Primps L.L.C. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
31 ATTORNEY Appearance for Blanca Sauceda and Rosa Gonzalez by Kamran A. Memon (Memon, Kamran) Modified on 3/10/2006 (rbf, ).

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?703838220398993-L_353_0-1

6/6/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 5 of 6

03/29/2006
05/12/2006 05/12/2006 05/24/2006 05/24/2006 06/01/2006 08/17/2006 08/17/2006 08/18/2006 08/28/2006 09/12/2006

(Entered: 03/10/2006)
32 MINUTE entry before Judge John W. Darrah : Currently before the Court is the defendant's motion for a protective order, which seeks to require plaintiff's counsel to submit to the Court and defendant's counsel certain proposed written communications with members of the plaintiff class. The Court may not exercise its power to prohibit communication with plaintiff class "without a specific record showing by the moving party of the particular abuses by which it is threatened." Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 (1981), citing Coles v. Marsh, 560 F.2d 186 (3rd Cir. 1977). The defendant fails to meet this burden. Thus, the defendant's motion for a protective order is denied. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
33 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for protective order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Henry, Ann) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
34 NOTICE of Motion by Ann M Henry for presentment of motion for protective order33 before Honorable John W. Darrah on 5/24/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Henry, Ann) (Entered: 05/12/2006)
35 MINUTE entry before Judge John W. Darrah : Parties agreed motion for entry of a protective order 33 is granted. Enter agreed protective order. Discovery is extended to 9/29/06. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
36 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge John W. Darrah on 5/24/2006.(mjc, ) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
38 MOTION by Defendant Primps L.L.C. to withdraw Agreed Motion to Withdraw Advertent Filing from Record (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing Notice of Filing# 2 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service) (Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
39 NOTICE of Motion by Davi Lynn Hirsch for presentment of (Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
40 MOTION by Defendant Primps L.L.C. for discovery Agreed Motion to Extend Discovery Cut-off Date (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing) (Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
41 NOTICE of Motion by Davi Lynn Hirsch for presentment of motion for discovery40 before Honorable John W. Darrah on 8/24/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
42 Amended NOTICE of Motion by Davi Lynn Hirsch for presentment of motion for discovery40 before Honorable John W. Darrah on 9/12/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Hirsch, Davi) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
43 MINUTE entry before Judge John W. Darrah : Parties agreed motion to extend discovery cutoff is denied [40,41,42]. Defendant's agreed motion to withdraw inadvertent filing from the record is granted [38,39]. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 09/20/2006)

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?703838220398993-L_353_0-1

6/6/2007

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket Report

Page 6 of 6

10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/25/2006 10/25/2006

44 MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to approve consent judgment (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Consent Decree)(Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
45 NOTICE of Motion by Jeanne B. Szromba for presentment of motion to approve consent judgment44 before Honorable John W. Darrah on 10/25/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Szromba, Jeanne) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
46 MINUTE entry before Judge John W. Darrah : Enter Consent Decree. Case closed. Pretrial conference set for 10/25/06 and jury trial set for 10/30/06 is vacated. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (rp, ) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
47 CONSENT DECREE Signed by Judge John W. Darrah on 10/25/2006. (rp, ) (Entered: 10/27/2006)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

06/06/2007 10:28:49

hs0328

Client Code:

Docket Report Search Criteria:

3

Cost:

eeoc 1:05-cv-04592 0.24

https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?703838220398993-L_353_0-1

6/6/2007

 
 Two Federal Courts: EEOC Can Correspond with Class Members in Lawsuits Without In... Page 1 of 2

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 31, 2006

CONTACT: John C. Hendrick EEOC Regional At (312) 353-8551

Diane Smason EEOC Supervisory (312) 353-7526

TTY:

