IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KATHARlNE BUSH, 2212 Great Falls Street Falls Church, VA 22048,
MELIA WILDER (NEE STOPA), 14611 Willow Creek Drive Centreville, VA 20120
and
SHELL Y GOOREVICH 250 South Reynolds Street Apartment 308 Alexandria, VA 22304
Plaintiffs,
v.
RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC. 400 International Parkway Suite 325 Heathrow, FL 32746
and
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. 400 International Parkway Suite 325
Heathrow, FL 32746

-
Case: 1:10-cv-01721 .

'2 ~~. ......

Q AssiQned To Walton,Rgggie ~ ..~ .

Assig~. ~ate : 10181201 ~4

~

Descnptlon: Employ Distr.fm. ~

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

COMPLAINT Plaintiffs KATHARINE BUSH ("Bush"), MELIA WILDER (NEE STOPA) ("Wilder"), and SHELL Y GOOREVICH ("G()()fevich") (collectively "Plaintiffs"), allege and statc as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1.

Plaintiffs are women who were employed by Ruth's Chris Steak House, Inc.

("RCSH") and/or Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. ("RHG") (referred to collectively herein as

"RCSH"), a large chain of upscale steak houses in the United States and internationally. RCSH

was founded in the mid-1960's by an entrepreneurial woman, Ruth Fertel (1927-2002), who

having founded and grown a leading restaurant chain, personally broke many barriers and the

glass ceiling for women in the restaurant industry. Notwithstanding this history, in recent years

the Company has developed a culture in which conduct demeaning and hostile to women is

widely practiced and accepted and a pattern and practice of discrimination against female

employees in the terms and conditions of employment, inchHiing, ;nter aha, discriminatory

compensation, termination, and retaliation.

2.

Plaintiffs each perfonned their job with high levels of skill, dedication, and

success. Nonetheless, they were each discriminated against by RCSH because of their gender

''lith respect to the tenus nnd conditions of their empluYlIlellt, in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. §§2000e, et seq., and as to Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder, the

District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code § 2-1401, et seq.

3.

RCSH's violations are systemic and constitute a pattern and practice of illegal

conduct over many years that continues to the present.

2

4.

As a result of these practices, the statistical evidence available to Plaintiffs as of

December of2007, showed the following gender breakdown in employment at certain leadership

positions at the rnmpany:

Executive level 14% women (1/7)

Corporate Vice President 14% women (3/22)

General Manager - 8% women (5/61)

Chef - 3% women (2161)

5.

Ascension to Senior Management is primarily viable through the Operations

sector, but women were systemically channeled out of Operations. As of December 2007, there

were very few women in feeder positions:

Senior Manager/Assistant General Manager: 9% women (2/23)

Manager: 21 % women (23/1 09)

Assistant/Sous Chef: 2% women (l/53)

7. The 2009 Annual Report shows that the Management Team at RCSH is

comRrised of all males and the seven-person Board of Directors has just one woman Director.

8. Data available as of December of 2007 showed that only 8% of employees

eligible for stock options were females.

9. The practices that RCSH engages in that discriminate on the basis of sex are

summarized as:

a. Discriminatioll ill Compellsatio11: RCSH leaders, who are

predominantly male, are given a great deal of discretion in determining salaries, raises,

and bonuses. As a result afReSH's excessively subjective compensation practices,

women who are equally or more qualified than malc employees who perform the same

3

jobs are frequently compensated at a lower rate than comparable males. For example, Ms. Bush was a highly successful employee who had significantly greater experience than Erie Ostrow, a male, and hnd 5crvcd d5 n 5dk:'! lllCtIlCtgtT (il kasl as long as !VIr. Ostrow. When Mr. Ostrow and Ms. Bush both held the position of Sales Manager, RCSH consistently paid Mr. Ostrow a higher salary. In each year, from 2004 to 2005, RCSH paid Mr. Ostrow a base salary that was over $10,000 higher than Ms. Bush's base salary. In January ot 2006, Ms. Bush and Mr. Ostrow, were both promoted to the position of National Sales Manager. Despite her greater experience and being promoted to the same position at approximately the same time, RCSH gave Mr. Ostrow a compensation package that included a 3% local sales commission and an assistant, compensated at approximate $40,000 per year, who would further increase his commission-based compensation. Thus, despite the fact that RCSH gave Ms. Bush a higher base salary than Mr. Ostrow ($13,000 more in base salary), Mr. Ostrow's total salary for 2006 was more than $20,000 higher than Ms. Bush's.
b. Discrimination in Promotion: RCSH does not provide all of its employees with fair and equal opportunities for career advancement. Prior to May of 2008, the Company did not employ any proactive job posting policy. Although the Company maintained an internal internet portal for job postings, the Company did not post available positions on a regular and uniform basis. Many available jobs were never posted, and others were posted even though a person has already been hand-picked for the position. On or about May of 2008, the Company purportedly instituted a formal job posting policy. However. that policy contains many sllhjective elements and managers and other supervisory employees are given great discretion as to whether positions are
4

posted. As a result of such practices, numerous available positions within the Company are filled via an infonnal, "tap on the shoulder" process in which predominately male managers cherry-pick othcr male employee:>. Thb informal process lacks open competition between all qualified candidates and the selection process is highly subjective and open to manipulation.
c. "Glass Ceiling": Female employees at RCSH are faced with a "glass cellmg" on their paths to career advancement. Few women advance to senior levels in the Company, although women are more highly represented in the lower ranks of the workforce. Currently, no women serve on the senior Management Team, the group charged with running the operations ofthe Company and developing its business strategy. Since the Company's founder, Ruth Fertel, ceased running the Company, very few women have served on the Management Team.
d. "Glass Walls": In additional to erecting barriers to vertical advancement in the Company, female employees at RCSH are segregated into less lucrative and prestigious departments within the Company. For example, very few women are in the traditional "feeder" positions in the Operations department which generally lead to promotion to upper management. Women are underrepresented in the positions of Assistant General Manager/Senior Manager, Sous/Assistant Chef, and Manager. Similarly, there is a dearth offemale employees in the positions of General Manager and Chef: the next rung on the employment ladder. On the contrary, women are more highly represented in other less lucrative and less powerful departments within the Company, such as Human Resources.
5

e. Failure to Monitor or Remedy Discrimination: RCSH's senior management, including its Human Resources Department, has failed to monitor the Company's promotion and compensation pn:t~li~t:s for a discriminatory effect. In light of this failure, female employees are subjected to ongoing harm.
/. RCSH's Male Dominated Culture Demeans Women: The work environment at RCSH is one that is demeaning to women, reflects a culture of male domination and temale subjugation, and is a causative factor in the discrimination against women in compensation, promotion, and tennination. Female employees at RCSH are frequently subjected to sexually hostile and demeaning treatment. This includes, but is not limited to, unwelcome sexually charged "jokes" and commentary, name~calling and physical touching. Senior management has both participated in creating this environment and been aware of many instances of it. Nonetheless, RCSH's management has not taken reasonable steps to change the environment. Thus, RCSH essentially endorses this hostile environment for women employees. For example, on or about May of2006, Plaintiff Bush was on a phone call with RCSH Regional Vice President Joe O'Donnell. Due to poor reception, Ms. Bush was having difficulty hearing O'Donnell. She told him that she could not hear him because he was "coming in and out." In response, Mr. O'Donnell told Ms. Bush that she "w[asn't] complaining last night." PlaintiffGoorevich was told, by a male RCSH employee who regularly harassed her, that she was his "cum bucket."
g. Women are Disciplined More Harshly than Men: RCSH imposes harsher discipline, including the ultimate form of discipline, tennination, on female employees than male employees. For instance, Plaintiff Bush was purportedly terminated
6

for using "profanity" in an e-mail; namely, the word "prick." However, male

employees-including top management at the Company-regularly use similar, and in

most cases, more offensive and profane language. for instance, a RCSH l;urpuntl~ Vil:~

President sent an e-mail to all of the company management telling them to have an "ass-

kicking Valentine's Day." Another male employee, Mohammad Fakhara, has been

nicknamed "Mo-Fucker" by his co-workers and is regularly called this profane name by

his colleagues and superiors alike. Another male leader-a former Regional Vice

President-instructed his employees to hire some "T&A [tits and ass]" to work as

bartenders at a Company restaurant location. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder witnessed

various conversations amongst male leaders in which they discussed which female

employee of the Company would "give the best blow job." In short, extreme public

vulgarity is condoned by RCSH leaders-and used by the leaders themselves-so long as

the vulgarity is used by male, not female, employees. Furthermore, male employees who

have committed much more egregious violations have not been terminated from their

employment. Male managers, including top leadership, have regularly been extremely

intoxicated at Company functions, carried on sexual affairs with female subordinates, and

have stolen from the Company, but have not been terminated.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4), which

confers original jurisdiction upon this Court in a civil action to recover damages or to secure

equitable relief or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for protection of civil rights;

pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 133 L which confers originaljurisdiction upon this Court in a civil action arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States; and pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1337,

7

which confers original jurisdiction upon this court in a civil action arising under any Act of

Congress regulating commerce.

11.

This court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1367 over the

claims brought pursuant to state and local laws prohibiting gender discrimination in employment.

12. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because

Defendants have locations, and conduct business, in the District of Columbia. Many of the acts

(';omplained of occurred in the Vistnct ot Columbia and give rise to the claims alleged.

PARTIES

13. Katharine Bush is a female adult citizen, and is a resident of Falls Church,

Virginia. Ms. Bush was employed by RCSH from September 1998 to March 2007 at one of its

locations in the District of Columbia.

14. Melia Wilder is a female adult citizen, and is a resident of Centreville, Virginia.

Ms. Wilder was employed by RCSH from October 2002 to March 2007 at one of its locations in

the District of Columbia as well as its Fairfax, Virginia location.

15. Shelly Goorevich is a female adult citizen, and is a resident of Alexandria,

Virginia. Ms. Goorevich was employed by RCSH from February 2001 to August 2009 at its

Arlington, Virginia location.

16. RCSH was founded in 1965 in New Orleans, Louisiana by Ruth Fertel, a single

mother at the time, who mortgaged her home to buy the Company's first steakhouse restaurant.

RCSH began to expand in 1972, when Ms. Fertel opened a second restaurant in Metairie,

Louisiana.

8

17.

RCSH opened its first franchise in 1976. Many additional restaurants were

opened as the Company grew and, in August of2005, the RCSH went public, selling shares of its

COI1l1I1OII ::;tvl.,;k VII thl: Nasdaq Global Select Market.

18.

In February of2008, RCSH acquired Mitchell's Fish Market, which operated

restaurants under the names Mitchell's Fish Market and Columbus Fish Market. At that same

time, RCSH also acquired restaurants operating under the names Cameron's Steakhouse and

Mitchell's Steakhouse from Cameron Mitchell Restaurants, LLC.

19.

In May of2008, RCSH changed its name from Ruth's Chris Steak House, Inc.

to Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. The Company now considers RHG to be the parent company

ofRCSH.

20.

As of December of2009, there were 130 Ruth's Chris Steak House restaurants

located throughout the country and the world. Of those restaurants, about half are owned by

RHG and the other half are owned by franchisees, including franchisee-owned restaurants in

Aruba, Canada, China (Hong Kong), Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates.

21.

RHG employs approximately 5,600 people. Of those employees, approximately

475 are salaried employees and the remainder are hourly personnel.

22.

For 2009, RHG reported revenues of over $330 million, net income of

approximately $2.4 million, and assets of approximately $254 million.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

23.

Plaintiffs have each filed timely charges of discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and applicable state andlor local agencies

alleging, among other things, gender discrimination against RCSH with respect to the

9

compensation, promotion, harassment, and termination offemale employees in violation of Title

VII and applicable state and/or local civil rights laws.

24.

Plaintiff Bush filed a charge of scx discrimination with tht: EEOC and the

District of Columbia Human Rights Commission on July 3, 2007. She received her Right to Sue

notice on July 13, 2010. Plaintiff Bush has exhausted all administrative remedies.

25.

Plaintiff Wilder filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC and the

District ofCululIlbia Human Rights CommIssIOn on July 3, 2007. She received her Right to Sue

notice on July 19, 2010. Plaintiff Wilder has exhausted all administrative remedies.

26.

Plaintiff Goorevich filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC and the

Arlington County Human Rights Commission on October 30, 2008. She received her Right to

Sue notice on July 19,2010. Plaintiff Goorevich has exhausted all administrative remedies.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

27.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-26 above.

28.

Since at least September of 2006, RCSH has denied equal employment

opportunities to its female employees. RCSH has engaged in a pattern and practice of gender

discrimination with respect to the compensation, promotion, and termination of female

employees from its lower-level management and chef positions to higher level positions with

more authority and higher compensation. RCSH's pattern and practice of gender discrimination

extends to other terms and conditions of employment of its female employees, including, but not

limited to the provision of staff support and mentoring and networking opportunities made

available through male-only company-approved retreats with Company leaders.

29.

Female salaried employees at RCSH are discriminated again"t on the basis of

gender with respect to career advancement in the Company.

10

30.

By entrusting RCSH corporate leaders, virtually all of whom are men, with

excessive discretion in promotion decisions, RCSH maintains a system whereby the corporate

ku\.krt; apply thdr own personal preferences and biases in making promotion decisions.

31.

Promotions are made on a "tap on the shoulder" basis and are generally given to

male employees who are members of the "old boys' network."

32.

For example, the Company underwent reorganization in 2003. The result of

that reorganization was to channel women out of upper level positions. Female representation in

upper management in Operations decreased from 25% (pre-reorganization) to 17% (at

reorganization) to 0% in 2007.

33.

As part of the reorganization, female employees were moved out of Operations:

After the 2003 reorganization, the only remaining female Regional Vice President, Lanette

Jarvis, was demoted and moved out of Operations. Jarvis was replaced by Susan Lumb, but in

late 2005, she too was moved out of Operations into Education-leaving zero high-ranking

females in Operations at that time.

34.

Such subjective decision-making is made possible, in part, by RCSH's lack of a

proactive job posting policy or practice.

35.

Although the Company maintained a website which allowed for job posting,

many job openings were never posted or advertised in any way. As such, Plaintiffs often only

learned of available positions once they had already been filled by male employees.

36.

RCSH also employs testing procedures as part of its hiring and promotion

processes. Specifically, the Company uses testing created by Batrus Hollweg, as well as other

te<;ting mMerials available on the internet.

II

37.

The Company maintains such test results in the personnel files of its employees

and takes such test scores into account in making its hiring and promotion decisions.

38.

Por ch:amvk, <luring the interview process, current and/or prospective

employees must complete a Balrus Hollweg "assessment" test. The employee's advancement in

the hiring and/or promotion process may be continued or discontinued based on the results of

such assessment.

39.

The Batrus Hollweg testing potentially contributes to barriers to advancement

for female employees at the company.

40.

Advancement by female employees at the Company is also curtailed by

numerous SUbjective aspects of the decision-making process.

41.

For instance, male superiors can unilaterally truncate such advancement.

42.

Hourly employees seeking to advance to salaried management positions must

first be chosen as a "certified coach" by their general managers, who are predominantly male.

Once selected as a "coach" and given pennission by their General Manager, they must also

receive pennission to seek promotion from the Regional Vice President ("RVP"), a position also

predominantly held by men. And, even assuming they receive this pennission, the RVP or other

superior may later discontinue the application process at more than one juncture.

43.

For female employees seeking higher level management or corporate position",

such as RVP, there is virtually no process or procedure and selections are made almost entirely

on a subjective basis.

44.

Furthennore, female employees of RCSH are excluded from networking

opportunities availahle only to men. Such networking opportunities arc crucial in advancing

one's chances for promotion.

12

45. For example, for several years while the Plaintiffs werc employed with the Company, male RCSH corporate leaders (Regional Vice Presidents, Corporate Vice Presidents, and Executivc::;) havt: attt:nded a corporate retreat sponsored by eIther KCSH or one of its vendors. These corporate retreats have taken place in Scotland, England, and Ireland.
46. In addition to networking, the retreats are an opportunity for Company leaders to conduct business discussions amongst themselves and with vendors, as well as to socialize with one another and with vendor representatives and executives. These retreats are opportunities for employees to build relationships with co*workers, superiors and vendors, which are essential to career advancement at RCSH.
47. Women have been entirely excluded from these retreats. In fact, male corporate leaders often refer to the retreat as the "guys' trip."
48. As a result of exclusion from these Company retreats, female employees are denied the same opportunity provided to male employees to develop and build career advancing relationships within the Company.
49. Female salaried employees have also experienced discrimination with respect to compensation in the form of salary, bonuses, and stock options.
50. Initially, the channeling of females into lower paying departments has resulted in females receiving less pay than comparable males.
51. RCSH has established and maintains a compensation system wherein male corporate leaders are given undue discretion in making compensation decisions. This has the result of denying women compensation equal to that of comparable male employees.
13

52.

RCSH also fosters and promotes a work environment that is inhospitable for

women. Gender based hostility pervades almost every aspect of the business, including hiring,

promotion, compensation, discipline and termination.

53.

Female employees are treated in a demeaning and discriminatory manner by

male RCSH leaders and fellow employees. Female employees are frequently the target of sexual

stereotypical and derogatory remarks and jokes. Female employees at RCSH have been groped,

sexually propositioned, and harassed by male RCSH employees.

54.

Finally, female employees at RCSH are discriminated against on the basis of

sex with respect to terminations. Females are terminated from the Company for conduct which

when engaged in by males, does not result in termination.

55.

RCSH has failed to undertake adequate measures to stop the perpetuation of

these discriminatory policies and practices at the Company.

Katharine Bush

56.

Katharine Bush began working at RCSH in September of 1998, as a

bookkeeper. At that time, Ms. Bush was paid at a rate of $13 to $16 per hour.

57.

Ms. Bush began her job at RCSH without any fear, anticipation, or anxiety

regarding discrimination. Instead, she reasonably expected that her participation in the RCSH

workforce would provide numerous opportunities for advancement, and she worked hard to take

full advantage of those opportunities.

58.

Early on in her career at RCSH, in the late 1990's, Ms. Bush complained to HR

about sex-based hostile actions by another employee, when a Chef screamed at her and threw

something at her. She \vas pulled aside by her General Manager and told, in effect, "you arc a

14

big girl," you can handle this without complaining. Ms. Bush learned from this experience that

this was the accepted environment at RCSH and that she was expected to live with it.

59.

In 2000, Ms. Bush was promoted to the position of Sales Manager. Ms. Bush

perfonned well in her new position, taking on team leadership positions and training newer

employees. Ms. Bush also assisted the Company's IT department in creating its RacS software

system.

60.

RCSH named Ms. Bush a "team leader" in late 2001. In that role, she worked

with other Sales Managers to develop marketing plans, review financial information, and support

sales.

61.

Despite such increased responsibilities, Ms. Bush officially remained a Sales

Manager and did not receive any additional compensation or employment benefits in exchange

for her added responsibilities.

62.

In 2004, Ms. Bush's superior, Gil Fomaris, commended her for her good work.

During this same time period, Ms. Bush infom1ed her superiors of her interest in a promotion and

increased compensation.

63.

Ms. Bush's superiors at RCSH, however, did not promote Ms. Bush or provide

her with increased compensation. Instead, they gave her the title of "Regional Sales Manager" and the added responsibility of managing four additional markets and supervising fOllr s::JI~c,;

managers, but provided no additional compensation or benefits despite the added responsibilities.

64.

At or around this time, in the year 2004, Ms. Bush's base salary was

approximately $10,000 to $12,000 less than the base salary of one of her male co-workers, Eric

Ostrow.

15

65. Mr. Ostrow, who also worked as a Sales Manager, had less experience than Ms.

Bush.

66.

RCSH also paid Mr. Ostrow more than Ms. Bush in 2005. In that year, Mr.

Ostrow was paid a base salary that was approximately $10,000 higher than Ms. Bush's base

salary.

67. In December of2005, RCSH discontinued the Director of National Sales

position and Ms. Bush volunteered to take on additional work that had previously been delegated

to that position.

68. In January of2006, RCSH promoted Ms. Bush to the position of National Sales

Manager. At the same time, RCSH also promoted Eric Ostrow to the National Sales Manager

position.

69. Despite having been given the same position, RCSH paid Mr. Ostrow a

commission on local sales which it did not provide to Ms. Bush. Upon information and belief,

that local sales commission amounted to on or about $45,000. RCSH also provided an

administrative assistant to support Mr. Ostrow, but did not provide Ms. Bush with such an

assistant.

70. As National Sales Manager, Ms. Bush continued to perform superbly. She

implemented numerous national sales initiatives. including (hut not limjt~d to) a program for

corporate business to business gift cards.

71. Indeed, throughout her tenure at RCSH, Ms. Bush excelled.

72. In Ms. Bush's last performance review prior to her termination, she was rated as

"Exceeds Standards" in forty-four (44) out offifty-ninc (59) categories, VI 3pplUximaldy 75% of

the listed categories. Of the remaining 15 categories, Ms. Bush received a rating of "Meets

16

Standards" in thirteen categories and a rating of "Outstanding" (the highest possible rating) in

two categories. Ms. Bush did not receive any negative ratings.

73.

Just three months prior to her termmatlOn, Ms. Bush's superior commended her

for doing an "exceptional job" and for her ability to remain "focused, flexible, and supportive to

achieve [her] goals." Ms. Bush's superior also made note of her "great resilience" and "out of

the box thinking" which resulted in "ways to expand beyond expectations."

74.

Ms. Bush also consistently outperformed her sales goals.

75.

In 2006, Ms. Bush exceeded her sales goal by 20%, generating approximately

$200,000 in additional sales revenues.

76.

As a result of her banner year in 2006, RCSH increased Ms. Bush's sales goal in

2007 by approximately 400%.

77.

Notwithstanding this substantial increase, Ms. Bush was on track to meet this

sales goal at the time of her firing.

78.

Despite Ms. Bush's excellent performance at the Company, she was never

offered or informed of several promotional opportunities provided to less qualified male

employees.

79.

Ms. Bush expressed her interest in being promoted to her superior, Gil Fornaris.

80.

Ms. Bush often learned of available promotions after the position had already

been filled by a male candidate, leaving her with no opportunity to apply for the positions.