Ann Henry EEOC Trial Attor (312) 353-8558 (312) 353-2421

TWO FEDERAL COURTS: EEOC CAN CORRESPOND WITH CLASS MEMBERS IN
LAWSUITS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE
Judges in Supercuts 'English Only' and FIM Sexual Harassment Cases Reject Employers' Efforts to Review Letters in Advance
CHICAGO - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced this afternoon that it has secured two rulings assuring that the EEOC can continue to correspond with victims of employment discrimination in lawsuits without submitting such letters in advance to either the courts or attorneys for employers.
John Hendrickson, the EEOC regional attorney in Chicago, said, "When the EEOC has brought a lawsuit challenging an employer's discrimination against multiple applicants or employees, we often want to reach potential victims through mass mailings. That's a big part of the process of identifying actual victims, gathering evidence, and measuring damages."
However, Hendrickson said employers often attempt to interfere in the process by insisting on advance review of such letters by the courts and by employers' attorneys. "So to get two rulings on the same day, as we have this week, that we can reach out to potential class members in our cases and reach out without interference is very significant to us. It means our prospects for identifying real victims of discrimination and gathering genuinely reliable evidence in these cases are excellent."
The March 29 rulings came in two separate class action lawsuits being litigated by the EEOC. One was made by U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah in EEOC v. Primps L.L.C. d/b/a Supercuts, N.D. Illinois No. 05 C 4592, a case in which the agency is challenging a "speak-English-only" rule in the defendant's hair salons.
Judge Darrah wrote: "[Supercuts'] Motion . . . seeks to require [EEOC] to submit to the Court and [Supercuts'] counsel certain proposed written communications with members of the Plaintiff class. The Court may not exercise its power to prohibit communications with Plaintiff class 'without a specific record showing by the moving party of the particular abuses by which it is threatened.' Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 (1981), citing Coles v. Marsh, 560 F.2d 186 (3d Cir. 1977). The Defendant

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-31-06.html

6/6/2007

Two Federal Courts: EEOC Can Correspond with Class Members in Lawsuits Without In... Page 2 of 2
fails to meet this burden. Thus, the Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order is denied."
The other ruling was by U.S. Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown in EEOC v. Fun in Motion, Inc., N.D. Illinois No. 05 C 6889, a sexual harassment case brought by the EEOC against a retail distributor of swimming pools, spas, patio furniture, and other recreational supplies under the name "FIM." In that case also, the employer sought defense counsel and court review of EEOC letters to class members. Judge Soat Brown, having found there were no specific facts supporting the employer's assertion of a need for a protective order, denied FIM's motion.
EEOC Trial Attorney Ann Henry, who, along with Hendrickson and Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason, is litigating the Supercuts and FIM cases, said, "These are the kinds of rulings that may, at first, seem highly technical and not particularly important. But our experience is exactly the reverse. They make a substantive difference and a big one because they enable us to reach workers who really have suffered discrimination and who are, under our statutes, entitled to be made whole."
The Supercuts case was filed in federal district court in Chicago on August 11, 2005. The FIM case was filed in the same Court on December 7, 2005.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the nation's laws prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, color, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), religion, national origin, age, disability, and retaliation. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
This page was last modified on March 31, 2006.
Return to Home Page

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-31-06.html

6/6/2007

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRI.CT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION, ROSA GONZALEZ, AND )

BLANCA SAUCEDA,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

PRIMPS L.L.c. D/B/AI SUPERCUTS AND )

MANAGEMENT ADVANTAGE GROUP, INC. )

llIBIAI SUPERCUTS

)

)

Defeudants.

)

)

05 C 4592

NOV 1 0 2005
MICHAEL W. 99111NS
OWl., U••• DI.fRIOf ClOyftf

Judge Darrah

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

INTERVENORS' COMPLAINT

Rosa GonzaleF. and Blanca Sauceda. lhrough their attorney, Kamran Memon, complain of

Defendant Primps L.L.c. (Vb/a! Supercuts and Defendanl Management Advantage Group, Tnc.

d/b/a Supercuts as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Tille VTT of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

Rights Act of 1991 10 correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin and

(0 provide appropriate relief 10 Mayra Arias, Rosa Gonzalez, Blanca Sauceda (collectively

referred to hereafter as "Charging Parties") and other employees of Hispanic national origin who

were adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Primps L.L.C. d/b/a/

Supercuts ("Primps") and Defendant Management Advantage Group, Tnc. d/b/a Supercuts

("MAG") discriminated against Rosa Gonzalez, Blanca Sauceda, Charging Parties and a class of

Hispanic employees by maintaining a policy requiring that employees speak only English. In

addition, Plaintiffs Rosa Gonzalez and Blanca Sauceda bring claims for ancestry discriminalion

under 42 U.S.c. § 1981 against Defendant Primps LL.C. dib/a! Supercuts ("Primps") hecause Primps maintained a policy requiring that employees speak only English.
JURTSDTCTION ANI~_yENUE 1. Jurisdiction or this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(£)(1) and (3) of
Title VTT or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and
Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of1991, 42 U.S.c. § 1981a ("Title VTT"). 2. The employment practices alleged to he unlawful were and are now being
committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court Ihr Northern District or Illinois, Eastern Division.
P_ . A.R.Tl-E--S3. Intervenors Rosa Gonzalez and Blanca Sauceda are the aggrieved parties in tllis action ami assert this action on their own behalf. 4. Plaintin; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to hring this action by Section 706( I) alld(3) ofTitle VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(1)(1) and (3). 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Primps has continuously heen a limited liability company doing husiness in the Northern District of TIIinois, Eastern Division, and has continuously had at least IS employees. 6. At all relevant limes, Defendant MAG has continuously been a corporation doing husiness in the Northern District of lIlinois, Eastern Division, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
2

7. At all relevant times, Defendant PIimps has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 V.S.c. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
8. At all relevant times, Defendant MAG has continuously been an employer
engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) or
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h). STATEMENT OFJ;;LAlMS
9. More than thirty days prior to tile institution of this lawsuit, Charging Parties filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title Vll by Supercuts (Defendants Primps and MAG). All conditions precedent to the institution ofthis lawsuit have been fulfilled.
10. Since at least 2001, Defendant Primps has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities, in violation of Section 703(a)(I) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(I), and 42 U.S.c. § 1981. These unlawful employment practicesinelude, but are not limited to, requiring that Rosa Gonzalez, Blanca Sauceda, Charging Palties, and a class of Hispallic employees speak only English at work.
11. Since at least 2001, Defendant MAG has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its facilities, in violation of Section 703(a)(I) of Tine VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-2(a)(I). These unlawful employment practices inchlde, but are not limited to, requiring that Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees speak only English at work.
12. The effcct of the practices complained of in paragraphs 10 and 11 above has been to deprive Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of Iheir national origin and allceslry.
3

•
13. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 10 and 11 above were and are intentional.
14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 10 and 11 above were and arc done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protccted rights of Charging Parties and the class of similarly sitllatcd Hispanic employees.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Rosa Gonzalez, Blanca Sauceda, and the Commission respectfully request that (his Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Def~ndant Primps, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active conccrt or participation with it, from engaging in enlployment practices which discriminate on the basis of national origin and ancestry. B. Grant a pemla.nent inj unction enjoining Dcfendant MAG, its officers, Sllccessors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in employment practices which discriminate on the basis of national origin. C. Order Defendant Primps «)institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities lar Hispanics, and which eradicate the effects of its past and presentllnlawful employment practices. D. Order Defendant MAG to institute and carry Ollt policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employmcnt opportunities lor Hispanics, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present un lawful employment practices. E. Order Defendant Primps to make whole Charging Parties and a class 0 i' Hispanic employees adversely alTected by the employment practices alleged above, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be detemlined al trial, and other
4

arfirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlaw lui employment practices. F. Order Delendant MAG to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic
employees adversely affected by the employment practices alleged above, by providing appropriate backpay with prej udgment interest, in amounts to be detennined at trial, and other aflirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawl'ul employment practices.
G. Order Defendant Primps to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees by providing compeMation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, in anlOunts to he determined at trial.
H. Order Delendant MAG to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting Irom the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, in amounts to be detemlined at trial.
1. Order Defendant Primps to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees hy providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlaw lill practices complained of in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be dctemlincd at trial.
1. Order Defendant MAG to make whole Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic cmployees by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the ll11lawful practices complained of in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, inclllding emotional pain, suffering, inconvenicnce, loss of enjoyment of life, and hUll1iliation, in amounts to be delemlined at trial.
5

.,

K. Order Defendant Primps to pay Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees puniti vc damages lor its malicious and reckless conduct descrihed in paragraphs 10

and 11 above. in amounts (0 be determined at trial. L. Order Defendant MAG to pay Charging Parties and a class of Hispanic employees
punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 10 and 11 above, in amounts to he determined at tnal.
M. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest. N.

Award Rosa Gonzalez and Blanca Sallceda attomey's fees and costs in this action,

and award the Commission its costs ofthis action. WRY TRIAL DEMAND

Rosa Gonzalez, Blanca Sauceda, and the Commission request a jury trial on all questions

offacl raised by their complaints.

Respectfully submitted,

Kamran Memon 200 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 1240 Chicago, TL 60604 (312) 961-2354

- _.. _ - -
Attomey for Intervenors

6