81.

Upon information and belief, in mid-September of2006, then RCSH Regional

Vice President Kevin Armantrout was named Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations. This position was not advertised and Ms. Bush waG not infonned of or offered the opportunity to

compete for the position.

17

82.

Ms. Bush would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice

President of Franchise Relations position that was filled by Armantrout, a male employee who

had joined the Company several years an!;! Ms. Bush.

83.

After Armantrout became Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations, his

former position-Regional Vice President of the NOlihern California region, was open. Yet

again, this position was not advertised by the Company. And, despite being qualified for the position, Ms. Hush was not informed of, allowed to compete for, or offered the position.

84.

Ms. Bush would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice

President of the Northern California region position. However, RCSH hired a male, John

Maloney, who had never previously worked for the Company.

85.

On or about September of2006, the Company also hired a male employee, Pete

Tambini, as Regional Vice President of the Southeast region. Mr. Tambini was equally or less

qualified for that position than Ms. Bush.

86.

Ms. Bush would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice

President of the Southeast region position.

87.

However, the Company did not advertise the open position and Ms. Bush was

not informed of, allowed to compete for, or offered the position.

88.

In addition to being denied promotion, Ms. Bush was regularly subjected to

sexual remarks and gender"based hostile conduct.

89.

For example, on or about May of2006, Ms. Bush was on a phone call with a

RCSH Regional Vice President. Due to poor reception, Ms. Bush was having difficulty hearing him. Ms. Bush told the RVP that she could not h~Hr him because he was "coming in and out."

In response, he told Ms. Bush that she "w[asn't] complaining last night."

18

90.

On or about March 16,2007, RCSH terminated Ms. Bush's employment with

the Company.

91.

Ms. Bush's superiors informed her that she was being tenninated because of her

use of "gross profanity" in an internal e-mail.

92.

Specifically, in an e-mail to her co-worker, Eric Ostrow, Ms. Bush referred to a

RCSH franchise employee as a "prick" because, as noted in the same e-mail, the employee had

not responded to Ms. Bush's numerous requests for information and cooperation. Due to the

franchise employee's non-responsiveness, Ms. Bush was concerned that RCSH was at risk of

losing a large sales account.

93.

Mr. Ostrow forwarded Bush's e-mail message to the RCSH franchisee.

94.

The franchisee subsequently sent an e-mail to then RCSH Executive Vice

President Geoffrey Stiles, wherein she complained about Ms. Bush's e-mail.

95.

In her letter to Stiles, the franchisee complained that Ms. Bush's statement was

directed at "a company man, a Ruth's Chris company man" and that Bush herself did not have

"congenial personality traits" but, instead, had a "counterproductive macho attitude."

96.

Shortly thereafter, RCSH terminated Ms. Bush allegedly due to her "counter-

culture behavior" which "negatively represented the Company and RCSH's core values."

97.

RCSH's stated reasons for tenninating Ms. Bush are false and pretextual.

98.

Male RCSH employees, including leaders at the Company, regularly use much

more offensive profanity without any punishment, let alone tennination.

99.

For example, approximately one month prior to Ms. Bush's termination, a

RCSH Corporate Vice President sent an internal e-mail to Ms. Bush and others, including the

Chief Operations Officer, wherein he refers to having an "ass-kicking Valentine's Day."

19

100. Moreover, male employees ofReSH are often given profane nicknames by coworkers and superiors, including names such as "Mo ker" and "The Magic Wand," and commonly referred to by those names in the workplace. Despite knowledge of, and participation in, this behavior by RCSH senior management, no disciplinary action has been taken to stop this conduct, despite the fact that it violates stated company policy.
101. In terminating Ms. Bush, RCSH also treated her more harshly than a male employee ofRCSH who was involved in an altercation with a franchisee.
102. Specifically, a male employee of RCSH was involved in a verbal altercation with a franchise manager regarding divergent company versus franchise policies. Although the franchise manager reported the corporate employee's behavior to Geoffrey Stiles, RCSH Chief Operating Officer, the male employee was not terminated and the matter was eventually resolved.
103. As a result of RCSH' s discriminatory conduct, Ms: Bush suffered lost wages, loss of future earnings, and emotional distress. Melia Wilder (nee Stopa)
104. Melia Wilder, formerly Stopa, joined RCSH in October of2002 as a bench General Manager working out of one of the Company's District of Columbia locations.
105. After completing her training in the District, Ms. Wilder became the General
Manager of the RCSH location in Fairfax, Virginia. 106. Ms. Wilder excelled in her position almost immediately. 107. In 2004, Ms. Wilder beat her performance goals by a wide margin, earning
$75,000 in bonuses and nearly doubling her earnings tor the year. Shortly thereafter, the Company instituted a cap on yearly bonuses, limiting them to 25% of base salary.
20

108. In early 2005, after her banner year, Ms. Wilder contacted Geoffrey Stiles, Chief Operating Officer, expressed her interest in advancement within the Company, and sought his advice on the topic.
109. Ms. Wilder was not promoted in 2005. Instead, she was passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified males.
110. Despite her disappointment, Ms. Wilder continued to work hard at the Company and perform superbly.
Ill. Approximately a year later, in early 2006, Ms. Wilder again expressed her interest in promotion to Stiles. Ms. Wilder wrote Mr. Stiles an e-mail outlining her desire to be promoted to the position of Regional Vice President. Mr. Stiles responded to Ms. Wilder's letter by directing her to Susan Lumb, then Vice President of Education, in order to develop an "action plan." Although Ms. Wilder made numerous requests, no such "action plan" ever materialized.
112. Throughout 2006, Ms. Wilder continued to exceed expectations. She also took on additional responsibilities, training new managers and employees throughout the country.
113. In the spring of2006, at a regional General Manager's meeting, Siobhan Delulio, the wife of Ms. Wilder's supervisor, told Ms. Wilder that she should not expect to be promoted because then RVP David Delulio, who was her husband and Ms. Wilder's boss, "didn't like women."
114. Ms. Wilder did not receive a promotion in 2006. Again, open positions were given to less qualified males.
115. Not only did RCSH deny Ms. Wilder promotion, it tolerated an environment
thnt was hostile to women and one in which WOIIlCII WCIC ~ubjCl.;lcu tu ~~xual harassmt:nt. Ivls.
Wilder experienced this while attending an annual conference for RCSH General Managers and
21

Chefs in Orlando, Florida in April of 2006. The Director of Operations for a RCSH franchisee, Gary Englade hugged, groped, and followed Ms. Wilder during conference activities. While on a boar ride with her colleagues, bnglade pinned Ms. Wilder into her chair and repeatedly asked her why she "wouldn't go out with him." Later, when Ms. Wilder crossed paths with Englade, he grabbed her by her shoulders and began shaking her, demanding to know "why she would not go out with him." Ms. Wilder refused his advances and complained to her superiors. Although Ms. Wilder was later told by her superior that Mr. Englade was instructed to cease his behavior, he was not formally punished.
116. In December of2006, Ms. Wilder asked David Delulio about his wife's comments and her opportunities for promotion. Delulio denied his wife's statements and commended Ms. Wilder for her excellent performance.
117. Ms. Wilder took Delulio's advice and continued to excel at her job. Indeed, in January of 2007, just two months prior to her termination, Gil Fomaris, a RCSH Vice President of Operations, who was dining at the Fairfax location that she managed, told her that "if [she] kept going like this, [she] was going to get promoted."
118. Encouraged by these sentiments, Ms. Wilder spoke with several other RCSH colleagues about her goal of promotion to a RVP position.
119. Despite Ms. Wilder's excellent performance at the (:omp:my, she was never offered or informed of several promotional opportunities provided to less qualified male employees.
120. Upon information and belief, in mid-September of2006, then RCSH Regional Vice President Kevin Armantrout was named Regional Vicc PlcsiuCllt uf f'ralli,;histo: Relations.
22

This position was not advertised and Ms. Wilder was not informed of or offered the opportunity to compete for the position.
121. Ms. Wilder would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations position that was filled by Armantrout, a male employee.
122. After Armantrout became Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations, his former position-Regional Vice President of the Northern California region, was open. Yet again, this position was not advertised by the Company. And, despite being qualified for the position and having repeatedly expressed her interest in a promotion to RVP to her superiors, Ms. Wilder was not informed of or offered the position.
123. Ms. Wilder would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of the Northern California region position. However, RCSH hired a male, John Maloney, who had never previously worked for the Company, to fill the position.
124. On or about September of2006, the Company also hired a male employee, Pete Tambini, as Regional Vice President of the Southeast region. Mr. Tambini was equally or less qualified for that position than Ms. Wilder.
125. Ms. Wilder would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of the Southeast region position.
126. However, the Company did not advertise the open position and Ms. Wilder was not informed of, allowed to compete for, or offered the position.
127. In March of2007, Ms. Wilder was terminated in retaliation for her report of sexual harassment by then RCSH Regional Vice President Kevin Armantrout.
128. In the summer of2006, Ms. Wilder received a refJurt [rum une ufher subordinates that she was being sexually harassed by Armantrout. Specifically, Ms. Wilder's
23

female subordinate had traveled to Virginia Beach, Virginia to assist in opening a new restaurant in that location. Armantrout was also working at that restaurant opening. While there, Armantrout repeatedly made sexual advances to the female manager and she reported his conduct to Ms. Wilder. Ms. Wilder immediately reported Annantrout's sexually offensive and discriminatory behavior to her superior, Delulio.
129. Ms. Wilder next saw Annantrout in March of2007 at the Company leadership conference in Florida where she was tenninated.
130. Prior to her report of sexual harassment against him, Mr. Armantrout had never shown specific animosity towards Ms. Wilder. However, at the leadership conference, he treated her coldly.
131. Viewing the conference as a learning opportunity and a forum where she could shine in front ofRCSH leaders, Ms. Wilder actively participated in the conference. During a question-and-answer session with then CEO Craig Miller and COO Geoffrey Stiles, Ms. Wilder asked thoughtful questions and offered her insights on the Company's progress.
132. RCSH tenninated Ms. Wilder the following day on the purported grounds that her "behavior at the meetings was unacceptable for a RCSH General Manager" and that she showed "diminished leadership" while attending the conference.
133. Specifically, RCSH alleged that, during the conference. Ms. Wilder placed liquor orders for her RCSH restaurant inventory via her cell phone, interrupting other attendees, and appeared bored and made negative remarks about her expectations for the conference.
134. Based solely on the report of Annantrout, RCSH also claimed that Ms. Wilder
extended Annantrout, who was not even seated near Ms. Wilder, her middle finger.
135. RCSH's stated reasons for tenninating Ms. Wilder are pretextual.
24

136. Ms. Wilder did not extend her middle finger, or make any profane or

inappropriate gestures, to Mr. Armantrout.

137. Moreover, Ms. Wilder did not force any conference participants to wait for her

while she conducted some brief company business. The company business she conducted was

limited to a single liquor order for her restaurant and it was made during a break in the

proceedings. 138.

Furthermore, Ms. Wilder did not make any negative comments about the

leadership conference and/or the training she received.

139. Rather, Mr. Armantrout made these false allegations against Ms. Wilder in

retaliation for Ms. Wilder having reported him to RCSH leadership for sexual harassment. 140. Indeed, at approximately 12:30 a.m. on March 21, 2007. the date of Ms.

Wilder's termination, Armantrout wrote an e-mail to Sarah Jackson, Vice President of Human

Resources, Geoffrey Stiles, and Susan Lumb, in which he manufactured the aforementioned

allegations against Ms. Wilder.

141. Ms. Wilder's actual actions-namely, asking thoughtful and probing questions

ofRCSH leaders and offering insightful comments regarding the Company's progress-would

have been praised by RCSH leaders if received from a male manager. Instead, Ms. Wilder was

promptly terminated. 142. Ms. Wilder was terminated by the Company in retaliation for her report of

sexual harassment by Mr. Armantrout:

143. As a result of the discriminatory conduct by RCSH, Ms. Wilder suffered lost
wages, loss of future camings, nnd emotional and plJy~i\;al dbtn::ss.

Shelly Goorevich

25

144. Shelly Goorevichjoined RCSH in February 0[2001 as a Sales Manager working at the Company's Arlington, Virginia location.
145. Ms. Uoorevich was an outstanding performer at RCSH. For two consecutive years, in 2006 and 2007, Ms. Gborevich alone generated over one million dollars worth of annual sales for the company.
146. Despite her exceptional work performance, Ms. Goorevich earned several thousand dollars less in base salary than at least one of her male counterparts, Eric Ostrow. In 2004, Ms. Goorevich earned approximately $39,500 in base salary. Ostrow, who also held the position of Sales Manager in 2004, was paid over $53,000 in base salary. Similarly, in 2005, Ms. Goorevich was paid a base salary of approximately $41,000, while Mr. Ostrow's base salary was approximately $60,000. Furthermore, Mr. Ostrow was given an assistant, while Ms. Goorevich was not.
147. During the course of her employment, Ms. Goorevich was frequently subjected to offensive and sexually discriminatory conduct by her colleagues at the Company.
148. Ms. Goorevich first complained of sexual harassment to RCSH's Human Resources department in the fall of2005.
149. At that time, the restaurant Chef and another male line chef regularly used profanity and made sexuallv derogatory comments and jokes. On one occasion. the line chef held a raw beef tenderloin in front of his groin, as if it were his penis, and waved it around while making elephant noises. Ms. Goorevich reported this incident to Human Resources, as well as the profanity, sexually derogatory jokes and comments, and sexually offensive behavior that was pennenting the workplace. Upon infonnation and belict~ no one at thc Company was tClluillatcd or severely punished as a result of the incident.
26

150. Furthermore, the use of highly sexualized profanity and "jokes" is

commonplace at RCSH and is committed by employees at all levels of the corporate hierarchy.

RCSH male staff members made countless sexual jokes and taunts and regularly used profanity

without repercussion.

151. RCSH leaders encourage such sexually discriminatory and offensive conduct.

Male RCSH leaders regularly make profane and sexually offensive remarks in the presence of and about female employees. Male RCSH managers and chefs often discuss which RCSH

female employees are "hot." On one occasion, Ms. Wilder witnessed a regional corporate leader,

state, with regard to a female subordinate, that he "want[e]d to bang her so bad [he] could taste

her." 152.

Additional, male RCSH leaders regularly engage in vulgar and sexually

demeaning and offensive banter about or relating to women. In one instance, a male RCSH

Regional Vice President, called another male colleague a "pussy" via a text message that was

read in front of several RCSH employees, both male and female. In response, the colleague, who was RCSH's Vice President of Marketing, exclaimed that "you can call me anything but you

can't call me a pussy."

153. Male RCSH leaders often discuss which female RCSH employees would "give

the best blowiobs." And, on another occasion, two male bosses discussed a female employee's "nice new titties."

154. Furthennore, many of the "job qualifications" used to measure suitable female

candidates for positions at RCSH are sexist. 155. For example, only attractive women nrc hired to work in the "front of the

house" portion of each restaurant. At the restaurant where Ms. Goorevich worked, several

27

employees complained about the perfonnance of a new female bartender. Doranne Hughes, the General Manager, responded that "she's attractive and she has legs up to here" and, thus, the complaining employees were told to "suck it up." "Cute" waitresses were also often assigned to serve regular customers.
156. Corporate leaders backed such sexist employment practices. One Regional Vice President, instructed his subordinates to "hire pretty girls to work your bar." RCSH managers are authorized to offer higher wages to women who are eonsidered more attractive. Another male RCSH leader, told a subordinate manager to "hire some T&A [tits & ass]" at the bar and at the host stand. He also told the manager that "the prettier they are, the more you can pay them" but not to tell the existing employees how much they are paid.
157. Another RCSH General Manager simply refused to work with "any fat or ugly chicks." Specifically, he told his employees to "make sure you cut [or dismiss] all of the fat chicks. I don't want to work with any fat or ugly chicks."
158. Furthennore, it is common for male RCSH leaders to report having seduced young and/or new female employees at events such as new restaurant openings. Female employees have also reported groping offemale hostesses and wait staff by male executives.
159. One of Ms. Goorevich's co-workers, Brian Forster, a floor manager at RCSH, was especially hostile to Ms. Goorevich, regularly harassing her.
160. Forster's ongoing harassment of Ms. Goorevich reached its most egregious level in September of 2008.
161. On or about September 12, 2008, Forster was relaxing in the restaurant office rather than performing his work duties. He told Ms. Goorcvich that if she "narccd [sic] on him
28

to Doranne [Hughes, the General Manager] about goofing off" that he would "fucking kill [her]." He then added "I love you and I'I! give you a big hug but I will fucking kill you."
162. Mr. Forster's harassment did not end with those threats. A few days later, on or about September 15, 2008, Mr. Forster told Ms. Goorevich that he was going to "whip out his cock and slap [Ms. Goorevich] across the face with it." When Ms. Goorevich asked him to stop tormenting her in that way, Mr. Forster laughed at Ms. Goorevich. Forster laughed at her again when Ms. Goorevich's reported his statements to her co-worker.
163. Later that day, Ms. Goorevich told Mr. Forster that she was very stressed and
having trouble sleeping. In response, Forster told Ms. Goorevich to "masturbate" in order to fall
asleep. One of Ms. Goorevich's co-workers, heard Forster make this statement and both she and Ms. Goorevich told him to stop speaking to Ms. Goorevich in that manner.
164. Ms. Goorevich also told Forster that she was tired of being the "waste receptacle for [Forster's] misplaced anger." Forster replied by correcting her-he told her that she was not his "waste receptacle" but, instead, his "cum bucket."
165. Just days later, on or about September 22,2008, Mr. Forster's tirade continued. On that date, Ms. Goorevich was expecting the delivery ofa guest's wedding cake. She informed Mr. Forster, the floor manager on duty, about the upcoming delivery. In response, Forster (who was watching a football game while at work), tolc! M" G()orevich that he didn't care about the cake because the game was on and that Ms. Goorevich could "shove the cake up [her] ass."
166. On or about September 23,2008, Ms. Goorevich reported Forster's behavior to Doranne Hughes, the General Manager at her restaurant and M:>. Guun:vich's immediate supervisor. Hughes told Ms. Goorevich that she would take care of it. However, Hughes also
29

asked Ms. Goorevich if she thought that Forster was "just being a 25-year old guy thinking that
he was being funny." Ms. Goorevich responded that she didn't know what Forster was thinking bUl lhal his behavior was disgusting and abusive and should stop.
167. For approximately 20 days, Ms. Goorevich waited for further information or a response from Ms. Hughes or the Human Resources department at RCSH regarding her complaint. She received nothing.
168. Thus, on October 13, 2008, Ms. Goorevich addressed an e-mail to Sarah Jackson, then Senior Vice President of Human Resources for RCSH. In her e-mail, Goorevich detailed the sexual harassment she suffered. Goorevich also sent the e-mail to Sandy Jones, Director of Human Resources.
169. Later that day, Ms. Goorevich received a call from Stephen Hong, a RCSH employee in the Human Resources department. Hong informed Ms. Goorevich that Human Resources had not been notified of her complaint (by Ms. Hughes or anyone else) prior to its receipt of Ms. Goorevich's e-mail.
170. Later that day, Hughes summoned Ms. Goorevich her office. When she got there, Mr. Forster was already there. Ms. Goorevich was asked to "mediate" the issue with Mr. Forster. Ms. Goorevich was very uncomfortable being directly confronted by Forster. She relayed her feelings to Hughes, who asked Forster to step out.
171. After Forster left, Hughes told Ms. Goorevich that he had made several allegations concerning Goorevich' s treatment of him in response to her complaints of sexual harassment and that she (Hughes) wanted to discuss those allegations. Hughes stated that she did not W:lnt to speak for Forster and wanted to invite him back into the "mediatiun." Thus, under
pressure from Hughes, Goorevich agreed to do so.
30

172. During the "mediation," Hughes repeatedly stated that she was upset by Goorevich's complaints because they "made her look bad" and were "a bad reflection on her." Furtht;rmurt;, after Hughes told Goorevich that they were having the mediation to discuss both Goorevich and Forster's "issues" with one another, Forster accused Goorevich of "undermining" him in front of hourly employees.
173. Forster admitted to harassing Ms. Goorevich, including (but not limited to) telling her that he was going to "slap" her in the face with his "cock."
174. The following day, Ms. Goorevich contacted Hong and informed him of the "mediation" that occurred. She informed him of her severe discomfort at the way the "mediation" was conducted.
175. Later, Ms. Goorevich learned that Forster was terminated on or about October 21,2008.
176. The following month, November of2008, Ms. Goorevich's supervisors, Doranne Hughes and David Delulio, met with Ms. Goorevich for a perfonnance review.
177. For the first time in her history with the Company, Ms. Goorevich received a negative review. Ms. Goorevich's received an overall score of2.64, below the 3.0 score necessary in order to receive a raise. Ms. Goorevich received scores of 2.0 on items such as "[h]elps the GM set the tone for the culture of the restaurant" and "acts with integrityf.1" In her prior review, just eight months earlier, Ms. Goorevich received a score of 4.0 ("exceeds expectations") and 5.0 ("outstanding" - the highest rating possible), respectively, on the same items. Indeed, her overall score on the March 2008 performance review was 3.57, well over the score needed to receive a raise.
31

178. As a result of her negative November 2008 performance review, Ms. Goorevich
did not receive a raise for 2009. 179. Funhermore, after Ms. Goorevich complained of Mr. Forster's harassment, her
supervisors and co-workers began to treat her with hostility. Ms. Goorevich was isolated by her boss, Doranne Hughes, as well as her co-workers. She was rarely spoken to, and only if absolutely necessary.
180. On one occasion, Ms. Goorevich slipped and fell at the restaurant and had to go to the emergency for treatment. She was diagnosed with a concussion and received pain medication. Per doctor's instruction, she was not able to work for three days and informed her office that she would be off due to her injury. When she returned to work, however, she was berated by Hughes for missing work and was written up for abandoning her shift.
181. As a result of the discriminatory behavior by RCSH, Ms. Goorevich suffered severe physical and emotional distress. Ms. Goorevich experienced severe anxiety, weight loss, and stomach problems. Ms. Goorevich sought medical and therapy services in order to deal with these issues.
182. Given the ongoing hostility she was experiencing at work, as well as the physical and emotional ramifications of such hostility, Ms. Goorevich's working conditions were intolerable and she felt that she no longer had any future with the Company. Thus, Ms. Goorevich had no option but to terminate her employment.
183. Ms. Goorevich was forced to resign her Sales Manager position with RCSH on or about August 4,2009.
32

CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I
.l!;MPLUYM.I!;NT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. §2000(e) et seq. (On Behalf of All Plaintiffs)
184. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-183 above. 185. Plaintiffs were female employees ofRCSH and RHG within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq. and are members of a protected class. 186. RCSH adopted and/or maintained and implemented employment practices by its predominately male leadership that are discriminatory, excessively subjective, and/or arbitrary with respect to compensation, promotion, and other terms and conditions of employment. 187. The discriminatory policies and/or practices of RCSH and RHG, as set forth herein, have denied Plaintiffs their right to equal employment opportunity in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq., in that qualified female employees have been denied promotions that were given to equally or less qualified males, received lower pay than equally or less qualified males for the same or essentially the same work, have been denied staff assistance provided to equally or less qualified males in the same position, and have been denied access to staff retreats made available to equally or less qualified males in the same position. 188. The pattern of assignment, promotion. access to opportunities, and compensation inequity on the basis of sex is not the result of random or non-discriminatory factors. Rather, it is the result of an on·going and continuous pattern and practice of intentional sex discrimination in assignments, pay, opportunities, and promotions, and reliance on policies and practices that have an adverse impact on female employees that cannot be justified by
33

business necessity, and for which alternative policies and practices with less discriminatory impact could be utilized that equally serve any asserted justification.
189. Defendants' discriminatory conduct caused Plaintiffs to suffer injury, including but not limited to loss of wages and other job benefits, and emotional distress.
190. Plaintiffs request relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below. COUNT II
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS O~F GENDER District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code §2-1401 et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder) 191. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-190 above. 192. RCSH is an employer under the DCHRA § 2-140 l.2( 10). 193. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder are women and members of a protected class. 194. RCSH adopted and/or maintained and implemented employment practices by its predominately male leadership that are discriminatory, excessively SUbjective, and/or arbitrary with respect to compensation, promotion, and other terms and conditions of employment. 195. The discriminatory policies and/or practices of RCSH and RHO, as set forth herein, have denied Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder their right to equal employment opportunity in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, in that qualified female employees have been denied promotions in favor of equally or less qualified males, have received lower pay than equally or less qualified males for the same or essentially the same work, have been denied staff assistance provided to equally or less qualified males in the same position, and have been denied
access to staff retreats made available to equally or less qualified males in the same position.
34

196. The pattern of assignment, promotion, and compensation inequity on the basis

of sex is not the result of random or non-discriminatory factors. Rather, it is the result of an on-

going and continuous pattern and practice of intentional sex discrimination in assignments, pay,

opportunities, and promotions, and reliance on policies and practices that have an adverse impact

on female employees that cannot be justified by business necessity, and for which alternative

policies and practices with less discriminatory impact could be utilized that equally serve any asserted justification.

197. Defendants' discriminatory conduct caused Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder to suffer

injury, including but not limited to loss of wages and other job benefits, and emotional distress.

198. below.

Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder requests relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief

COUNT III

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER Sexual Harassment - Hostile Work Environment
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. §2000(e) et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiff Goorevich)

199. Plaintiff Goorevich incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-

198 above.

200. This is a claim against RCSH arising under Title VII, as amended, prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace.

201. The conduct of RCSH alleged herein violates Title VII because Plaintiff

Goorevich was required to work in a hostile work environment which was tainted by

impern1issible sex and gender discrimination, including but not limited to, being subjected to repeated sexual harassment and intimidation over a period of time by male corporate leaders and

co-workers at RCSH.

35

202. Plaintiff Goorevich is a member of a protected group, women, and did not welcome the sexual misconduct and hostile work environment created by RCSH.
203. The work cllvilUIlIllt:Ilt at RCSH that Plaintiff was subjected to IS permeated with discriminatory conduct, ridicule, and insult, thereby unreasonably interfering with the work performance and work conditions of Plaintiff Goorevich and the other women at the Company.
204. RCSH was negligent both in discovering the sexual harassment suffered by Plamtitt Uoorevich, as well as in remedying the harassment
205. As a result of these unlawful employment practices, PlaintiffGoorevich suffers severe emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, shame and trauma for which she claims damages.
206. Plaintiff Goorevich requests relief as hereafter described. COUNT IV
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER Wrongful Discharge
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq.
(On Dehalf uf Plailltiff~ Bu~h and WtIder) 207. Plaintiffs Katharine Bush and Melia Wilder incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-206 above. 208. Plaintiffs Katharine Bush and Melia Wilder are women and as such are members of a group protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq ("Title VII") from discrimination on the basis of sex. 209. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder were qualified for their jobs and their job performance was more than satisfactory. 2 10. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder were discharged from RCSH due to their sex. 211. Male employees were retained under similar circumstances.
36

212. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder suffered injuries as a result, ine/uding but not limited to lost pay (past and future), embarrassment, humiliation, loss of self esteem, emotional distress, frustration, lost benefits and physical illness.
COUNT V EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER
Wrongful Discharge District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code §2-1401 et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder) 213. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-212 above. 214. RCSH is an employer under the DCHRA § 2-1401.2(10). 215. Plaintiffs Katharine Bush and Melia \Vildcr arc "vomen and, as such, arc members of a group protected under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act from discrimination on the basis of sex. 216. Plaintiff" Bush and Wilder were qualified for their jobs and their job pt:rfunnance was more than satisfactory. , 217. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder were discharged from RCSH due to their sex. 218. Male employees were retained under similar circumstances. 219. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder suffered injuries as a result, including but not limited to lost pay (past and future), lost benefits, emotional distress and physical illness. 220. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder request relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
37

COUNT VI RETALIATION
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000(e)-3(a) et seq.
(Ou Behalf of Plaintiff Goorevich ancl Plaintitl Wilder) 221. Plaintiffs Goorevich and Wilder incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-221 above. 222. Plaintiff Goorevich engaged in activity protected under 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-3(a) when she complained to her employer about the sexual harassment she suffered from Brian Forster. 223. Defendants subjected Plaintiff Goorevich to adverse employment actions including, but not limited to, a negative performance review, the denial of a pay raise, and a disciplinary write-up. 224. RCSH subjected Plaintiff Goorevich to these adverse employment actions in retaliation against her because of her complaint of sexual harassment. 225. Plaintiff Goorevich suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful retaliatory conduct, including but not limited to loss of income, humiliation, loss of reputation, loss of income, emotional distress and physical illness. 226. Plaintiff Wilder engaged in activity protected under 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-3(a) when she complained to her employer about the sexual harassment perpetrated by RCSH Regional Vice President Kevin Armantrout. 227. Defendants subjected Plaintiff Wilder to adverse employment action-namely, termination-in retaliation against her because of her complaint of sexual harassment by Mr.
Annilntrout
38

228. Plaintiff Wilder suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful retaliatory conduct, including but not limited to loss of income, humiliation, loss of n::put<:ttiUIl, luss ufincome, and emotional and physical distress.
229. Plaintiffs Goorevich and Wilder request relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT VII EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER
Constructive Discharge Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiff Goorevich) 230. Plaintiff Shelly Goorevich incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-/?9 ;Jh()Vf~ 231. PlaintiffGoorevich repeatedly complained to her managers, RCSH human resources personnel and others about the sexual harassment she was experiencing. 232. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff because of her protected activity. 233. AggmvatiIlg [al:turs justified PlainritIGoorevich's conclusion that she had no option but to end her employment. 234. Ms. Goorevich received a negative performance review for the first time in her history with the Company. 235. As a result of her negative November 2008 perfonnance review, Ms. Goorevich did not receive a raise. 236. Ms. Goorevich was also treated with near-constant hostility by her supervisor, Doranne Hughes, as well as many of her co-workers. Ms. Goorevich was almost completely isolated by her boss and co-workers and was rarely spoken to, and only if absolutely necessary.
39

237. Ms. Goorevich was also sUbjected to ongoing mistreatment by her supervisor,
Doranne Hughes. 238. As a result of the retalIatory treatment by RCSH, Ms. Goorevich suffered physical
and emotional distress. 239. Given the ongoing hostility she experienced at work after her complaint of
discrimination, as well as the physical and emotional ramifications of such hostility, Plaintiffs working conditions were intolerable.
240. RCSH's failure to ensure tolerable working conditions free of retaliation was intentional, malicious, deliberate, willful and oppressive, and was carried out with the intent to cause Ms. Goorevich to resign her position.
241. Because of her intolerable working conditions, Plaintiff Goorevich was forced to resign her Sales Manager position with RCSH on or about August 4, 2009.
242. Defendants' wrongful and illegal conduct caused PlaintiffGoorevich injury including, but not limited to, lost income (past and future), lost benefits, emotional distress and physical injury.
PRA YER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
1. That the practices of the RCSH complained of herein be determined and adjudged to be in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, and common law prohibiting gender discrimination in employment;
2. That a permanent mandatory injunction be issued prohibiting RCSH and its officers agents, employees, and successors from engaging in the employment practices complained of herein and requiring the ::Icloption of appropriate polices and programs consistent with RCSH's legal obligations to operate a work environment free from gender discrimination;
40

3. That judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs, and against Defendants, for back pay (including interest or an appropriate inflation factor), front pay, benefits and all other amounts owed to Plaintiffs;
4. That the Plaintitls be awarded compensatory and punitive damages;
5. That the Plaintiffs be awarded pre and post judgment interest;
6. That the Plaintiffs be awarded such other and further legal and equitable relief as may be found appropriate and as the Court may deem just or equitable;
7. That the Court award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and costs associated WIth the prosecutIOn at thiS lawsuit;
8. That the Court retain jurisdiction over RCSH until such time as it is satisfied that it has remedied the practices complained of and is determined to be in full compliance with the law.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues triable of right by jury.
Dated: October 8, 2010

2000 L Street NW Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 973-0900 (telephone) (202) 973-0950 (fax) hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Cyrus Mehri D.C. Bar No. 420970
Janell Byrd D.C. Bar No. 376609
Danielle Davis D.C. Bar No. 9905-15 MEHRI & SKALET PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822-51 00 (telephone) (202)822-4997 (fax) cmehri@findjustice.com

41

 
 Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 49

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KATHARINE BUSH, 2212 Great Falls Street Falls Church, VA 22048,
MELIA WILDER (NEE STOPA), 14611 Willow Creek Drive Centreville, VA 20120
SHELLY GOOREVICH 250 South Reynolds Street Apartment 308 Alexandria, VA 22304
and
LADAWN HARRIS-ROBINSON 14200 Farnsworth Lane Unit 405 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

Plaintiffs,
v.
RUTH’S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC. 400 International Parkway Suite 325 Heathrow, FL 32746
and
RUTH’S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. 400 International Parkway Suite 325 Heathrow, FL 32746

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01721-RBW CLASS ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants. 1

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 2 of 49

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiffs KATHARINE BUSH (“Bush”), MELIA WILDER (NEE STOPA) (“Wilder”), SHELLY GOOREVICH (“Goorevich”), and LADAWN HARRIS-ROBINSON (“HarrisRobinson”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege and state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1.

Plaintiffs are women who are currently, or were previously, employed by Ruth’s

Chris Steak House, Inc. (“RCSH”) and/or Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc. (“RHG”) (referred to

collectively herein as “RCSH”), a large chain of upscale steak houses in the United States and

internationally. RCSH was founded in the mid-1960’s by an entrepreneurial woman, Ruth Fertel

(1927-2002), who having founded and grown a leading restaurant chain, personally broke many

barriers and the glass ceiling for women in the restaurant industry. Notwithstanding this history,

in recent years the Company has developed a culture in which conduct demeaning and hostile to

women is widely practiced and accepted and a pattern and practice of discrimination against

female employees in the terms and conditions of employment, including, inter alia,

discriminatory compensation, termination, and retaliation.

2.

Plaintiffs each perform and/or performed their job with high levels of skill,

dedication, and success. Nonetheless, they have each been discriminated against by RCSH

because of their gender with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment, in violation

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq., and as to Plaintiffs

Bush, Wilder, and Harris-Robinson, the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C.

Code § 2-1401, et seq.

2

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 3 of 49

3.

RCSH’s violations are systemic and constitute a pattern and practice of illegal

conduct over many years that continues to the present.

4. Defendants’ discrimination against Plaintiffs is part of its systemic, company-

wide discriminatory treatment of its female employees in violation of federal and applicable state

civil rights laws. With the exception of Harris-Robinson’s Title VII claim for gender

discrimination, as addressed below in Paragraph 16, Plaintiffs have satisfied administrative

prerequisites, Plaintiffs now file this Complaint on their own behalf and on behalf of all women

similarly situated.

5.

As a result of these practices, the statistical evidence available to Plaintiffs as of

December of 2007, showed the following gender breakdown in employment at certain leadership

positions at the Company:

Executive level – 14% women (1/7)

Corporate Vice President – 14% women (3/22)

General Manager – 8% women (5/61)

Chef – 3% women (2/61)

6.

Ascension to Senior Management is primarily viable through the Operations

sector, but women were systemically channeled out of Operations. As of December 2007, there

were very few women in feeder positions:

Senior Manager/Assistant General Manager: 9% women (2/23)

Manager: 21% women (23/109)

Assistant/Sous Chef: 2% women (1/53)

7. The 2009 Annual Report shows that the Management Team at RCSH is

comprised of all males and the seven-person Board of Directors has just one woman Director.

3

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 4 of 49
8. Data available as of December of 2007 showed that only 8% of employees eligible for stock options were females.
9. The practices that RCSH engages in that discriminate on the basis of sex are summarized as:
a. Discrimination in Compensation: RCSH leaders, who are predominantly male, are given a great deal of discretion in determining salaries, raises, and bonuses. As a result of RCSH’s excessively subjective compensation practices, women who are equally or more qualified than male employees who perform the same jobs are frequently compensated at a lower rate than comparable males. For example, Ms. Bush was a highly successful employee who had significantly greater experience than Eric Ostrow, a male, and had served as a sales manager at least as long as Mr. Ostrow. When Mr. Ostrow and Ms. Bush both held the position of Sales Manager, RCSH consistently paid Mr. Ostrow a higher salary. In each year, from 2004 to 2005, RCSH paid Mr. Ostrow a base salary that was over $10,000 higher than Ms. Bush’s base salary. In January of 2006, Ms. Bush and Mr. Ostrow, were both promoted to the position of National Sales Manager. Despite her greater experience and being promoted to the same position at approximately the same time, RCSH gave Mr. Ostrow a compensation package that included a 3% local sales commission and an assistant, compensated at approximate $40,000 per year, who would further increase his commission-based compensation. Thus, despite the fact that RCSH gave Ms. Bush a higher base salary than Mr. Ostrow ($13,000 more in base salary), Mr. Ostrow’s total salary for 2006 was more than $20,000 higher than Ms. Bush’s.
4

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 5 of 49
b. Discrimination in Promotion: RCSH does not provide all of its employees with fair and equal opportunities for career advancement. Prior to May of 2008, the Company did not employ any proactive job posting policy. Although the Company maintained an internal internet portal for job postings, the Company did not post available positions on a regular and uniform basis. Many available jobs were never posted, and others were posted even though a person has already been hand-picked for the position. On or about May of 2008, the Company purportedly instituted a formal job posting policy. However, that policy contains many subjective elements and managers and other supervisory employees are given great discretion as to whether positions are posted. As a result of such practices, numerous available positions within the Company are filled via an informal, “tap on the shoulder” process in which predominately male managers cherry-pick other male employees. This informal process lacks open competition between all qualified candidates and the selection process is highly subjective and open to manipulation.
c. “Glass Ceiling”: Female employees at RCSH are faced with a “glass ceiling” on their paths to career advancement. Few women advance to senior levels in the Company, although women are more highly represented in the lower ranks of the workforce. Currently, no women serve on the senior Management Team, the group charged with running the operations of the Company and developing its business strategy. Since the Company’s founder, Ruth Fertel, ceased running the Company, very few women have served on the Management Team.
d. “Glass Walls”: In additional to erecting barriers to vertical advancement in the Company, female employees at RCSH are segregated into less lucrative and
5

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 6 of 49
prestigious departments within the Company. For example, very few women are in the traditional “feeder” positions in the Operations department which generally lead to promotion to upper management. Women are underrepresented in the positions of Assistant General Manager/Senior Manager, Sous/Assistant Chef, and Manager. Similarly, there is a dearth of female employees in the positions of General Manager and Chef, the next rung on the employment ladder. On the contrary, women are more highly represented in other less lucrative and less powerful departments within the Company, such as Human Resources and Sales.
e. Failure to Monitor or Remedy Discrimination: RCSH’s senior management, including its Human Resources Department, has failed to monitor the Company’s promotion and compensation practices for a discriminatory effect. In light of this failure, female employees are subjected to ongoing harm.
f. RCSH’s Male Dominated Culture Demeans Women: The work environment at RCSH is one that is demeaning to women, reflects a culture of male domination and female subjugation, and is a causative factor in the discrimination against women in compensation, promotion, and termination. Female employees at RCSH are frequently subjected to sexually hostile and demeaning treatment. This includes, but is not limited to, unwelcome sexually charged “jokes” and commentary, name-calling and physical touching. Senior management has both participated in creating this environment and been aware of many instances of it. Nonetheless, RCSH’s management has not taken reasonable steps to change the environment. Thus, RCSH essentially endorses this hostile environment for women employees. For example, on or about May of 2006, Plaintiff Bush was on a phone call with RCSH Regional Vice President Joe O’Donnell.
6

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 7 of 49
Due to poor reception, Ms. Bush was having difficulty hearing O’Donnell. She told him that she could not hear him because he was “coming in and out.” In response, Mr. O’Donnell told Ms. Bush that she “w[asn’t] complaining last night.” Plaintiff Goorevich was told, by a male RCSH employee who regularly harassed her, that she was his “cum bucket.”
g. Women are Disciplined More Harshly than Men: RCSH imposes harsher discipline, including the ultimate form of discipline, termination, on female employees than male employees. For instance, Plaintiff Bush was purportedly terminated for using “profanity” in an e-mail; namely, the word “prick.” However, male employees—including top management at the Company—regularly use similar, and in most cases, more offensive and profane language. For instance, a RCSH corporate Vice President sent an e-mail to all of the company management telling them to have an “asskicking Valentine’s Day.” Another male employee, Mohammad Fakhara, has been nicknamed “Mo-Fucker” by his co-workers and is regularly called this profane name by his colleagues and superiors alike. Another male leader—a former Regional Vice President—instructed his employees to hire some “T&A [tits and ass]” to work as bartenders at a Company restaurant location. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder witnessed various conversations amongst male leaders in which they discussed which female employee of the Company would “give the best blow job.” In short, extreme public vulgarity is condoned by RCSH leaders—and used by the leaders themselves—so long as the vulgarity is used by male, not female, employees. Furthermore, male employees who have committed much more egregious violations have not been terminated from their employment. Male managers, including top leadership, have regularly been extremely
7

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 8 of 49
intoxicated at Company functions, carried on sexual affairs with female subordinates, and have stolen from the Company, but have not been terminated.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4), which confers original jurisdiction upon this Court in a civil action to recover damages or to secure equitable relief or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for protection of civil rights; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which confers original jurisdiction upon this Court in a civil action arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States; and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337, which confers original jurisdiction upon this court in a civil action arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce. 11. This court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the claims brought pursuant to state and local laws prohibiting gender discrimination in employment. 12. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants have locations, and conduct business, in the District of Columbia. Many of the acts complained of occurred in the District of Columbia and give rise to the claims alleged.
PARTIES 13. Katharine Bush is a female adult citizen, and is a resident of Falls Church, Virginia. Ms. Bush was employed by RCSH from September 1998 to March 2007 at one of its locations in the District of Columbia. 14. Melia Wilder is a female adult citizen, and is a resident of Centreville, Virginia. Ms. Wilder was employed by RCSH from October 2002 to March 2007 at one of its locations in the District of Columbia as well as its Fairfax, Virginia location.
8

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 9 of 49
15. Shelly Goorevich is a female adult citizen, and is a resident of Alexandria, Virginia. Ms. Goorevich was employed by RCSH from February 2001 to August 2009 at its Arlington, Virginia location.
16. LaDawn Harris-Robinson is a female adult citizen, and is a resident of Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Ms. Harris-Robinson currently is employed by RCSH at one of its locations in the District of Columbia. She has been employed with the Company since 2002.
17. RCSH was founded in 1965 in New Orleans, Louisiana by Ruth Fertel, a single mother at the time, who mortgaged her home to buy the Company’s first steakhouse restaurant. RCSH began to expand in 1972, when Ms. Fertel opened a second restaurant in Metairie, Louisiana.
18. RCSH opened its first franchise in 1976. Many additional restaurants were opened as the Company grew and, in August of 2005, the RCSH went public, selling shares of its common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market.
19. In February of 2008, RCSH acquired Mitchell’s Fish Market, which operated restaurants under the names Mitchell’s Fish Market and Columbus Fish Market. At that same time, RCSH also acquired restaurants operating under the names Cameron’s Steakhouse and Mitchell’s Steakhouse from Cameron Mitchell Restaurants, LLC.
20. In May of 2008, RCSH changed its name from Ruth’s Chris Steak House, Inc. to Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc. The Company now considers RHG to be the parent company of RCSH.
21. As of December of 2009, there were 130 Ruth’s Chris Steak House restaurants located throughout the country and the world. Of those restaurants, about half are owned by
9

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 10 of 49
RHG and the other half are owned by franchisees, including franchisee-owned restaurants in Aruba, Canada, China (Hong Kong), Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates.
22. RHG employs approximately 5,600 people. Of those employees, approximately 475 are salaried employees and the remainder are hourly personnel.
23. For 2009, RHG reported revenues of over $330 million, net income of approximately $2.4 million, and assets of approximately $254 million.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 24. Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Goorevich have each filed timely charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and applicable state and/or local agencies alleging, among other things, gender discrimination against RCSH with respect to the compensation, promotion, harassment, and termination of female employees in violation of Title VII and applicable state and/or local civil rights laws. 25. Plaintiff Bush filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC and the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission on July 3, 2007. She received her Right to Sue notice on July 13, 2010. Plaintiff Bush has exhausted all administrative remedies. 26. Plaintiff Wilder filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC and the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission on July 3, 2007. She received her Right to Sue notice on July 19, 2010. Plaintiff Wilder has exhausted all administrative remedies. 27. Plaintiff Goorevich filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC and the Arlington County Human Rights Commission on October 30, 2008. She received her Right to Sue notice on July 19, 2010. Plaintiff Goorevich has exhausted all administrative remedies. 28. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson has not yet filed a charge of discrimination under Title VII with the EEOC. She intends to do so and Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this
10

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 11 of 49
Complaint after she has exhausted her administrative remedies under Title VII. However, Plaintiff Harris-Robinson brings a claim under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act which does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing in court.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 29. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-28 above. 30. Plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of a class of all female RCSH employees employed at RCSH’s Home Office and all RCSH restaurants at any time from September 6, 2006 and continuing to the present, who have been subjected to gender-based discriminatory policies or practices by Defendants (the “Class”). Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definitions of the class based on discovery or legal developments. 31. Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to represent. 32. The members of the Class identified herein are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The number of women in the class is in the hundreds of people. 33. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, and these questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include, but are not limited to: (1) whether RCSH’s written and unwritten policies and/or practices discriminate against female employees; (2) whether RCSH’s female employees have been promoted at rates that are disproportionately low compared to the rates at which male employees have been promoted; (3) whether RCSH permits excessive subjectivity in determining promotions and other internal job selections; (4) whether such excessive subjectivity represents a deliberate action by RCSH to block promotion of female employees; (5) whether RCSH’s female employees have been afforded treatment with respect to numerous aspects of employment
11

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 12 of 49
(including training, support, compensation, scheduling, mentorship, and participation in company retreats, etc.) that is less favorable than the treatment afforded by RCSH to their male counterparts; (6) whether RCSH permits managers excessive subjectivity in determining compensation, including salary increases, bonuses, and other compensation (7) whether the reason that RCSH has afforded its female employees less favorable treatment than their male counterparts is the acceptance of a stereotype; (8) whether RCSH has created and maintained a hostile work environment for its female employees; (9) whether RCSH has failed to take adequate measures to modify its policies and procedures that adversely affect female employees; (10) whether RCSH’s policies and practices violate Title VII and/or the District of Columbia Human Rights Act; and (11) whether equitable remedies, injunctive relief, compensatory, and punitive damages for the class are warranted.
34. The Representative Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class. Specifically, they have all been subjected to the same company-wide practice of gender discrimination in employment; all of their claims are based upon allegations that they have been adversely affected by that practice of gender discrimination in a similar manner in that they have received less favorable treatment than their male counterparts with respect to numerous aspects of employment; and their claims all rest on common evidence and are all based on common legal theories.
35. The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the class. Plaintiffs are willing and able to represent the proposed class and have every incentive to pursue this action to a successful conclusion.
36. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions, employment discrimination litigation, and the intersection thereof.
12

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 13 of 49
37. Class certification status is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because RCSH and RHG have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable the class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the class as a whole. The class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end RCSH’s common, uniform, unfair and discriminatory policies and practices.
38. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. The class members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of RCSH’s common, uniform, and discriminatory policies and practices. RCSH has computerized data that will make calculation of damages for specific Class members relatively simple. The propriety and amount of punitive damages are based on the conduct of the Defendants, making these issues common to the class.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 39. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-38 above. 40. Since at least September of 2006, RCSH has denied equal employment opportunities to its female employees. RCSH has engaged in a pattern and practice of gender discrimination with respect to the compensation, promotion, and termination of female employees from its hourly, lower-level management, and chef positions to higher-level positions with more authority and higher compensation. RCSH’s pattern and practice of gender discrimination extends to other terms and conditions of employment of its female employees, including, but not limited to the provision of staff support and mentoring and networking
13

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 14 of 49
opportunities made available through male-only company-approved retreats with Company leaders.
41. Female employees at RCSH are discriminated against on the basis of gender with respect to career advancement in the Company.
42. By entrusting RCSH corporate leaders, virtually all of whom are men, with excessive discretion in promotion decisions, RCSH maintains a system whereby the corporate leaders apply their own personal preferences and biases in making promotion decisions.
43. Promotions are made on a “tap on the shoulder” basis and are generally given to male employees who are members of the “old boys’ network.”
44. For example, the Company underwent reorganization in 2003. The result of that reorganization was to channel women out of upper level positions. Female representation in upper management in Operations decreased from 25% (pre-reorganization) to 17% (at reorganization) to 0% in 2007.
45. As part of the reorganization, female employees were moved out of Operations: After the 2003 reorganization, the only remaining female Regional Vice President, Lanette Jarvis, was demoted and moved out of Operations. Jarvis was replaced by Susan Lumb, but in late 2005, she too was moved out of Operations into Education—leaving zero high-ranking females in Operations at that time.
46. Such subjective decision-making is made possible, in part, by RCSH’s lack of a proactive job posting policy or practice.
47. Although the Company maintained a website which allowed for job posting, many job openings were never posted or advertised in any way. As such, Plaintiffs often only learned of available positions once they had already been filled by male employees.
14

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 15 of 49
48. RCSH also employs testing procedures as part of its hiring and promotion processes. Specifically, the Company uses testing created by Batrus Hollweg, as well as other testing materials available on the internet.
49. The Company maintains such test results in the personnel files of its employees and takes such test scores into account in making its hiring and promotion decisions.
50. For example, during the interview process, current and/or prospective employees must complete a Batrus Hollweg “assessment” test. The employee’s advancement in the hiring and/or promotion process may be continued or discontinued based on the results of such assessment.
51. The Batrus Hollweg testing potentially contributes to barriers to advancement for female employees at the company.
52. Advancement by female employees at the Company is also curtailed by numerous subjective aspects of the decision-making process.
53. For instance, male superiors can unilaterally truncate such advancement. 54. Hourly employees seeking to advance to salaried management positions must first be chosen as a “certified coach” by their general managers, who are predominantly male. Once selected as a “coach” and given permission by their General Manager, they must also receive permission to seek promotion from the Regional Vice President (“RVP”), a position also predominantly held by men. And, even assuming they receive this permission, the RVP or other superior may later discontinue the application process at more than one juncture. 55. For female employees seeking management or corporate positions, such as RVP, there is virtually no process or procedure and selections are made almost entirely on a subjective basis.
15

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 16 of 49
56. Furthermore, female employees of RCSH are excluded from networking opportunities available only to men. Such networking opportunities are crucial in advancing one’s chances for promotion.
57. For example, for several years while the Plaintiffs were employed with the Company, male RCSH corporate leaders (Regional Vice Presidents, Corporate Vice Presidents, and Executives) have attended a corporate retreat sponsored by either RCSH or one of its vendors. These corporate retreats have taken place in Scotland, England, and Ireland.
58. In addition to networking, the retreats are an opportunity for Company leaders to conduct business discussions amongst themselves and with vendors, as well as to socialize with one another and with vendor representatives and executives. These retreats are opportunities for employees to build relationships with co-workers, superiors and vendors, which are essential to career advancement at RCSH.
59. Women have been entirely excluded from these retreats. In fact, male corporate leaders often refer to the retreat as the “guys’ trip.”
60. As a result of exclusion from these Company retreats, female employees are denied the same opportunity provided to male employees to develop and build career advancing relationships within the Company.
61. Female employees have also experienced discrimination with respect to compensation in the form of salary, bonuses, and stock options.
62. Initially, the channeling of females into lower paying departments has resulted in females receiving less pay than comparable males.
16

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 17 of 49
63. RCSH has established and maintains a compensation system wherein male corporate leaders are given undue discretion in making compensation decisions. This has the result of denying women compensation equal to that of comparable male employees.
64. RCSH also fosters and promotes a work environment that is inhospitable for women. Gender based hostility pervades almost every aspect of the business, including hiring, promotion, compensation, discipline and termination.
65. Female employees are treated in a demeaning and discriminatory manner by male RCSH leaders and fellow employees. Female employees are frequently the target of sexual stereotypical and derogatory remarks and jokes. Female employees at RCSH have been groped, sexually propositioned, and harassed by male RCSH employees.
66. Finally, female employees at RCSH are discriminated against on the basis of sex with respect to terminations. Females are terminated from the Company for conduct which when engaged in by males, does not result in termination.
67. RCSH has failed to undertake adequate measures to stop the perpetuation of these discriminatory policies and practices at the Company. Katharine Bush
68. Katharine Bush began working at RCSH in September of 1998, as a bookkeeper. At that time, Ms. Bush was paid at a rate of $13 to $16 per hour.
69. Ms. Bush began her job at RCSH without any fear, anticipation, or anxiety regarding discrimination. Instead, she reasonably expected that her participation in the RCSH workforce would provide numerous opportunities for advancement, and she worked hard to take full advantage of those opportunities.
17

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 18 of 49
70. Early on in her career at RCSH, in the late 1990’s, Ms. Bush complained to HR about sex-based hostile actions by another employee, when a Chef screamed at her and threw something at her. She was pulled aside by her General Manager and told, in effect, “you are a big girl,” you can handle this without complaining. Ms. Bush learned from this experience that this was the accepted environment at RCSH and that she was expected to live with it.
71. In 2000, Ms. Bush was promoted to the position of Sales Manager. Ms. Bush performed well in her new position, taking on team leadership positions and training newer employees. Ms. Bush also assisted the Company’s IT department in creating its RacS software system.
72. RCSH named Ms. Bush a “team leader” in late 2001. In that role, she worked with other Sales Managers to develop marketing plans, review financial information, and support sales.
73. Despite such increased responsibilities, Ms. Bush officially remained a Sales Manager and did not receive any additional compensation or employment benefits in exchange for her added responsibilities.
74. In 2004, Ms. Bush’s superior, Gil Fornaris, commended her for her good work. During this same time period, Ms. Bush informed her superiors of her interest in a promotion and increased compensation.
75. Ms. Bush’s superiors at RCSH, however, did not promote Ms. Bush or provide her with increased compensation. Instead, they gave her the title of “Regional Sales Manager” and the added responsibility of managing four additional markets and supervising four sales managers, but provided no additional compensation or benefits despite the added responsibilities.
18

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 19 of 49
76. At or around this time, in the year 2004, Ms. Bush’s base salary was approximately $10,000 to $12,000 less than the base salary of one of her male co-workers, Eric Ostrow.
77. Mr. Ostrow, who also worked as a Sales Manager, had less experience than Ms. Bush.
78. RCSH also paid Mr. Ostrow more than Ms. Bush in 2005. In that year, Mr. Ostrow was paid a base salary that was approximately $10,000 higher than Ms. Bush’s base salary.
79. In December of 2005, RCSH discontinued the Director of National Sales position and Ms. Bush volunteered to take on additional work that had previously been delegated to that position.
80. In January of 2006, RCSH promoted Ms. Bush to the position of National Sales Manager. At the same time, RCSH also promoted Eric Ostrow to the National Sales Manager position.
81. Despite having been given the same position, RCSH paid Mr. Ostrow a commission on local sales which it did not provide to Ms. Bush. Upon information and belief, that local sales commission amounted to on or about $45,000. RCSH also provided an administrative assistant to support Mr. Ostrow, but did not provide Ms. Bush with such an assistant.
82. As National Sales Manager, Ms. Bush continued to perform superbly. She implemented numerous national sales initiatives, including (but not limited to) a program for corporate business to business gift cards.
83. Indeed, throughout her tenure at RCSH, Ms. Bush excelled.
19

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 20 of 49
84. In Ms. Bush’s last performance review prior to her termination, she was rated as “Exceeds Standards” in forty-four (44) out of fifty-nine (59) categories, or approximately 75% of the listed categories. Of the remaining 15 categories, Ms. Bush received a rating of “Meets Standards” in thirteen categories and a rating of “Outstanding” (the highest possible rating) in two categories. Ms. Bush did not receive any negative ratings.
85. Just three months prior to her termination, Ms. Bush’s superior commended her for doing an “exceptional job” and for her ability to remain “focused, flexible, and supportive to achieve [her] goals.” Ms. Bush’s superior also made note of her “great resilience” and “out of the box thinking” which resulted in “ways to expand beyond expectations.”
86. Ms. Bush also consistently outperformed her sales goals. 87. In 2006, Ms. Bush exceeded her sales goal by 20%, generating approximately $200,000 in additional sales revenues. 88. As a result of her banner year in 2006, RCSH increased Ms. Bush’s sales goal in 2007 by approximately 400%. 89. Notwithstanding this substantial increase, Ms. Bush was on track to meet this sales goal at the time of her firing. 90. Despite Ms. Bush’s excellent performance at the Company, she was never offered or informed of several promotional opportunities provided to less qualified male employees. 91. Ms. Bush expressed her interest in being promoted to her superior, Gil Fornaris. 92. Ms. Bush often learned of available promotions after the position had already been filled by a male candidate, leaving her with no opportunity to apply for the positions.
20

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 21 of 49
93. Upon information and belief, in mid-September of 2006, then RCSH Regional Vice President Kevin Armantrout was named Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations. This position was not advertised and Ms. Bush was not informed of or offered the opportunity to compete for the position.
94. Ms. Bush would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations position that was filled by Armantrout, a male employee who had joined the Company several years after Ms. Bush.
95. After Armantrout became Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations, his former position—Regional Vice President of the Northern California region, was open. Yet again, this position was not advertised by the Company. And, despite being qualified for the position, Ms. Bush was not informed of, allowed to compete for, or offered the position.
96. Ms. Bush would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of the Northern California region position. However, RCSH hired a male, John Maloney, who had never previously worked for the Company.
97. On or about September of 2006, the Company also hired a male employee, Pete Tambini, as Regional Vice President of the Southeast region. Mr. Tambini was equally or less qualified for that position than Ms. Bush.
98. Ms. Bush would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of the Southeast region position.
99. However, the Company did not advertise the open position and Ms. Bush was not informed of, allowed to compete for, or offered the position.
100. In addition to being denied promotion, Ms. Bush was regularly subjected to sexual remarks and gender-based hostile conduct.
21

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 22 of 49
101. For example, on or about May of 2006, Ms. Bush was on a phone call with a RCSH Regional Vice President. Due to poor reception, Ms. Bush was having difficulty hearing him. Ms. Bush told the RVP that she could not hear him because he was “coming in and out.” In response, he told Ms. Bush that she “w[asn’t] complaining last night.”
102. On or about March 16, 2007, RCSH terminated Ms. Bush’s employment with the Company.
103. Ms. Bush’s superiors informed her that she was being terminated because of her use of “gross profanity” in an internal e-mail.
104. Specifically, in an e-mail to her co-worker, Eric Ostrow, Ms. Bush referred to a RCSH franchise employee as a “prick” because, as noted in the same e-mail, the employee had not responded to Ms. Bush’s numerous requests for information and cooperation. Due to the franchise employee’s non-responsiveness, Ms. Bush was concerned that RCSH was at risk of losing a large sales account.
105. Mr. Ostrow forwarded Bush’s e-mail message to the RCSH franchisee. 106. The franchisee subsequently sent an e-mail to then RCSH Executive Vice President Geoffrey Stiles, wherein she complained about Ms. Bush’s e-mail. 107. In her letter to Stiles, the franchisee complained that Ms. Bush’s statement was directed at “a company man, a Ruth’s Chris company man” and that Bush herself did not have “congenial personality traits” but, instead, had a “counterproductive macho attitude.” 108. Shortly thereafter, RCSH terminated Ms. Bush allegedly due to her “counterculture behavior” which “negatively represented the Company and RCSH’s core values.” 109. RCSH’s stated reasons for terminating Ms. Bush are false and pretextual.
22

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 23 of 49
110. Male RCSH employees, including leaders at the Company, regularly use much more offensive profanity without any punishment, let alone termination.
111. For example, approximately one month prior to Ms. Bush’s termination, a RCSH Corporate Vice President sent an internal e-mail to Ms. Bush and others, including the Chief Operations Officer, wherein he refers to having an “ass-kicking Valentine’s Day.”
112. Moreover, male employees of RCSH are often given profane nicknames by coworkers and superiors, including names such as “Mo F_ _ ker” and “The Magic Wand,” and commonly referred to by those names in the workplace. Despite knowledge of, and participation in, this behavior by RCSH senior management, no disciplinary action has been taken to stop this conduct, despite the fact that it violates stated company policy.
113. In terminating Ms. Bush, RCSH also treated her more harshly than a male employee of RCSH who was involved in an altercation with a franchisee.
114. Specifically, a male employee of RCSH was involved in a verbal altercation with a franchise manager regarding divergent company versus franchise policies. Although the franchise manager reported the corporate employee’s behavior to Geoffrey Stiles, RCSH Chief Operating Officer, the male employee was not terminated and the matter was eventually resolved.
115. As a result of RCSH’s discriminatory conduct, Ms. Bush suffered lost wages, loss of future earnings, and emotional distress. Melia Wilder (née Stopa)
116. Melia Wilder, formerly Stopa, joined RCSH in October of 2002 as a bench General Manager working out of one of the Company’s District of Columbia locations.
23

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 24 of 49
117. After completing her training in the District, Ms. Wilder became the General Manager of the RCSH location in Fairfax, Virginia.
118. Ms. Wilder excelled in her position almost immediately. 119. In 2004, Ms. Wilder beat her performance goals by a wide margin, earning $75,000 in bonuses and nearly doubling her earnings for the year. Shortly thereafter, the Company instituted a cap on yearly bonuses, limiting them to 25% of base salary. 120. In early 2005, after her banner year, Ms. Wilder contacted Geoffrey Stiles, Chief Operating Officer, expressed her interest in advancement within the Company, and sought his advice on the topic. 121. Ms. Wilder was not promoted in 2005. Instead, she was passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified males. 122. Despite her disappointment, Ms. Wilder continued to work hard at the Company and perform superbly. 123. Approximately a year later, in early 2006, Ms. Wilder again expressed her interest in promotion to Stiles. Ms. Wilder wrote Mr. Stiles an e-mail outlining her desire to be promoted to the position of Regional Vice President. Mr. Stiles responded to Ms. Wilder’s letter by directing her to Susan Lumb, then Vice President of Education, in order to develop an “action plan.” Although Ms. Wilder made numerous requests, no such “action plan” ever materialized. 124. Throughout 2006, Ms. Wilder continued to exceed expectations. She also took on additional responsibilities, training new managers and employees throughout the country. 125. In the spring of 2006, at a regional General Manager’s meeting, Siobhan Delulio, the wife of Ms. Wilder’s supervisor, told Ms. Wilder that she should not expect to be
24

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 25 of 49
promoted because then RVP David Delulio, who was her husband and Ms. Wilder’s boss, “didn’t like women.”
126. Ms. Wilder did not receive a promotion in 2006. Again, open positions were given to less qualified males.
127. Not only did RCSH deny Ms. Wilder promotion, it tolerated an environment that was hostile to women and one in which women were subjected to sexual harassment. Ms. Wilder experienced this while attending an annual conference for RCSH General Managers and Chefs in Orlando, Florida in April of 2006. The Director of Operations for a RCSH franchisee, Gary Englade hugged, groped, and followed Ms. Wilder during conference activities. While on a boat ride with her colleagues, Englade pinned Ms. Wilder into her chair and repeatedly asked her why she “wouldn’t go out with him.” Later, when Ms. Wilder crossed paths with Englade, he grabbed her by her shoulders and began shaking her, demanding to know “why she would not go out with him.” Ms. Wilder refused his advances and complained to her superiors. Although Ms. Wilder was later told by her superior that Mr. Englade was instructed to cease his behavior, he was not formally punished.
128. In December of 2006, Ms. Wilder asked David Delulio about his wife’s comments and her opportunities for promotion. Delulio denied his wife’s statements and commended Ms. Wilder for her excellent performance.
129. Ms. Wilder took Delulio’s advice and continued to excel at her job. Indeed, in January of 2007, just two months prior to her termination, Gil Fornaris, a RCSH Vice President of Operations, who was dining at the Fairfax location that she managed, told her that “if [she] kept going like this, [she] was going to get promoted.”
25

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 26 of 49
130. Encouraged by these sentiments, Ms. Wilder spoke with several other RCSH colleagues about her goal of promotion to a RVP position.
131. Despite Ms. Wilder’s excellent performance at the Company, she was never offered or informed of several promotional opportunities provided to less qualified male employees.
132. Upon information and belief, in mid-September of 2006, then RCSH Regional Vice President Kevin Armantrout was named Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations. This position was not advertised and Ms. Wilder was not informed of or offered the opportunity to compete for the position.
133. Ms. Wilder would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations position that was filled by Armantrout, a male employee.
134. After Armantrout became Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations, his former position—Regional Vice President of the Northern California region, was open. Yet again, this position was not advertised by the Company. And, despite being qualified for the position and having repeatedly expressed her interest in a promotion to RVP to her superiors, Ms. Wilder was not informed of or offered the position.
135. Ms. Wilder would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of the Northern California region position. However, RCSH hired a male, John Maloney, who had never previously worked for the Company, to fill the position.
136. On or about September of 2006, the Company also hired a male employee, Pete Tambini, as Regional Vice President of the Southeast region. Mr. Tambini was equally or less qualified for that position than Ms. Wilder.
26

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 27 of 49
137. Ms. Wilder would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of the Southeast region position.
138. However, the Company did not advertise the open position and Ms. Wilder was not informed of, allowed to compete for, or offered the position.
139. In March of 2007, Ms. Wilder was terminated in retaliation for her report of sexual harassment by then RCSH Regional Vice President Kevin Armantrout.
140. In the summer of 2006, Ms. Wilder received a report from one of her subordinates that she was being sexually harassed by Armantrout. Specifically, Ms. Wilder’s female subordinate had traveled to Virginia Beach, Virginia to assist in opening a new restaurant in that location. Armantrout was also working at that restaurant opening. While there, Armantrout repeatedly made sexual advances to the female manager and she reported his conduct to Ms. Wilder. Ms. Wilder immediately reported Armantrout’s sexually offensive and discriminatory behavior to her superior, Delulio.
141. Ms. Wilder next saw Armantrout in March of 2007 at the Company leadership conference in Florida where she was terminated.
142. Prior to her report of sexual harassment against him, Mr. Armantrout had never shown specific animosity towards Ms. Wilder. However, at the leadership conference, he treated her coldly.
143. Viewing the conference as a learning opportunity and a forum where she could shine in front of RCSH leaders, Ms. Wilder actively participated in the conference. During a question-and-answer session with then CEO Craig Miller and COO Geoffrey Stiles, Ms. Wilder asked thoughtful questions and offered her insights on the Company’s progress.
27

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 28 of 49
144. RCSH terminated Ms. Wilder the following day on the purported grounds that her “behavior at the meetings was unacceptable for a RCSH General Manager” and that she showed “diminished leadership” while attending the conference.
145. Specifically, RCSH alleged that, during the conference, Ms. Wilder placed liquor orders for her RCSH restaurant inventory via her cell phone, interrupting other attendees, and appeared bored and made negative remarks about her expectations for the conference.
146. Based solely on the report of Armantrout, RCSH also claimed that Ms. Wilder extended Armantrout, who was not even seated near Ms. Wilder, her middle finger.
147. RCSH’s stated reasons for terminating Ms. Wilder are pretextual. 148. Ms. Wilder did not extend her middle finger, or make any profane or inappropriate gestures, to Mr. Armantrout. 149. Moreover, Ms. Wilder did not force any conference participants to wait for her while she conducted some brief company business. The company business she conducted was limited to a single liquor order for her restaurant and it was made during a break in the proceedings. 150. Furthermore, Ms. Wilder did not make any negative comments about the leadership conference and/or the training she received. 151. Rather, Mr. Armantrout made these false allegations against Ms. Wilder in retaliation for Ms. Wilder having reported him to RCSH leadership for sexual harassment. 152. Indeed, at approximately 12:30 a.m. on March 21, 2007, the date of Ms. Wilder’s termination, Armantrout wrote an e-mail to Sarah Jackson, Vice President of Human Resources, Geoffrey Stiles, and Susan Lumb, in which he manufactured the aforementioned allegations against Ms. Wilder.
28

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 29 of 49
153. Ms. Wilder’s actual actions—namely, asking thoughtful and probing questions of RCSH leaders and offering insightful comments regarding the Company’s progress—would have been praised by RCSH leaders if received from a male manager. Instead, Ms. Wilder was promptly terminated.
154. Ms. Wilder was terminated by the Company in retaliation for her report of sexual harassment by Mr. Armantrout.
155. As a result of the discriminatory conduct by RCSH, Ms. Wilder suffered lost wages, loss of future earnings, and emotional and physical distress. Shelly Goorevich
156. Shelly Goorevich joined RCSH in February of 2001 as a Sales Manager working at the Company’s Arlington, Virginia location.
157. Ms. Goorevich was an outstanding performer at RCSH. For two consecutive years, in 2006 and 2007, Ms. Goorevich alone generated over one million dollars worth of annual sales for the company.
158. Despite her exceptional work performance, Ms. Goorevich earned several thousand dollars less in base salary than at least one of her male counterparts, Eric Ostrow. In 2004, Ms. Goorevich earned approximately $39,500 in base salary. Ostrow, who also held the position of Sales Manager in 2004, was paid over $53,000 in base salary. Similarly, in 2005, Ms. Goorevich was paid a base salary of approximately $41,000, while Mr. Ostrow’s base salary was approximately $60,000. Furthermore, Mr. Ostrow was given an assistant, while Ms. Goorevich was not.
159. During the course of her employment, Ms. Goorevich was frequently subjected to offensive and sexually discriminatory conduct by her colleagues at the Company.
29

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 30 of 49
160. Ms. Goorevich first complained of sexual harassment to RCSH’s Human Resources department in the fall of 2005.
161. At that time, the restaurant Chef and another male line chef regularly used profanity and made sexually derogatory comments and jokes. On one occasion, the line chef held a raw beef tenderloin in front of his groin, as if it were his penis, and waved it around while making elephant noises. Ms. Goorevich reported this incident to Human Resources, as well as the profanity, sexually derogatory jokes and comments, and sexually offensive behavior that was permeating the workplace. Upon information and belief, no one at the Company was terminated or severely punished as a result of the incident.
162. Furthermore, the use of highly sexualized profanity and “jokes” is commonplace at RCSH and is committed by employees at all levels of the corporate hierarchy. RCSH male staff members made countless sexual jokes and taunts and regularly used profanity without repercussion.
163. RCSH leaders encourage such sexually discriminatory and offensive conduct. Male RCSH leaders regularly make profane and sexually offensive remarks in the presence of and about female employees. Male RCSH managers and chefs often discuss which RCSH female employees are “hot.” On one occasion, Ms. Wilder witnessed a regional corporate leader, state, with regard to a female subordinate, that he “want[e]d to bang her so bad [he] could taste her.”
164. Additional, male RCSH leaders regularly engage in vulgar and sexually demeaning and offensive banter about or relating to women. In one instance, a male RCSH Regional Vice President, called another male colleague a “pussy” via a text message that was read in front of several RCSH employees, both male and female. In response, the colleague, who
30

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 31 of 49
was RCSH’s Vice President of Marketing, exclaimed that “you can call me anything but you can’t call me a pussy.”
165. Male RCSH leaders often discuss which female RCSH employees would “give the best blow jobs.” And, on another occasion, two male bosses discussed a female employee’s “nice new titties.”
166. Furthermore, many of the “job qualifications” used to measure suitable female candidates for positions at RCSH are sexist.
167. For example, only attractive women are hired to work in the “front of the house” portion of each restaurant. At the restaurant where Ms. Goorevich worked, several employees complained about the performance of a new female bartender. Doranne Hughes, the General Manager, responded that “she’s attractive and she has legs up to here” and, thus, the complaining employees were told to “suck it up.” “Cute” waitresses were also often assigned to serve regular customers.
168. Corporate leaders backed such sexist employment practices. One Regional Vice President, instructed his subordinates to “hire pretty girls to work your bar.” RCSH managers are authorized to offer higher wages to women who are considered more attractive. Another male RCSH leader, told a subordinate manager to “hire some T&A [tits & ass]” at the bar and at the host stand. He also told the manager that “the prettier they are, the more you can pay them” but not to tell the existing employees how much they are paid.
169. Another RCSH General Manager simply refused to work with “any fat or ugly chicks.” Specifically, he told his employees to “make sure you cut [or dismiss] all of the fat chicks. I don’t want to work with any fat or ugly chicks.”
31

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 32 of 49
170. Furthermore, it is common for male RCSH leaders to report having seduced young and/or new female employees at events such as new restaurant openings. Female employees have also reported groping of female hostesses and wait staff by male executives.
171. One of Ms. Goorevich’s co-workers, Brian Forster, a floor manager at RCSH, was especially hostile to Ms. Goorevich, regularly harassing her.
172. Forster’s ongoing harassment of Ms. Goorevich reached its most egregious level in September of 2008.
173. On or about September 12, 2008, Forster was relaxing in the restaurant office rather than performing his work duties. He told Ms. Goorevich that if she “narced [sic] on him to Doranne [Hughes, the General Manager] about goofing off” that he would “fucking kill [her].” He then added “I love you and I’ll give you a big hug but I will fucking kill you.”
174. Mr. Forster’s harassment did not end with those threats. A few days later, on or about September 15, 2008, Mr. Forster told Ms. Goorevich that he was going to “whip out his cock and slap [Ms. Goorevich] across the face with it.” When Ms. Goorevich asked him to stop tormenting her in that way, Mr. Forster laughed at Ms. Goorevich. Forster laughed at her again when Ms. Goorevich’s reported his statements to her co-worker.
175. Later that day, Ms. Goorevich told Mr. Forster that she was very stressed and having trouble sleeping. In response, Forster told Ms. Goorevich to “masturbate” in order to fall asleep. One of Ms. Goorevich’s co-workers, heard Forster make this statement and both she and Ms. Goorevich told him to stop speaking to Ms. Goorevich in that manner.
176. Ms. Goorevich also told Forster that she was tired of being the “waste receptacle for [Forster’s] misplaced anger.” Forster replied by correcting her—he told her that she was not his “waste receptacle” but, instead, his “cum bucket.”
32

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 33 of 49
177. Just days later, on or about September 22, 2008, Mr. Forster’s tirade continued. On that date, Ms. Goorevich was expecting the delivery of a guest’s wedding cake. She informed Mr. Forster, the floor manager on duty, about the upcoming delivery. In response, Forster (who was watching a football game while at work), told Ms. Goorevich that he didn’t care about the cake because the game was on and that Ms. Goorevich could “shove the cake up [her] ass.”
178. On or about September 23, 2008, Ms. Goorevich reported Forster’s behavior to Doranne Hughes, the General Manager at her restaurant and Ms. Goorevich’s immediate supervisor. Hughes told Ms. Goorevich that she would take care of it. However, Hughes also asked Ms. Goorevich if she thought that Forster was “just being a 25-year old guy thinking that he was being funny.” Ms. Goorevich responded that she didn’t know what Forster was thinking but that his behavior was disgusting and abusive and should stop.
179. For approximately 20 days, Ms. Goorevich waited for further information or a response from Ms. Hughes or the Human Resources department at RCSH regarding her complaint. She received nothing.
180. Thus, on October 13, 2008, Ms. Goorevich addressed an e-mail to Sarah Jackson, then Senior Vice President of Human Resources for RCSH. In her e-mail, Goorevich detailed the sexual harassment she suffered. Goorevich also sent the e-mail to Sandy Jones, Director of Human Resources.
181. Later that day, Ms. Goorevich received a call from Stephen Hong, a RCSH employee in the Human Resources department. Hong informed Ms. Goorevich that Human Resources had not been notified of her complaint (by Ms. Hughes or anyone else) prior to its receipt of Ms. Goorevich’s e-mail.
33

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 34 of 49
182. Later that day, Hughes summoned Ms. Goorevich her office. When she got there, Mr. Forster was already there. Ms. Goorevich was asked to “mediate” the issue with Mr. Forster. Ms. Goorevich was very uncomfortable being directly confronted by Forster. She relayed her feelings to Hughes, who asked Forster to step out.
183. After Forster left, Hughes told Ms. Goorevich that he had made several allegations concerning Goorevich’s treatment of him in response to her complaints of sexual harassment and that she (Hughes) wanted to discuss those allegations. Hughes stated that she did not want to speak for Forster and wanted to invite him back into the “mediation.” Thus, under pressure from Hughes, Goorevich agreed to do so.
184. During the “mediation,” Hughes repeatedly stated that she was upset by Goorevich’s complaints because they “made her look bad” and were “a bad reflection on her.” Furthermore, after Hughes told Goorevich that they were having the mediation to discuss both Goorevich and Forster’s “issues” with one another, Forster accused Goorevich of “undermining” him in front of hourly employees.
185. Forster admitted to harassing Ms. Goorevich, including (but not limited to) telling her that he was going to “slap” her in the face with his “cock.”
186. The following day, Ms. Goorevich contacted Hong and informed him of the “mediation” that occurred. She informed him of her severe discomfort at the way the “mediation” was conducted.
187. Later, Ms. Goorevich learned that Forster was terminated on or about October 21, 2008.
188. The following month, November of 2008, Ms. Goorevich’s supervisors, Doranne Hughes and David Delulio, met with Ms. Goorevich for a performance review.
34

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 35 of 49
189. For the first time in her history with the Company, Ms. Goorevich received a negative review. Ms. Goorevich’s received an overall score of 2.64, below the 3.0 score necessary in order to receive a raise. Ms. Goorevich received scores of 2.0 on items such as “[h]elps the GM set the tone for the culture of the restaurant” and “acts with integrity[.]” In her prior review, just eight months earlier, Ms. Goorevich received a score of 4.0 (“exceeds expectations”) and 5.0 (“outstanding” – the highest rating possible), respectively, on the same items. Indeed, her overall score on the March 2008 performance review was 3.57, well over the score needed to receive a raise.
190. As a result of her negative November 2008 performance review, Ms. Goorevich did not receive a raise for 2009.
191. Furthermore, after Ms. Goorevich complained of Mr. Forster’s harassment, her supervisors and co-workers began to treat her with hostility. Ms. Goorevich was isolated by her boss, Doranne Hughes, as well as her co-workers. She was rarely spoken to, and only if absolutely necessary.
192. On one occasion, Ms. Goorevich slipped and fell at the restaurant and had to go to the emergency for treatment. She was diagnosed with a concussion and received pain medication. Per doctor’s instruction, she was not able to work for three days and informed her office that she would be off due to her injury. When she returned to work, however, she was berated by Hughes for missing work and was written up for abandoning her shift.
193. As a result of the discriminatory behavior by RCSH, Ms. Goorevich suffered severe physical and emotional distress. Ms. Goorevich experienced severe anxiety, weight loss, and stomach problems. Ms. Goorevich sought medical and therapy services in order to deal with these issues.
35

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 36 of 49
194. Given the ongoing hostility she was experiencing at work, as well as the physical and emotional ramifications of such hostility, Ms. Goorevich’s working conditions were intolerable and she felt that she no longer had any future with the Company. Thus, Ms. Goorevich had no option but to terminate her employment.
195. Ms. Goorevich was forced to resign her Sales Manager position with RCSH on or about August 4, 2009. LaDawn Harris-Robinson
196. LaDawn Harris-Robinson joined RCSH in 2002 as a Bartender working at one of the Company’s locations in the District of Columbia.
197. Ms. Harris-Robinson is paid on an hourly basis. 198. Ms. Harris-Robinson has always been an excellent performer at the Company. She was named a “trainer” and tasked with training the new bartenders that joined the Company. Although she was given these added responsibilities, she was not given any additional compensation or benefits. 199. Despite her exceptional work ethic and job performance, Ms. Harris-Robinson has never been promoted in her nine years with the Company. 200. During her first three years of employment at RCSH, Ms. Harris-Robinson was told that she was on track for a promotion with the Company and actively sought a promotion. However, she was never promoted. 201. During the time she has worked at RCSH, three male hourly employees at her location have been promoted to a manager, or manager-track, position. Upon information and belief, during that same time, no female hourly employees at her location were promoted.
36

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 37 of 49
202. Most recently, on or about July of 2010, a male hourly employee, Noad, was promoted to a “Key Employee” position, which is a management track position.
203. This Key Employee position was not advertised by the Company. And, despite being qualified for the position, Ms. Harris-Robinson was not informed of, or even allowed to compete for, the position.
204. Ms. Harris-Robinson would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Key Employee position. However, RCSH hired a male, Noad.
205. Ms. Harris-Robinson only learned of the open Key Employee position after it was already filled by a male, who was cherry-picked by her male superior.
206. In addition to failing to promote Ms. Harris-Robinson, RCSH discriminated against her while she was pregnant.
207. In March of 2010, Ms. Harris-Robinson was approximately five and a half months pregnant. She informed her then-General Manager, Jacques Hermier, of her pregnancy and eventual need to take maternity leave.
208. After Ms. Harris-Robinson informed Hermier of her pregnancy, RCSH began treating her adversely. RCSH changed her schedule, assigning her to an opening shift rather than a closing shift.
209. Furthermore, when she worked the opening shift, Ms. Harris-Robinson was nearly always sent home (or “cut”) earlier than other non-pregnant employees. For example, non-pregnant employees who were assigned the opening shift worked until 9 or 10 p.m. in the evening. However, Ms. Harris-Robinson was cut from her shift at between 7 and 8 p.m., depriving her of additional lucrative work hours.
37

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 38 of 49
210. As a result of working fewer hours, and during less busy times, Ms. HarrisRobinson’s earnings decreased by approximately $200 to $300 per week.
211. Unlike Ms. Harris-Robinson, non-pregnant employees did not suffer this adverse employment action; namely, they were not transferred from the closing shift to the opening shift, nor were they regularly and systematically “cut” from their shift(s) early.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Goorevich and the Class)
212. Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Goorevich incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-211 above.
213. Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Goorevich and members of the proposed Class are, or were, female employees of RCSH and RHG within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq. and are members of a protected class.
214. RCSH adopted and/or maintained and implemented employment practices by its predominately male leadership that are discriminatory, excessively subjective, and/or arbitrary with respect to compensation, promotion, and other terms and conditions of employment.
215. The discriminatory policies and/or practices of RCSH and RHG, as set forth herein, have denied Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Goorevich, and the members of the proposed Class, their right to equal employment opportunity in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq., in that qualified female employees have been denied promotions that were given to equally or less qualified males, received lower pay than equally or less qualified males for the same or essentially the same work, have been denied staff assistance provided to equally or less qualified
38

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 39 of 49
males in the same position, have been giving less desirable shifts and/or work assignments, and have been denied access to staff retreats made available to equally or less qualified males in the same position.
216. The pattern of assignment, promotion, access to opportunities, and compensation inequity on the basis of sex is not the result of random or non-discriminatory factors. Rather, it is the result of an on-going and continuous pattern and practice of intentional sex discrimination in assignments, pay, opportunities, and promotions, and reliance on policies and practices that have an adverse impact on female employees that cannot be justified by business necessity, and for which alternative policies and practices with less discriminatory impact could be utilized that equally serve any asserted justification.
217. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct caused Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Goorevich, and the Class, to suffer injury, including but not limited to loss of wages and other job benefits, and emotional distress.
218. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Goorevich request relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT II EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code §2-1401 et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, Harris-Robinson, and the Class) 219. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and HarrisRobinson incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-218 above. 220. RCSH is an employer under the DCHRA § 2-1401.2(10). 221. Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, Harris-Robinson, and the members of the proposed Class are women and members of a protected class.
39

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 40 of 49
222. RCSH adopted and/or maintained and implemented employment practices by its predominately male leadership that are discriminatory, excessively subjective, and/or arbitrary with respect to compensation, promotion, work assignments, and other terms and conditions of employment.
223. The discriminatory policies and/or practices of RCSH and RHG, as set forth herein, have denied Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Harris-Robinson, and the proposed Class, their right to equal employment opportunity in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, in that qualified female employees have been denied promotions in favor of equally or less qualified males, have received lower pay than equally or less qualified males for the same or essentially the same work, have been denied staff assistance provided to equally or less qualified males in the same position, have been assigned less desirable and/or lucrative shifts and/or work assignments, have been denied access to staff retreats made available to equally or less qualified males in the same position, and have been subjected to other adverse employment actions.
224. The pattern of assignment, promotion, and compensation inequity on the basis of sex is not the result of random or non-discriminatory factors. Rather, it is the result of an ongoing and continuous pattern and practice of intentional sex discrimination in assignments, pay, opportunities, and promotions, and reliance on policies and practices that have an adverse impact on female employees that cannot be justified by business necessity, and for which alternative policies and practices with less discriminatory impact could be utilized that equally serve any asserted justification.
225. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct caused Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, HarrisRobinson, and the proposed Class, to suffer injury, including but not limited to loss of wages and other job benefits, and emotional distress.
40

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 41 of 49
226. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and HarrisRobinson requests relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT III EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER
Sexual Harassment – Hostile Work Environment Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiff Goorevich) 227. Plaintiff Goorevich incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1226 above. 228. This is a claim against RCSH arising under Title VII, as amended, prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace. 229. The conduct of RCSH alleged herein violates Title VII because Plaintiff Goorevich was required to work in a hostile work environment which was tainted by impermissible sex and gender discrimination, including but not limited to, being subjected to repeated sexual harassment and intimidation over a period of time by male corporate leaders and co-workers at RCSH. 230. Plaintiff Goorevich is a member of a protected group, women, and did not welcome the sexual misconduct and hostile work environment created by RCSH. 231. The work environment at RCSH that Plaintiff was subjected to is permeated with discriminatory conduct, ridicule, and insult, thereby unreasonably interfering with the work performance and work conditions of Plaintiff Goorevich and the other women at the Company. 232. RCSH was negligent both in discovering the sexual harassment suffered by Plaintiff Goorevich, as well as in remedying the harassment
41

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 42 of 49
233. As a result of these unlawful employment practices, Plaintiff Goorevich suffers severe emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, shame and trauma for which she claims damages.
234. Plaintiff Goorevich requests relief as hereafter described. COUNT IV
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER Wrongful Discharge
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder and the Class)
235. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs Katharine Bush and Melia Wilder incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-234 above.
236. Plaintiffs Katharine Bush and Melia Wilder and the members of the proposed Class are women and as such are members of a group protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq (“Title VII”) from discrimination on the basis of sex.
237. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder and the members of the proposed Class were qualified for their jobs and their job performance was more than satisfactory.
238. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder and members of the proposed Class were discharged from RCSH due to their sex.
239. Male employees were retained under similar circumstances. 240. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder and members of the proposed Class suffered injuries as a result, including but not limited to lost pay (past and future), embarrassment, humiliation, loss of self esteem, emotional distress, frustration, lost benefits and physical illness.
COUNT V EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER
42

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 43 of 49
Wrongful Discharge District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code §2-1401 et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder and the Class) 241. On behalf of themselves and the proposed Class, Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-240 above. 242. RCSH is an employer under the DCHRA § 2-1401.2(10). 243. Plaintiffs Katharine Bush and Melia Wilder and the members of the proposed Class are women and, as such, are members of a group protected under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act from discrimination on the basis of sex. 244. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder and other members of the proposed Class were qualified for their jobs and their job performance was more than satisfactory. 245. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder and other members of the proposed Class were discharged from RCSH due to their sex. 246. Male employees were retained under similar circumstances. 247. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder and other members of the proposed Class suffered injuries as a result, including but not limited to lost pay (past and future), lost benefits, emotional distress and physical illness. 248. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder request relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT VI RETALIATION Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000(e)-3(a) et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiff Goorevich and Plaintiff Wilder) 249. Plaintiffs Goorevich and Wilder incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-247 above.
43

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 44 of 49
250. Plaintiff Goorevich engaged in activity protected under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) when she complained to her employer about the sexual harassment she suffered from Brian Forster.
251. Defendants subjected Plaintiff Goorevich to adverse employment actions including, but not limited to, a negative performance review, the denial of a pay raise, and a disciplinary write-up.
252. RCSH subjected Plaintiff Goorevich to these adverse employment actions in retaliation against her because of her complaint of sexual harassment.
253. Plaintiff Goorevich suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct, including but not limited to loss of income, humiliation, loss of reputation, loss of income, emotional distress and physical illness.
254. Plaintiff Wilder engaged in activity protected under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) when she complained to her employer about the sexual harassment perpetrated by RCSH Regional Vice President Kevin Armantrout.
255. Defendants subjected Plaintiff Wilder to adverse employment action—namely, termination—in retaliation against her because of her complaint of sexual harassment by Mr. Armantrout.
256. Plaintiff Wilder suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct, including but not limited to loss of income, humiliation, loss of reputation, loss of income, and emotional and physical distress.
257. Plaintiffs Goorevich and Wilder request relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT VII
44

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 45 of 49
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER Constructive Discharge
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiff Goorevich)
258. Plaintiff Shelly Goorevich incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-257 above.
259. Plaintiff Goorevich repeatedly complained to her managers, RCSH human resources personnel and others about the sexual harassment she was experiencing.
260. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff because of her protected activity. 261. Aggravating factors justified Plaintiff Goorevich’s conclusion that she had no option but to end her employment. 262. Ms. Goorevich received a negative performance review for the first time in her history with the Company. 263. As a result of her negative November 2008 performance review, Ms. Goorevich did not receive a raise. 264. Ms. Goorevich was also treated with near-constant hostility by her supervisor, Doranne Hughes, as well as many of her co-workers. Ms. Goorevich was almost completely isolated by her boss and co-workers and was rarely spoken to, and only if absolutely necessary. 265. Ms. Goorevich was also subjected to ongoing mistreatment by her supervisor, Doranne Hughes. 266. As a result of the retaliatory treatment by RCSH, Ms. Goorevich suffered physical and emotional distress. 267. Given the ongoing hostility she experienced at work after her complaint of discrimination, as well as the physical and emotional ramifications of such hostility, Plaintiff’s working conditions were intolerable.
45

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 46 of 49
268. RCSH’s failure to ensure tolerable working conditions free of retaliation was intentional, malicious, deliberate, willful and oppressive, and was carried out with the intent to cause Ms. Goorevich to resign her position.
269. Because of her intolerable working conditions, Plaintiff Goorevich was forced to resign her Sales Manager position with RCSH on or about August 4, 2009.
270. Defendants’ wrongful and illegal conduct caused Plaintiff Goorevich injury including, but not limited to, lost income (past and future), lost benefits, emotional distress and physical injury.
COUNT VIII EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER
Pregnancy Discrimination District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code §2-1401 et seq., including §2-
1401.5 (On Behalf of Plaintiff Harris-Robinson) 271. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-270 above. 272. RCSH is an employer under the DCHRA § 2-1401.2(10). 273. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson is a woman, and was pregnant, and, as such, is a member of a group protected under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act from discrimination on the basis of sex (including pregnancy). 274. Defendants were aware that Ms. Harris-Robinson was pregnant. 275. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson was qualified for her jobs and her job performance was more than satisfactory. 276. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson was subjected to adverse employment actions as a result of her sex, including her pregnancy.
46

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 47 of 49
277. Namely, Plaintiff Harris-Robinson was assigned a less desirable work shift, was “cut” from her shifts early, and had her work hours reduced. As a result, Plaintiff HarrisRobinson earned significantly less money.
278. The aforementioned adverse employment actions occurred in circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.
279. The aforementioned adverse employment actions were caused by Plaintiff Harris-Robinson’s pregnancy.
280. Non-pregnant employees were not subjected to such adverse employment actions.
281. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson suffered injuries as a result, including but not limited to lost pay and emotional distress.
282. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson requests relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
1. That this case be maintained as a class action on behalf of the proposed class, that Plaintiffs be designated as representatives of the class, and that their counsel of record be designated as Class Counsel;
2. That the practices of the Defendants complained of herein be determined and adjudged to be in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, and common law prohibiting gender discrimination in employment;
3. That an injunction be issued prohibiting RCSH and its officers agents, employees, and successors from engaging in the employment practices complained of herein and requiring the adoption of appropriate polices and programs consistent with RCSH’s legal obligations to operate a work environment free from gender discrimination;
47

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 48 of 49
4. That judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and the members of the Class set forth herein, and against Defendants, for back pay (including interest or an appropriate inflation factor), front pay, benefits and all other amounts owed to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class;
5. That the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class be awarded compensatory and punitive damages;
6. That the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class be awarded pre and post judgment interest;
7. That the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class be awarded such other and further legal and equitable relief as may be found appropriate and as the Court may deem just or equitable;
8. That the Court award Plaintiffs and the members of the Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the prosecution of this lawsuit;
9. That the Court retain jurisdiction over RCSH until such time as it is satisfied that it has remedied the practices complained of and is determined to be in full compliance with the law. JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues triable of right by jury.
48

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 38 Filed 10/12/11 Page 49 of 49
Dated: May 6, 2011 Respectfully Submitted,

____________________________ Hassan A. Zavareei D.C. Bar No. 456161 Andrea R. Gold D.C. Bar No. 502607 TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 L Street NW Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 973-0900 (telephone) (202) 973-0950 (fax) hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Cyrus Mehri D.C. Bar No. 420970 Janell Byrd D.C. Bar No. 376609 Danielle Davis D.C. Bar No. 990545 MEHRI & SKALET PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822-5100 (telephone) (202)822-4997 (fax) cmehri@findjustice.com

49

 
 Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 37 Filed 10/12/11 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KATHARINE BUSH, MELIA WILDER (NEE STOPA), and SHELLY GOOREVICH,

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01721 (BJR)

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

AMEND

RUTH’S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., and

RUTH’S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, and Related Notice of New Parties and Claims [Docket No. 23; Filed May 6, 2011] (the “Motion”). Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Motion on April 20, 2011 [Docket No. 24] and Plaintiffs filed a reply on May 31, 2011 [Docket No. 25]. After completion of briefing, Defendants moved for and received leave to file supplemental briefing regarding the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) on the present Motion. Defendants’ supplemental brief was filed on June 24, 2011 [Docket No. 27] and Plaintiffs’ response was filed on July 8, 2011 [Docket No. 28]. The matter was reassigned to this court in September 2011. The Motion is fully briefed and ripe for resolution. As an initial matter, the Motion was filed within the pleading amendment deadline and is therefore timely. For the reasons set forth below,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED.

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 37 Filed 10/12/11 Page 2 of 8
I. Background This matter pertains to Defendants’ alleged discriminatory employment practices. Specifically, Plaintiffs are former female employees of Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder contend that Defendants violated their rights pursuant to the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”). Complaint [#1] at 33-40. The operative Complaint purports to assert “pattern and practice” gender discrimination and retaliation claims. At the time of filing of the parties’ Joint Meet and Confer Reports, they were in agreement that “this case . . . has not been brought as a class action.” Report [#13] at 6; Revised Report [#16] at 9. On March 14, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to dismiss any pattern and practice allegations contained in the operative Complaint on the basis that such allegations are only relevant in cases involving class claims [Docket No. 14]. In its April 1, 2011 opposition to that motion, Plaintiffs do not allege that they intend to pursue class claims [Docket No. 20]. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that pattern and practice allegations and evidence may be used to prove individual claims of discrimination. Opposition [#20] at 2, 8. That motion remains pending and is fully briefed. On the date of the pleading amendment deadline, Plaintiffs filed the Motion at issue here. Specifically, Plaintiffs move to add individual DCHRA claims associated with a new Plaintiff and current employee of Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, LaDawn HarrisRobinson, and, for the first time, to add class claims. Plaintiffs also provide notice of their intent to seek amendment at a later time to assert claims held by an individual
2

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 37 Filed 10/12/11 Page 3 of 8
named Amy Fisher and to assert additional, but presently unexhausted, Title VII claims held by Ms. Harris-Robinson.
As a preliminary matter, Defendants do not oppose amendment to add DCHRA claims on behalf of LaDawn Harris-Robinson. To the extent that Plaintiffs provide notice of their intention to seek amendment to add Ms. Fisher and her claims and any later-exhausted Title VII claims held by Ms. Harris-Robinson, those potential amendments are not at issue here, and the court passes no judgment as to whether such amendments may be granted.
In relation to the class claims, Defendants contend that amendment should not be permitted because Plaintiffs failed to raise class claims earlier despite ample opportunity to do so, Defendants would be unduly prejudiced, and the proposed amendment to add class claims would be futile. Opposition [#24] at 7-9. In regard to futility, Defendants argue that although Plaintiffs contend that the named Plaintiffs share common claims related to employment discrimination, many of the individual claims are distinct from each other and no one Plaintiff has the same claims as another. Id. at 10-12.
II. Analysis The court should grant leave to amend “freely . . . when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Atchinson v. Dist. of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 426 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Leave to amend need not be given, however, when the moving party unduly delayed, failed to amend despite ample opportunity to do so, the nonmoving party would be unduly prejudiced, or amendment would be futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
3

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 37 Filed 10/12/11 Page 4 of 8
A. Undue Delay and Prejudice As a preliminary matter, although Defendants characterize the timing of Plaintiffs’ request as a failure to cure, the court finds that this argument is more appropriately analyzed as undue delay. While recognizing that Plaintiffs could have made their intention to seek relief on the behalf of a class sooner, e.g., before unnecessary scheduling and dispositive motions briefing, the court does not find that Plaintiffs’ conduct to date prevents them from pursuing amendment. See Caribbean Broad. Sys. Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless P.L.C., 148 F.3d 1080, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (noting that even prolonged delay does not necessarily prohibit amendment in light of overwhelming desire to resolve case on its merits). Moreover, the court weighs this factor against whether Defendants are prejudiced by the timing of the amendment. Undue prejudice to Defendants is arguably the most important consideration in determining whether amendment should be permitted. See United States v. Hougham, 364 U.S. 310, 316 (1960) (“Rule 15 . . . was designed to facilitate the amendment of pleadings except where prejudice to the opposing party would result.”). Undue prejudice is not implicated merely because the proposed amendment would “increase defendant’s potential liability” or prompt the need for additional discovery. 6 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1487, at 723 (3d ed. 2010); M.K. v. Tenet, 216 F.R.D. 133, 139-40 (D.D.C. 2002). Given that the Motion was filed within the pleading amendment deadline and that the Complaint already contained pattern and practice allegations, the court finds that Defendants are not unduly prejudiced by the amendment. See 6 Wright et al., supra, at 726-27. Further, pursuant to this Order, the court will direct the parties to propose a new
4

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 37 Filed 10/12/11 Page 5 of 8
case schedule to conduct class-related discovery and to file a motion for class certification.
B. Futility The parties disagree as to the scope of the court’s review regarding whether the proposed amendment to add class claims is futile. Defendants argue that there is a heightened threshold for determining futility when class claims are implicated. Opposition [#24] at 9-12. For example, in addition to considering the traditional Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) standard, Defendants’ argue that the amendment should be subjected to a preliminary, yet rigorous, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 analysis. By contrast, Plaintiffs contend that the traditional futility analysis of whether a pleading could survive a motion to dismiss is the appropriate threshold. Reply [#25] at 7-11. The D.C. Circuit does not appear to have resolved this question, and courts are split as to whether a heightened standard applies when amendment relates to the addition of class claims. Compare Smith v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 953 F.2d 1025 (6th Cir. 1992) (imposing heightened review); Presser v. Key Food Stores Coop., Inc., 218 F.R.D. 53 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (same), with In re Thornburg Mortg., Inc. Sec. Litig., 265 F.R.D. 571 (D.N.M. 2010) (reserving heightened review for class certification stage). The court finds that a hybrid approach of the parties’ proposals is warranted here. Specifically, the court considers whether Plaintiffs’ proposed Amended Complaint contains sufficient allegations to implicate a Rule 23 claim, but only in relation to whether Plaintiffs have satisfied the plausibility pleading requirements governing resolution of a motion to dismiss.
5

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 37 Filed 10/12/11 Page 6 of 8
Although Defendants cite to Wal-Mart as a basis for summarily rejecting Plaintiffs’ class allegations as inadequate, see Supplement [#27] at 2-5, that case was postured dramatically differently than the one at issue here. The decision in Wal-Mart was rendered after discovery had occurred and the issue of class certification had been fully vetted. There, the Supreme Court was able to consider evidence in determining whether a class should be certified. See, e.g., Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2551-52. Here, the court need only consider whether Plaintiffs’ proposed Amended Complaint contains sufficient allegations, taking them as true, to raise a plausible basis for pursuing class claims. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). While to make this determination, the court must cursorily consider whether Plaintiffs allegations speak to the necessary elements of Rule 23, any ambiguity in this area is resolved in favor of Plaintiffs. See Scheuer v. Rhondes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Moreover, to the extent that Defendants cite to evidence, or the lack thereof, to support its position or disprove Plaintiffs’, it is inappropriate to consider matters outside the Complaint at this stage, and the court does not do so. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1210 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
In order to plausibly implicate Rule 23, Plaintiffs’ allegations must speak to whether (1) the class is sufficiently numerous such that it would be infeasible to adjudicate all claims separately; (2) there exist questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the representative parties’ claims are typical of the class; and (4) the representative parties can fairly protect the interests of class members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). These four factors are often referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequate representation. See, e.g., Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2250. Moreover, the
6

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 37 Filed 10/12/11 Page 7 of 8
class must be alleged to fall within one of the three categories of class actions listed in Rule 23(b).
On its face, the proposed Amended Complaint contains sufficient allegations that speak to each of the four factors set forth in Rule 23(a). In addition, Plaintiffs assert that their class claims could potentially be certified pursuant to either Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3). These allegations can and should be thoroughly vetted after pre-class discovery and further briefing. See, e.g., Thornburg, 265 F.R.D. at 581. It is not the court’s role at this stage to weigh the persuasiveness of the parties’ respective positions. See Scheuer, 416 U.S. at 236 (noting that the issue is “not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims”); Nat’l Cmty. Reinvestment Coal. v. NovaStar Fin., Inc., 604 F. Supp. 2d 26, 31 (D.D.C. 2009) (recognizing that “a low likelihood of success is not an acceptable reason for denying leave to amend”). Therefore, the court will leave the question of whether Plaintiffs are actually entitled to class recovery to be decided on a fully-briefed motion for class certification.
Resolving all ambiguities in favor of Plaintiffs, the court concludes that it is not clear that the proposed amendments are futile. Furthermore, the request was timely made and Defendants have not demonstrated that they will suffer any undue prejudice. Accordingly,
III. Conclusion IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint [Docket No. 23-1] is accepted for filing as of the date of this Order;
7

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 37 Filed 10/12/11 Page 8 of 8
(2) Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint on or before November 14, 2011;
(3) the court passes no judgment as to the appropriateness of further amendment to include additional claims by Ms. Harris-Robinson or new claims by Ms. Fisher; and
(4) on or before November 23, 2011, the parties shall submit a revised Joint Meet and Confer Report which takes into account the existence of class claims and proposes deadlines and parameters for class-certification discovery and a deadline to file a motion for class certification.
Given that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment addresses dismissal of Plaintiffs’ pattern and practice allegations on the basis that no class claims are asserted, the court’s holding above necessarily moots Defendants’ motion. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [#14] is STRICKEN as moot. Dated: October 12, 2011
/s Barbara J. Rothstein BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8

 
 Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 54

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KATHARINE BUSH, 2212 Great Falls Street Falls Church, VA 22048,

MELIA WILDER (NEE STOPA), 14611 Willow Creek Drive Centreville, VA 20120

SHELLY GOOREVICH 250 South Reynolds Street Apartment 308 Alexandria, VA 22304

LADAWN HARRIS-ROBINSON 14200 Farnsworth Lane Unit 405 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

and

AMY FISCHER 30 Caldwell St. Unit 328 Charlestown, MA 02129

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01721-RBW

v.

CLASS ACTION

RUTH’S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH’S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC. and RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC,
1030 W. Canton Ave. Suite 100 Winter Park, FL 32789

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 2 of 54

Plaintiffs KATHARINE BUSH (“Bush”), MELIA WILDER (NEE STOPA) (“Wilder”), SHELLY GOOREVICH (“Goorevich”), LADAWN HARRIS-ROBINSON (“HarrisRobinson”), and AMY FISCHER (collectively “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege and state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1.

Plaintiffs are former employees of Ruth’s Chris Steak House, Inc. (“RCSH,

Inc.”), which was renamed Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc. (“RHG”) in 2008. RHG and its

wholly-owned subsidiaries, RCSH Management, Inc. (“RCSH Management”) and RCSH

Operations, LLC (“RCSH Operations”), operate a large chain of upscale steak houses in the

United States and internationally. These corporate entities are referred to collectively herein as

“RCSH” or the “Company”.

2.

RCSH, Inc. was founded in the mid-1960s by an entrepreneurial woman, Ruth

Fertel (1927-2002), who having founded and grown a leading restaurant chain, personally broke

many barriers and the glass ceiling for women in the restaurant industry. Notwithstanding this

history, in recent years the Company has developed a culture in which conduct demeaning and

hostile to women is widely practiced and accepted and a pattern and practice of discrimination

against female employees in the terms and conditions of employment, including, inter alia,

discriminatory compensation, termination, and retaliation.

3.

Plaintiffs each perform and/or performed their job with high levels of skill,

dedication, and success. Nonetheless, they have each been discriminated against by RCSH

because of their gender with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment, in violation

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, et seq., and as to Plaintiffs

2

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 3 of 54

Bush, Wilder, and Harris-Robinson, the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C.

Code § 2-1401, et seq.

4.

RCSH’s violations are systemic and constitute a pattern and practice of illegal

conduct over many years that continue to the present.

5. Defendants’ discrimination against Plaintiffs is part of its systemic, company-

wide discriminatory treatment of its female employees in violation of federal and applicable state

civil rights laws. Plaintiffs have satisfied administrative prerequisites. Plaintiffs now file this

Complaint on their own behalf and on behalf of all women similarly situated.

6.

As a result of these practices, the statistical evidence available to Plaintiffs as of

December of 2007, showed the following gender breakdown in employment at certain leadership

positions at the Company:

Executive level – 14% women (1/7)

Corporate Vice President – 14% women (3/22)

General Manager – 8% women (5/61)

Chef – 3% women (2/61)

7.

Ascension to Senior Management is primarily viable through the Operations

sector, but women were systemically channeled out of Operations. As of December 2007, there

were very few women in feeder positions:

Senior Manager/Assistant General Manager: 9% women (2/23)

Manager: 21% women (23/109)

Assistant/Sous Chef: 2% women (1/53)

8. The 2009 Annual Report shows that the Management Team at RCSH is

comprised of all males and the seven-person Board of Directors has just one woman Director.

3

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 4 of 54
9. Data available as of December of 2007 showed that only 8% of employees eligible for stock options were females.
10. The practices that RCSH engages in that discriminate on the basis of sex are summarized as:
a. Discrimination in Compensation: RCSH leaders, who are predominantly male, are given a great deal of discretion in determining salaries, raises, and bonuses. As a result of RCSH’s excessively subjective compensation practices, women who are equally or more qualified than male employees who perform the same jobs are frequently compensated at a lower rate than comparable males. For example, Ms. Bush was a highly successful employee who had significantly greater experience than Eric Ostrow, a male, and had served as a sales manager at least as long as Mr. Ostrow. When Mr. Ostrow and Ms. Bush both held the position of Sales Manager, RCSH consistently paid Mr. Ostrow a higher salary. In each year, from 2004 to 2005, RCSH paid Mr. Ostrow a base salary that was over $10,000 higher than Ms. Bush’s base salary. In January of 2006, Ms. Bush and Mr. Ostrow were both promoted to the position of National Sales Manager. Despite her greater experience and being promoted to the same position at approximately the same time, RCSH gave Mr. Ostrow a compensation package that included a 3% local sales commission and an assistant, compensated at approximate $40,000 per year, who would further increase his commission-based compensation. Thus, despite the fact that RCSH gave Ms. Bush a higher base salary than Mr. Ostrow ($13,000 more in base salary), Mr. Ostrow’s total salary for 2006 was more than $20,000 higher than Ms. Bush’s.
4

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 5 of 54
b. Discrimination in Promotion: RCSH does not provide all of its employees with fair and equal opportunities for career advancement. Prior to May of 2008, the Company did not employ any proactive job posting policy. Although the Company maintained an internal internet portal for job postings, the Company did not post available positions on a regular and uniform basis. Many available jobs were never posted, and others were posted even though a person has already been hand-picked for the position. On or about May of 2008, the Company purportedly instituted a formal job posting policy. However, that policy contains many subjective elements and managers and other supervisory employees are given great discretion as to whether positions are posted. As a result of such practices, numerous available positions within the Company are filled via an informal, “tap on the shoulder” process in which predominately male managers cherry-pick other male employees. This informal process lacks open competition between all qualified candidates and the selection process is highly subjective and open to manipulation.
c. “Glass Ceiling”: Female employees at RCSH are faced with a “glass ceiling” on their paths to career advancement. Few women advance to senior levels in the Company, although women are more highly represented in the lower ranks of the workforce. Currently, no women serve on the senior Management Team, the group charged with running the operations of the Company and developing its business strategy. Since the Company’s founder, Ruth Fertel, ceased running the Company, very few women have served on the Management Team.
d. “Glass Walls”: In additional to erecting barriers to vertical advancement in the Company, female employees at RCSH are segregated into less lucrative and
5

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 6 of 54
prestigious departments within the Company. For example, very few women are in the traditional “feeder” positions in the Operations department which generally lead to promotion to upper management. Women are underrepresented in the positions of Assistant General Manager/Senior Manager, Sous/Assistant Chef, and Manager. Similarly, there is a dearth of female employees in the positions of General Manager and Chef, the next rung on the employment ladder. On the contrary, women are more highly represented in other less lucrative and less powerful departments within the Company, such as Human Resources and Sales.
e. Failure to Monitor or Remedy Discrimination: RCSH’s senior management, including its Human Resources Department, has failed to monitor the Company’s promotion and compensation practices for a discriminatory effect. In light of this failure, female employees are subjected to ongoing harm.
f. RCSH’s Male Dominated Culture Demeans Women: The work environment at RCSH is one that is demeaning to women, reflects a culture of male domination and female subjugation, and is a causative factor in the discrimination against women in compensation, promotion, and termination. Female employees at RCSH are frequently subjected to sexually hostile and demeaning treatment. This includes, but is not limited to, unwelcome sexually charged “jokes” and commentary, name-calling and physical touching. Senior management has both participated in creating this environment and been aware of many instances of it. Nonetheless, RCSH’s management has not taken reasonable steps to change the environment. Thus, RCSH essentially endorses this hostile environment for women employees. For example, on or about May of 2006, Plaintiff Bush was on a phone call with RCSH Regional Vice President Joe O’Donnell.
6

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 7 of 54
Due to poor reception, Ms. Bush was having difficulty hearing O’Donnell. She told him that she could not hear him because he was “coming in and out.” In response, Mr. O’Donnell told Ms. Bush that she “w[asn’t] complaining last night.” Plaintiff Goorevich was told, by a male RCSH employee who regularly harassed her, that she was his “cum bucket.”
g. Women are Disciplined More Harshly than Men: RCSH imposes harsher discipline, including the ultimate form of discipline, termination, on female employees than male employees. For instance, Plaintiff Bush was purportedly terminated for using “profanity” in an e-mail; namely, the word “prick.” However, male employees—including top management at the Company—regularly use similar, and in most cases, more offensive and profane language. For instance, a RCSH corporate Vice President sent an e-mail to all of the company management telling them to have an “asskicking Valentine’s Day.” Another male employee, Mohammad Fakhara, has been nicknamed “Mo-Fucker” by his co-workers and is regularly called this profane name by his colleagues and superiors alike. Another male leader—a former Regional Vice President—instructed his employees to hire some “T&A [tits and ass]” to work as bartenders at a Company restaurant location. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder witnessed various conversations amongst male leaders in which they discussed which female employee of the Company would “give the best blow job.” In short, extreme public vulgarity is condoned by RCSH leaders—and used by the leaders themselves—so long as the vulgarity is used by male, not female, employees. Furthermore, male employees who have committed much more egregious violations have not been terminated from their employment. Male managers, including top leadership, have regularly been extremely
7

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 8 of 54
intoxicated at Company functions, carried on sexual affairs with female subordinates, and have stolen from the Company, but have not been terminated.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4), which confers original jurisdiction upon this Court in a civil action to recover damages or to secure equitable relief or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for protection of civil rights; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which confers original jurisdiction upon this Court in a civil action arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States; and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337, which confers original jurisdiction upon this court in a civil action arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce. 12. This court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the claims brought pursuant to state and local laws prohibiting gender discrimination in employment. 13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants have locations, and conduct business, in the District of Columbia. Many of the acts complained of occurred in the District of Columbia and give rise to the claims alleged.
PARTIES 14. Katharine Bush is a female adult citizen, and is a resident of Falls Church, Virginia. Ms. Bush was employed by RCSH from September 1998 to March 2007 at one of its locations in the District of Columbia. 15. Melia Wilder is a female adult citizen, and is a resident of Centreville, Virginia. Ms. Wilder was employed by RCSH from October 2002 to March 2007 at one of its locations in the District of Columbia as well as its Fairfax, Virginia location.
8

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 9 of 54
16. Shelly Goorevich is a female adult citizen, and is a resident of Alexandria, Virginia. Ms. Goorevich was employed by RCSH from February 2001 to August 2009 at its Arlington, Virginia location.
17. LaDawn Harris-Robinson is a female adult citizen, and is a resident of Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Ms. Harris-Robinson was employed by RCSH at one of its locations in the District of Columbia from 2002 until August of 2011.
18. Amy Fischer is a female adult citizen, and is a resident of Charlestown, Massachusetts. Ms. Fischer was employed by RCSH from August 2005 to March 2011 at its Boston, Massachusetts location.
19. RCSH was founded in 1965 in New Orleans, Louisiana by Ruth Fertel, a single mother at the time, who mortgaged her home to buy the Company’s first steakhouse restaurant. RCSH began to expand in 1972, when Ms. Fertel opened a second restaurant in Metairie, Louisiana.
20. RCSH opened its first franchise in 1976. Many additional restaurants were opened as the Company grew and, in August of 2005, RCSH went public, selling shares of its common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. Shortly thereafter, RCSH relocated its headquarters from Louisiana to Heathrow, Florida.
21. In February of 2008, RCSH acquired Mitchell’s Fish Market, which operated restaurants under the names Mitchell’s Fish Market and Columbus Fish Market. At that same time, RCSH also acquired restaurants operating under the names Cameron’s Steakhouse and Mitchell’s Steakhouse from Cameron Mitchell Restaurants, LLC.
22. In May of 2008, RCSH changed its name from Ruth’s Chris Steak House, Inc. to Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc. The Company now considers RHG to be the parent company of
9

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 10 of 54
RCSH. RHG is a publicly traded corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. In 2011, it relocated its principal place of business from Heathrow, Florida to Winter Park, Florida.
23. As of December of 2009, there were 130 Ruth’s Chris Steak House restaurants located throughout the country and the world. Of those restaurants, about half are owned by RHG and the other half are owned by franchisees, including franchisee-owned restaurants in Aruba, Canada, China (Hong Kong), Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates.
24. RHG employs approximately 5,600 people. Of those employees, approximately 475 are salaried employees and the remainder are hourly personnel.
25. For 2009, RHG reported revenues of over $330 million, net income of approximately $2.4 million, and assets of approximately $254 million.
26. RCSH has common management, and there is centralized control of labor relations in the parent company, RHG (formerly RCSH, Inc.), which formulates, implements and oversees the employment policies and procedures for the Company, including employment policies for RHG’s subsidiaries RCSH Management and RCSH Operations.
27. RCSH Management is incorporated in the State of Louisiana. Its principal place of business is the same as that for RHG in Winter Park, Florida. RCSH Management employs general managers, sales managers, some regional vice presidents and perhaps others at RCSH. RCSH Management has three officers/directors, all of whom are also officers/directors of RHG.
28. RCSH Operations is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana. Its mailing address is the same as that for RHG and RCSH Management in Winter Park, Florida. RCSH Operations is also registered in Florida as a foreign limited liability company. RCSH Operations employs non-managerial employees and perhaps
10

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 11 of 54
others who work in the RCSH restaurants. RHG is identified in public filings as the sole officer/director of RCSH Operations.
29. There is common management, interrelation of operations, centralized control of labor relations and personnel, and common ownership and financial control between RHG, RCSH, Inc., RCSH Management, and RCSH Operations.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 30. Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, Goorevich, Harris-Robinson, and Fischer have each filed timely charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and applicable state and/or local agencies alleging, among other things, gender discrimination against RCSH with respect to the compensation, promotion, harassment, and termination of female employees in violation of Title VII and applicable state and/or local civil rights laws. 31. Plaintiff Bush filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC and the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission on July 3, 2007. She received her Right to Sue notice on July 13, 2010. Plaintiff Bush has exhausted all administrative remedies. 32. Plaintiff Wilder filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC and the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission on July 3, 2007. She received her Right to Sue notice on July 19, 2010. Plaintiff Wilder has exhausted all administrative remedies. 33. Plaintiff Goorevich filed a charge of sex discrimination with the EEOC and the Arlington County Human Rights Commission on October 30, 2008. She received her Right to Sue notice on July 19, 2010. Plaintiff Goorevich has exhausted all administrative remedies. 34. Plaintiff Fischer filed a charge of sex and age discrimination and retaliation with the EEOC and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination on May 26, 2011. She
11

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 12 of 54
received her Right to Sue notice on October 28, 2011. Plaintiff Fischer has exhausted all administrative remedies.
35. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson filed a charge of sex and pregnancy discrimination with the EEOC on June 6, 2011. She received her Right to Sue notice on January 25, 2012. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson has exhausted all administrative remedies.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 36. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-35 above. 37. Plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of a class of all female RCSH employees employed at RCSH’s Home Office and all RCSH restaurants at any time from September 6, 2006 and continuing to the present, who have been subjected to gender-based discriminatory policies or practices by Defendants (the “Class”). Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definitions of the class based on discovery or legal developments. 38. Plaintiffs are members of the Class they seek to represent. 39. The members of the Class identified herein are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The number of women in the class is in the hundreds of people. 40. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, and these questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include, but are not limited to: (1) whether RCSH’s written and unwritten policies and/or practices discriminate against female employees; (2) whether RCSH’s female employees have been promoted at rates that are disproportionately low compared to the rates at which male employees have been promoted; (3) whether RCSH segregates female employees into particular job categories; (4) whether RCSH permits excessive subjectivity in determining promotions and
12

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 13 of 54
other internal job selections; (5) whether such excessive subjectivity represents a deliberate action by RCSH to block promotion of female employees; (6) whether RCSH’s female employees have been afforded treatment with respect to numerous aspects of employment (including training, support, compensation, scheduling, mentorship, and participation in company retreats, etc.) that is less favorable than the treatment afforded by RCSH to their male counterparts; (7) whether RCSH permits managers excessive subjectivity in determining compensation, including salary increases, bonuses, and other compensation (8) whether the reason that RCSH has afforded its female employees less favorable treatment than their male counterparts is the acceptance of a stereotype; (9) whether RCSH has created and maintained a hostile work environment for its female employees; (10) whether RCSH has failed to take adequate measures to modify its policies and procedures that adversely affect female employees; (11) whether RCSH’s policies and practices violate Title VII and/or the District of Columbia Human Rights Act; and (12) whether equitable remedies, injunctive relief, compensatory, and punitive damages for the class are warranted.
41. The Representative Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class. Specifically, they have all been subjected to the same company-wide practice of gender discrimination in employment; all of their claims are based upon allegations that they have been adversely affected by that practice of gender discrimination in a similar manner in that they have received less favorable treatment than their male counterparts with respect to numerous aspects of employment; and their claims all rest on common evidence and are all based on common legal theories.
13

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 14 of 54
42. The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the class. Plaintiffs are willing and able to represent the proposed class and have every incentive to pursue this action to a successful conclusion.
43. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions, employment discrimination litigation, and the intersection thereof.
44. Class certification status is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable the class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiffs and the class as a whole. The class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end RCSH’s common, uniform, unfair and discriminatory policies and practices.
45. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. The class members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of RCSH’s common, uniform, and discriminatory policies and practices. RCSH has computerized data that will make calculation of damages for specific Class members relatively simple. The propriety and amount of punitive damages are based on the conduct of the Defendants, making these issues common to the class.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 46. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-45 above. 47. Since at least September of 2006, RCSH has denied equal employment opportunities to its female employees. RCSH has engaged in a pattern and practice of gender discrimination with respect to the assignment, compensation, promotion, and termination of
14

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 15 of 54
female employees from its hourly, lower-level management, and chef positions to higher-level positions with more authority and higher compensation. RCSH’s pattern and practice of gender discrimination extends to other terms and conditions of employment of its female employees, including, but not limited to the provision of staff support and mentoring and networking opportunities made available through male-only company-approved retreats with Company leaders.
48. Female employees at RCSH are discriminated against on the basis of gender with respect to career advancement in the Company.
49. By entrusting RCSH corporate leaders, virtually all of whom are men, with excessive discretion in assignment and promotion decisions, RCSH maintains a system whereby the corporate leaders apply their own personal preferences and biases in employee assignments and promotions.
50. Promotions are made on a “tap on the shoulder” basis and are generally given to male employees who are members of the “old boys’ network.”
51. For example, the Company underwent reorganization in 2003. The result of that reorganization was to channel women out of upper level positions. Female representation in upper management in Operations decreased from 25% (pre-reorganization) to 17% (at reorganization) to 0% in 2007.
52. As part of the reorganization, female employees were moved out of Operations: After the 2003 reorganization, the only remaining female Regional Vice President, Lanette Jarvis, was demoted and moved out of Operations. Jarvis was replaced by Susan Lumb, but in late 2005, she too was moved out of Operations into Education—leaving zero high-ranking females in Operations at that time.
15

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 16 of 54
53. Such subjective decision-making is made possible, in part, by RCSH’s lack of a proactive job posting policy or practice.
54. Although the Company maintained a website which allowed for job posting, many job openings were never posted or advertised in any way. As such, Plaintiffs often only learned of available positions once they had already been filled by male employees.
55. RCSH also employs testing procedures as part of its hiring and promotion processes. Specifically, the Company uses testing created by Batrus Hollweg, as well as other testing materials available on the internet.
56. The Company maintains such test results in the personnel files of its employees and takes such test scores into account in making its hiring and promotion decisions.
57. For example, during the interview process, current and/or prospective employees must complete a Batrus Hollweg “assessment” test. The employee’s advancement in the hiring and/or promotion process may be continued or discontinued based on the results of such assessment.
58. The Batrus Hollweg testing potentially contributes to barriers to advancement for female employees at the company.
59. Advancement by female employees at the Company is also curtailed by numerous subjective aspects of the decision-making process.
60. For instance, male superiors can unilaterally truncate such advancement. 61. Hourly employees seeking to advance to salaried management positions must first be chosen as a “certified coach” by their general managers, who are predominantly male. Once selected as a “coach” and given permission by their General Manager, they must also receive permission to seek promotion from the Regional Vice President (“RVP”), a position also
16

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 17 of 54
predominantly held by men. And, even assuming they receive this permission, the RVP or other superior may later discontinue the application process at more than one juncture.
62. For female employees seeking management or corporate positions, such as RVP, there is virtually no process or procedure and selections are made almost entirely on a subjective basis.
63. Furthermore, female employees of RCSH are excluded from networking opportunities available only to men. Such networking opportunities are crucial in advancing one’s chances for promotion.
64. For example, for several years while the Plaintiffs were employed with the Company, male RCSH corporate leaders (Regional Vice Presidents, Corporate Vice Presidents, and Executives) have attended a corporate retreat sponsored by either RCSH or one of its vendors. These corporate retreats have taken place in Scotland, England, and Ireland.
65. In addition to networking, the retreats are an opportunity for Company leaders to conduct business discussions amongst themselves and with vendors, as well as to socialize with one another and with vendor representatives and executives. These retreats are opportunities for employees to build relationships with co-workers, superiors and vendors, which are essential to career advancement at RCSH.
66. Women have been entirely excluded from these retreats. In fact, male corporate leaders often refer to the retreat as the “guys’ trip.”
67. As a result of exclusion from these Company retreats, female employees are denied the same opportunity provided to male employees to develop and build career advancing relationships within the Company.
17

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 18 of 54
68. Female employees have also experienced discrimination with respect to compensation in the form of salary, bonuses, and stock options.
69. Initially, the channeling of females into lower paying departments has resulted in females receiving less pay than comparable males.
70. RCSH has established and maintains a compensation system wherein male corporate leaders are given undue discretion in making compensation decisions. This has the result of denying women compensation equal to that of comparable male employees.
71. RCSH also fosters and promotes a work environment that is inhospitable for women. Gender based hostility pervades almost every aspect of the business, including hiring, promotion, compensation, discipline and termination.
72. Female employees are treated in a demeaning and discriminatory manner by male RCSH leaders and fellow employees. Female employees are frequently the target of sexual stereotypical and derogatory remarks and jokes. Female employees at RCSH have been groped, sexually propositioned, and harassed by male RCSH employees.
73. Finally, female employees at RCSH are discriminated against on the basis of sex with respect to terminations. Females are terminated from the Company for conduct which when engaged in by males, does not result in termination.
74. RCSH has failed to undertake adequate measures to stop the perpetuation of these discriminatory policies and practices at the Company.
Katharine Bush 75. Katharine Bush began working at RCSH in September of 1998, as a bookkeeper. At that time, Ms. Bush was paid at a rate of $13 to $16 per hour.
18

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 19 of 54
76. Ms. Bush began her job at RCSH without any fear, anticipation, or anxiety regarding discrimination. Instead, she reasonably expected that her participation in the RCSH workforce would provide numerous opportunities for advancement, and she worked hard to take full advantage of those opportunities.
77. Early on in her career at RCSH, in the late 1990’s, Ms. Bush complained to HR about sex-based hostile actions by another employee, when a Chef screamed at her and threw something at her. She was pulled aside by her General Manager and told, in effect, “you are a big girl,” you can handle this without complaining. Ms. Bush learned from this experience that this was the accepted environment at RCSH and that she was expected to live with it.
78. In 2000, Ms. Bush was promoted to the position of Sales Manager. Ms. Bush performed well in her new position, taking on team leadership positions and training newer employees. Ms. Bush also assisted the Company’s IT department in creating its RacS software system.
79. RCSH named Ms. Bush a “team leader” in late 2001. In that role, she worked with other Sales Managers to develop marketing plans, review financial information, and support sales.
80. Despite such increased responsibilities, Ms. Bush officially remained a Sales Manager and did not receive any additional compensation or employment benefits in exchange for her added responsibilities.
81. In 2004, Ms. Bush’s superior, Gil Fornaris, commended her for her good work. During this same time period, Ms. Bush informed her superiors of her interest in a promotion and increased compensation.
19

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 20 of 54
82. Ms. Bush’s superiors at RCSH, however, did not promote Ms. Bush or provide her with increased compensation. Instead, they gave her the title of “Regional Sales Manager” and the added responsibility of managing four additional markets and supervising four sales managers, but provided no additional compensation or benefits despite the added responsibilities.
83. At or around this time, in the year 2004, Ms. Bush’s base salary was approximately $10,000 to $12,000 less than the base salary of one of her male co-workers, Eric Ostrow.
84. Mr. Ostrow, who also worked as a Sales Manager, had less experience than Ms. Bush.
85. RCSH also paid Mr. Ostrow more than Ms. Bush in 2005. In that year, Mr. Ostrow was paid a base salary that was approximately $10,000 higher than Ms. Bush’s base salary.
86. In December of 2005, RCSH discontinued the Director of National Sales position and Ms. Bush volunteered to take on additional work that had previously been delegated to that position.
87. In January of 2006, RCSH promoted Ms. Bush to the position of National Sales Manager. At the same time, RCSH also promoted Eric Ostrow to the National Sales Manager position.
88. Despite having been given the same position, RCSH paid Mr. Ostrow a commission on local sales which it did not provide to Ms. Bush. Upon information and belief, that local sales commission amounted to on or about $45,000. RCSH also provided an administrative assistant to support Mr. Ostrow, but did not provide Ms. Bush with such an assistant.
20

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 21 of 54
89. As National Sales Manager, Ms. Bush continued to perform superbly. She implemented numerous national sales initiatives, including (but not limited to) a program for corporate business to business gift cards.
90. Indeed, throughout her tenure at RCSH, Ms. Bush excelled. 91. In Ms. Bush’s last performance review prior to her termination, she was rated as “Exceeds Standards” in forty-four (44) out of fifty-nine (59) categories, or approximately 75% of the listed categories. Of the remaining 15 categories, Ms. Bush received a rating of “Meets Standards” in thirteen categories and a rating of “Outstanding” (the highest possible rating) in two categories. Ms. Bush did not receive any negative ratings. 92. Just three months prior to her termination, Ms. Bush’s superior commended her for doing an “exceptional job” and for her ability to remain “focused, flexible, and supportive to achieve [her] goals.” Ms. Bush’s superior also made note of her “great resilience” and “out of the box thinking” which resulted in “ways to expand beyond expectations.” 93. Ms. Bush also consistently outperformed her sales goals. 94. In 2006, Ms. Bush exceeded her sales goal by 20%, generating approximately $200,000 in additional sales revenues. 95. As a result of her banner year in 2006, RCSH increased Ms. Bush’s sales goal in 2007 by approximately 400%. 96. Notwithstanding this substantial increase, Ms. Bush was on track to meet this sales goal at the time of her firing. 97. Despite Ms. Bush’s excellent performance at the Company, she was never offered or informed of several promotional opportunities provided to less qualified male employees. 98. Ms. Bush expressed her interest in being promoted to her superior, Gil Fornaris.
21

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 22 of 54
99. Ms. Bush often learned of available promotions after the position had already been filled by a male candidate, leaving her with no opportunity to apply for the positions.
100. Upon information and belief, in mid-September of 2006, then RCSH Regional Vice President Kevin Armantrout was named Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations. This position was not advertised and Ms. Bush was not informed of or offered the opportunity to compete for the position.
101. Ms. Bush would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations position that was filled by Armantrout, a male employee who had joined the Company several years after Ms. Bush.
102. After Armantrout became Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations, his former position—Regional Vice President of the Northern California region, was open. Yet again, this position was not advertised by the Company. And, despite being qualified for the position, Ms. Bush was not informed of, allowed to compete for, or offered the position.
103. Ms. Bush would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of the Northern California region position. However, RCSH hired a male, John Maloney, who had never previously worked for the Company.
104. On or about September of 2006, the Company also hired a male employee, Pete Tambini, as Regional Vice President of the Southeast region. Mr. Tambini was equally or less qualified for that position than Ms. Bush.
105. Ms. Bush would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of the Southeast region position.
106. However, the Company did not advertise the open position and Ms. Bush was not informed of, allowed to compete for, or offered the position.
22

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 23 of 54
107. In addition to being denied promotion, Ms. Bush was regularly subjected to sexual remarks and gender-based hostile conduct.
108. For example, on or about May of 2006, Ms. Bush was on a phone call with a RCSH Regional Vice President. Due to poor reception, Ms. Bush was having difficulty hearing him. Ms. Bush told the RVP that she could not hear him because he was “coming in and out.” In response, he told Ms. Bush that she “w[asn’t] complaining last night.”
109. On or about March 16, 2007, RCSH terminated Ms. Bush’s employment with the Company.
110. Ms. Bush’s superiors informed her that she was being terminated because of her use of “gross profanity” in an internal e-mail.
111. Specifically, in an e-mail to her co-worker, Eric Ostrow, Ms. Bush referred to a RCSH franchise employee as a “prick” because, as noted in the same e-mail, the employee had not responded to Ms. Bush’s numerous requests for information and cooperation. Due to the franchise employee’s non-responsiveness, Ms. Bush was concerned that RCSH was at risk of losing a large sales account.
112. Mr. Ostrow forwarded Bush’s e-mail message to the RCSH franchisee. 113. The franchisee subsequently sent an e-mail to then RCSH Executive Vice President Geoffrey Stiles, wherein she complained about Ms. Bush’s e-mail. 114. In her letter to Stiles, the franchisee complained that Ms. Bush’s statement was directed at “a company man, a Ruth’s Chris company man” and that Bush herself did not have “congenial personality traits” but, instead, had a “counterproductive macho attitude.” 115. Shortly thereafter, RCSH terminated Ms. Bush allegedly due to her “counterculture behavior” which “negatively represented the Company and RCSH’s core values.”
23

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 24 of 54
116. RCSH’s stated reasons for terminating Ms. Bush are false and pretextual. 117. Male RCSH employees, including leaders at the Company, regularly use much more offensive profanity without any punishment, let alone termination. 118. For example, approximately one month prior to Ms. Bush’s termination, a RCSH Corporate Vice President sent an internal e-mail to Ms. Bush and others, including the Chief Operations Officer, wherein he refers to having an “ass-kicking Valentine’s Day.” 119. Moreover, male employees of RCSH are often given profane nicknames by coworkers and superiors, including names such as “Mo F_ _ ker” and “The Magic Wand,” and commonly referred to by those names in the workplace. Despite knowledge of, and participation in, this behavior by RCSH senior management, no disciplinary action has been taken to stop this conduct, despite the fact that it violates stated company policy. 120. In terminating Ms. Bush, RCSH also treated her more harshly than a male employee of RCSH who was involved in an altercation with a franchisee. 121. Specifically, a male employee of RCSH was involved in a verbal altercation with a franchise manager regarding divergent company versus franchise policies. Although the franchise manager reported the corporate employee’s behavior to Geoffrey Stiles, RCSH Chief Operating Officer, the male employee was not terminated and the matter was eventually resolved. 122. As a result of RCSH’s discriminatory conduct, Ms. Bush suffered lost wages, loss of future earnings, and emotional distress.
Melia Wilder (née Stopa) 123. Melia Wilder, formerly Stopa, joined RCSH in October of 2002 as a bench General Manager working out of one of the Company’s District of Columbia locations.
24

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 25 of 54
124. After completing her training in the District, Ms. Wilder became the General Manager of the RCSH location in Fairfax, Virginia.
125. Ms. Wilder excelled in her position almost immediately. 126. In 2004, Ms. Wilder beat her performance goals by a wide margin, earning $75,000 in bonuses and nearly doubling her earnings for the year. Shortly thereafter, the Company instituted a cap on yearly bonuses, limiting them to 25% of base salary. 127. In early 2005, after her banner year, Ms. Wilder contacted Geoffrey Stiles, Chief Operating Officer, expressed her interest in advancement within the Company, and sought his advice on the topic. 128. Ms. Wilder was not promoted in 2005. Instead, she was passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified males. 129. Despite her disappointment, Ms. Wilder continued to work hard at the Company and perform superbly. 130. Approximately a year later, in early 2006, Ms. Wilder again expressed her interest in promotion to Stiles. Ms. Wilder wrote Mr. Stiles an e-mail outlining her desire to be promoted to the position of Regional Vice President. Mr. Stiles responded to Ms. Wilder’s letter by directing her to Susan Lumb, then Vice President of Education, in order to develop an “action plan.” Although Ms. Wilder made numerous requests, no such “action plan” ever materialized. 131. Throughout 2006, Ms. Wilder continued to exceed expectations. She also took on additional responsibilities, training new managers and employees throughout the country. 132. In the spring of 2006, at a regional General Manager’s meeting, Siobhan Delulio, the wife of Ms. Wilder’s supervisor, told Ms. Wilder that she should not expect to be promoted
25

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 26 of 54
because then RVP David Delulio, who was her husband and Ms. Wilder’s boss, “didn’t like women.”
133. Ms. Wilder did not receive a promotion in 2006. Again, open positions were given to less qualified males.
134. Not only did RCSH deny Ms. Wilder promotion, it tolerated an environment that was hostile to women and one in which women were subjected to sexual harassment. Ms. Wilder experienced this while attending an annual conference for RCSH General Managers and Chefs in Orlando, Florida in April of 2006. The Director of Operations for a RCSH franchisee, Gary Englade hugged, groped, and followed Ms. Wilder during conference activities. While on a boat ride with her colleagues, Englade pinned Ms. Wilder into her chair and repeatedly asked her why she “wouldn’t go out with him.” Later, when Ms. Wilder crossed paths with Englade, he grabbed her by her shoulders and began shaking her, demanding to know “why she would not go out with him.” Ms. Wilder refused his advances and complained to her superiors. Although Ms. Wilder was later told by her superior that Mr. Englade was instructed to cease his behavior, he was not formally punished.
135. In December of 2006, Ms. Wilder asked David Delulio about his wife’s comments and her opportunities for promotion. Delulio denied his wife’s statements and commended Ms. Wilder for her excellent performance.
136. Ms. Wilder took Delulio’s advice and continued to excel at her job. Indeed, in January of 2007, just two months prior to her termination, Gil Fornaris, a RCSH Vice President of Operations, who was dining at the Fairfax location that she managed, told her that “if [she] kept going like this, [she] was going to get promoted.”
26

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 27 of 54
137. Encouraged by these sentiments, Ms. Wilder spoke with several other RCSH colleagues about her goal of promotion to a RVP position.
138. Despite Ms. Wilder’s excellent performance at the Company, she was never offered or informed of several promotional opportunities provided to less qualified male employees.
139. Upon information and belief, in mid-September of 2006, then RCSH Regional Vice President Kevin Armantrout was named Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations. This position was not advertised and Ms. Wilder was not informed of or offered the opportunity to compete for the position.
140. Ms. Wilder would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations position that was filled by Armantrout, a male employee.
141. After Armantrout became Regional Vice President of Franchise Relations, his former position—Regional Vice President of the Northern California region, was open. Yet again, this position was not advertised by the Company. And, despite being qualified for the position and having repeatedly expressed her interest in a promotion to RVP to her superiors, Ms. Wilder was not informed of or offered the position.
142. Ms. Wilder would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of the Northern California region position. However, RCSH hired a male, John Maloney, who had never previously worked for the Company, to fill the position.
143. On or about September of 2006, the Company also hired a male employee, Pete Tambini, as Regional Vice President of the Southeast region. Mr. Tambini was equally or less qualified for that position than Ms. Wilder.
27

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 28 of 54
144. Ms. Wilder would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Regional Vice President of the Southeast region position.
145. However, the Company did not advertise the open position and Ms. Wilder was not informed of, allowed to compete for, or offered the position.
146. In March of 2007, Ms. Wilder was terminated in retaliation for her report of sexual harassment by then RCSH Regional Vice President Kevin Armantrout.
147. In the summer of 2006, Ms. Wilder received a report from one of her subordinates that she was being sexually harassed by Armantrout. Specifically, Ms. Wilder’s female subordinate had traveled to Virginia Beach, Virginia to assist in opening a new restaurant in that location. Armantrout was also working at that restaurant opening. While there, Armantrout repeatedly made sexual advances to the female manager and she reported his conduct to Ms. Wilder. Ms. Wilder immediately reported Armantrout’s sexually offensive and discriminatory behavior to her superior, Delulio.
148. Ms. Wilder next saw Armantrout in March of 2007 at the Company leadership conference in Florida where she was terminated.
149. Prior to her report of sexual harassment against him, Mr. Armantrout had never shown specific animosity towards Ms. Wilder. However, at the leadership conference, he treated her coldly.
150. Viewing the conference as a learning opportunity and a forum where she could shine in front of RCSH leaders, Ms. Wilder actively participated in the conference. During a question-and-answer session with then CEO Craig Miller and COO Geoffrey Stiles, Ms. Wilder asked thoughtful questions and offered her insights on the Company’s progress.
28

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 29 of 54
151. RCSH terminated Ms. Wilder the following day on the purported grounds that her “behavior at the meetings was unacceptable for a RCSH General Manager” and that she showed “diminished leadership” while attending the conference.
152. Specifically, RCSH alleged that, during the conference, Ms. Wilder placed liquor orders for her RCSH restaurant inventory via her cell phone, interrupting other attendees, and appeared bored and made negative remarks about her expectations for the conference.
153. Based solely on the report of Armantrout, RCSH also claimed that Ms. Wilder extended Armantrout, who was not even seated near Ms. Wilder, her middle finger.
154. RCSH’s stated reasons for terminating Ms. Wilder are pretextual. 155. Ms. Wilder did not extend her middle finger, or make any profane or inappropriate gestures, to Mr. Armantrout. 156. Moreover, Ms. Wilder did not force any conference participants to wait for her while she conducted some brief company business. The company business she conducted was limited to a single liquor order for her restaurant and it was made during a break in the proceedings. 157. Furthermore, Ms. Wilder did not make any negative comments about the leadership conference and/or the training she received. 158. Rather, Mr. Armantrout made these false allegations against Ms. Wilder in retaliation for Ms. Wilder having reported him to RCSH leadership for sexual harassment. 159. Indeed, at approximately 12:30 a.m. on March 21, 2007, the date of Ms. Wilder’s termination, Armantrout wrote an e-mail to Sarah Jackson, Vice President of Human Resources, Geoffrey Stiles, and Susan Lumb, in which he manufactured the aforementioned allegations against Ms. Wilder.
29

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 30 of 54
160. Ms. Wilder’s actual actions—namely, asking thoughtful and probing questions of RCSH leaders and offering insightful comments regarding the Company’s progress—would have been praised by RCSH leaders if received from a male manager. Instead, Ms. Wilder was promptly terminated.
161. Ms. Wilder was terminated by the Company in retaliation for her report of sexual harassment by Mr. Armantrout.
162. As a result of the discriminatory conduct by RCSH, Ms. Wilder suffered lost wages, loss of future earnings, and emotional distress.
Shelly Goorevich 163. Shelly Goorevich joined RCSH in February of 2001 as a Sales Manager working at the Company’s Arlington, Virginia location. 164. Ms. Goorevich was an outstanding performer at RCSH. For two consecutive years, in 2006 and 2007, Ms. Goorevich alone generated over one million dollars’ worth of annual sales for the company. 165. Despite her exceptional work performance, Ms. Goorevich earned several thousand dollars less in base salary than at least one of her male counterparts, Eric Ostrow. In 2004, Ms. Goorevich earned approximately $39,500 in base salary. Ostrow, who also held the position of Sales Manager in 2004, was paid over $53,000 in base salary. Similarly, in 2005, Ms. Goorevich was paid a base salary of approximately $41,000, while Mr. Ostrow’s base salary was approximately $60,000. Furthermore, Mr. Ostrow was given an assistant, while Ms. Goorevich was not. 166. During the course of her employment, Ms. Goorevich was frequently subjected to offensive and sexually discriminatory conduct by her colleagues at the Company.
30

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 31 of 54
167. Ms. Goorevich first complained of sexual harassment to RCSH’s Human Resources department in the fall of 2005.
168. At that time, the restaurant Chef and another male line chef regularly used profanity and made sexually derogatory comments and jokes. On one occasion, the line chef held a raw beef tenderloin in front of his groin, as if it were his penis, and waved it around while making elephant noises. Ms. Goorevich reported this incident to Human Resources, as well as the profanity, sexually derogatory jokes and comments, and sexually offensive behavior that were permeating the workplace. Upon information and belief, no one at the Company was terminated or severely punished as a result of the incident.
169. Furthermore, the use of highly sexualized profanity and “jokes” is commonplace at RCSH and is committed by employees at all levels of the corporate hierarchy. RCSH male staff members made countless sexual jokes and taunts and regularly used profanity without repercussion.
170. RCSH leaders encourage such sexually discriminatory and offensive conduct. Male RCSH leaders regularly make profane and sexually offensive remarks in the presence of and about female employees. Male RCSH managers and chefs often discuss which RCSH female employees are “hot.” On one occasion, Ms. Wilder witnessed a regional corporate leader, state, with regard to a female subordinate, that he “want[e]d to bang her so bad [he] could taste her.”
171. Additional, male RCSH leaders regularly engage in vulgar and sexually demeaning and offensive banter about or relating to women. In one instance, a male RCSH Regional Vice President, called another male colleague a “pussy” via a text message that was read in front of several RCSH employees, both male and female. In response, the colleague, who
31

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 32 of 54
was RCSH’s Vice President of Marketing, exclaimed that “you can call me anything but you can’t call me a pussy.”
172. Male RCSH leaders often discuss which female RCSH employees would “give the best blow jobs.” And, on another occasion, two male bosses discussed a female employee’s “nice new titties.”
173. Furthermore, many of the “job qualifications” used to measure suitable female candidates for positions at RCSH are sexist.
174. For example, only attractive women are hired to work in the “front of the house” portion of each restaurant. At the restaurant where Ms. Goorevich worked, several employees complained about the performance of a new female bartender. Doranne Hughes, the General Manager, responded that “she’s attractive and she has legs up to here” and, thus, the complaining employees were told to “suck it up.” “Cute” waitresses were also often assigned to serve regular customers.
175. Corporate leaders backed such sexist employment practices. One Regional Vice President, instructed his subordinates to “hire pretty girls to work your bar.” RCSH managers are authorized to offer higher wages to women who are considered more attractive. Another male RCSH leader, told a subordinate manager to “hire some T&A [tits & ass]” at the bar and at the host stand. He also told the manager that “the prettier they are, the more you can pay them” but not to tell the existing employees how much they are paid.
176. Another RCSH General Manager simply refused to work with “any fat or ugly chicks.” Specifically, he told his employees to “make sure you cut [or dismiss] all of the fat chicks. I don’t want to work with any fat or ugly chicks.”
32

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 33 of 54
177. Furthermore, it is common for male RCSH leaders to report having seduced young and/or new female employees at events such as new restaurant openings. Female employees have also reported groping of female hostesses and wait staff by male executives.
178. One of Ms. Goorevich’s co-workers, Brian Forster, a floor manager at RCSH, was especially hostile to Ms. Goorevich, regularly harassing her.
179. Forster’s ongoing harassment of Ms. Goorevich reached its most egregious level in September of 2008.
180. On or about September 12, 2008, Forster was relaxing in the restaurant office rather than performing his work duties. He told Ms. Goorevich that if she “narced [sic] on him to Doranne [Hughes, the General Manager] about goofing off” that he would “fucking kill [her].” He then added “I love you and I’ll give you a big hug but I will fucking kill you.”
181. Mr. Forster’s harassment did not end with those threats. A few days later, on or about September 15, 2008, Mr. Forster told Ms. Goorevich that he was going to “whip out his cock and slap [Ms. Goorevich] across the face with it.” When Ms. Goorevich asked him to stop tormenting her in that way, Mr. Forster laughed at Ms. Goorevich. Forster laughed at her again when Ms. Goorevich’s reported his statements to her co-worker.
182. Later that day, Ms. Goorevich told Mr. Forster that she was very stressed and having trouble sleeping. In response, Forster told Ms. Goorevich to “masturbate” in order to fall asleep. One of Ms. Goorevich’s co-workers heard Forster make this statement and both she and Ms. Goorevich told him to stop speaking to Ms. Goorevich in that manner.
183. Ms. Goorevich also told Forster that she was tired of being the “waste receptacle for [Forster’s] misplaced anger.” Forster replied by correcting her—he told her that she was not his “waste receptacle” but, instead, his “cum bucket.”
33

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 34 of 54
184. Just days later, on or about September 22, 2008, Mr. Forster’s tirade continued. On that date, Ms. Goorevich was expecting the delivery of a guest’s wedding cake. She informed Mr. Forster, the floor manager on duty, about the upcoming delivery. In response, Forster (who was watching a football game while at work), told Ms. Goorevich that he didn’t care about the cake because the game was on and that Ms. Goorevich could “shove the cake up [her] ass.”
185. On or about September 23, 2008, Ms. Goorevich reported Forster’s behavior to Doranne Hughes, the General Manager at her restaurant and Ms. Goorevich’s immediate supervisor. Hughes told Ms. Goorevich that she would take care of it. However, Hughes also asked Ms. Goorevich if she thought that Forster was “just being a 25-year old guy thinking that he was being funny.” Ms. Goorevich responded that she didn’t know what Forster was thinking but that his behavior was disgusting and abusive and should stop.
186. For approximately 20 days, Ms. Goorevich waited for further information or a response from Ms. Hughes or the Human Resources department at RCSH regarding her complaint. She received nothing.
187. Thus, on October 13, 2008, Ms. Goorevich addressed an e-mail to Sarah Jackson, then Senior Vice President of Human Resources for RCSH. In her e-mail, Goorevich detailed the sexual harassment she suffered. Goorevich also sent the e-mail to Sandy Jones, Director of Human Resources.
188. Later that day, Ms. Goorevich received a call from Stephen Hong, a RCSH employee in the Human Resources department. Hong informed Ms. Goorevich that Human Resources had not been notified of her complaint (by Ms. Hughes or anyone else) prior to its receipt of Ms. Goorevich’s e-mail.
34

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 35 of 54
189. Later that day, Hughes summoned Ms. Goorevich her office. When she got there, Mr. Forster was already there. Ms. Goorevich was asked to “mediate” the issue with Mr. Forster. Ms. Goorevich was very uncomfortable being directly confronted by Forster. She relayed her feelings to Hughes, who asked Forster to step out.
190. After Forster left, Hughes told Ms. Goorevich that he had made several allegations concerning Goorevich’s treatment of him in response to her complaints of sexual harassment and that she (Hughes) wanted to discuss those allegations. Hughes stated that she did not want to speak for Forster and wanted to invite him back into the “mediation.” Thus, under pressure from Hughes, Goorevich agreed to do so.
191. During the “mediation,” Hughes repeatedly stated that she was upset by Goorevich’s complaints because they “made her look bad” and were “a bad reflection on her.” Furthermore, after Hughes told Goorevich that they were having the mediation to discuss both Goorevich and Forster’s “issues” with one another, Forster accused Goorevich of “undermining” him in front of hourly employees.
192. Forster admitted to harassing Ms. Goorevich, including (but not limited to) telling her that he was going to “slap” her in the face with his “cock.”
193. The following day, Ms. Goorevich contacted Hong and informed him of the “mediation” that occurred. She informed him of her severe discomfort at the way the “mediation” was conducted.
194. Later, Ms. Goorevich learned that Forster was terminated on or about October 21, 2008.
195. The following month, November of 2008, Ms. Goorevich’s supervisors, Doranne Hughes and David Delulio, met with Ms. Goorevich for a performance review.
35

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 36 of 54
196. For the first time in her history with the Company, Ms. Goorevich received a negative review. Ms. Goorevich received an overall score of 2.64, which is below the 3.0 score necessary in order to receive a raise. Ms. Goorevich received scores of 2.0 on items such as “[h]elps the GM set the tone for the culture of the restaurant” and “acts with integrity [.]” In her prior review, just eight months earlier, Ms. Goorevich received a score of 4.0 (“exceeds expectations”) and 5.0 (“outstanding” – the highest rating possible), respectively, on the same items. Indeed, her overall score on the March 2008 performance review was 3.57, well over the score needed to receive a raise.
197. As a result of her negative November 2008 performance review, Ms. Goorevich did not receive a raise for 2009.
198. Furthermore, after Ms. Goorevich complained of Mr. Forster’s harassment, her supervisors and co-workers began to treat her with hostility. Ms. Goorevich was isolated by her boss, Doranne Hughes, as well as her co-workers. She was rarely spoken to, and only if absolutely necessary.
199. On one occasion, Ms. Goorevich slipped and fell at the restaurant and had to go to the emergency for treatment. She was diagnosed with a concussion and received pain medication. Per doctor’s instruction, she was not able to work for three days and informed her office that she would be off due to her injury. When she returned to work, however, she was berated by Hughes for missing work and was written up for abandoning her shift.
200. As a result of the discriminatory behavior by RCSH, Ms. Goorevich suffered severe physical and emotional distress. Ms. Goorevich experienced severe anxiety, weight loss, and stomach problems. Ms. Goorevich sought medical and therapy services in order to deal with these issues.
36

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 37 of 54
201. Given the ongoing hostility she was experiencing at work, as well as the physical and emotional ramifications of such hostility, Ms. Goorevich’s working conditions were intolerable and she felt that she no longer had any future with the Company. Thus, Ms. Goorevich had no option but to terminate her employment.
202. Ms. Goorevich was forced to resign her Sales Manager position with RCSH on or about August 4, 2009.
LaDawn Harris-Robinson 203. LaDawn Harris-Robinson joined RCSH in 2002 as a Server working at one of the Company’s locations in the District of Columbia. 204. Ms. Harris-Robinson was paid on an hourly basis. 205. Ms. Harris-Robinson was always an excellent performer at the Company. She subsequently became a Bartender. She was named a “trainer” and tasked with training the new bartenders that joined the Company. Although she was given these added responsibilities, she was not given any additional compensation or benefits. 206. Despite her exceptional work ethic and job performance, Ms. Harris-Robinson was never promoted in her nine years with the Company. 207. During her first three years of employment at RCSH, Ms. Harris-Robinson was told that she was on track for a promotion with the Company and actively sought a promotion. However, she was never promoted. 208. During the time she worked at RCSH, three male hourly employees at her location were promoted to a manager, or manager-track, position. Upon information and belief, during that same time, no female hourly employees at her location were promoted.
37

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 38 of 54
209. Most recently, on or about July of 2010, a male hourly employee, Noad, was promoted to a “Key Employee” position, which is a management track position.
210. This Key Employee position was not advertised by the Company. And, despite being qualified for the position, Ms. Harris-Robinson was not informed of, or even allowed to compete for, the position.
211. Ms. Harris-Robinson would have been interested in, and qualified for, the Key Employee position. However, RCSH hired a male, Noad.
212. Ms. Harris-Robinson only learned of the open Key Employee position after it was already filled by a male, who was cherry-picked by her male superior.
213. In addition to failing to promote Ms. Harris-Robinson, RCSH discriminated against her while she was pregnant.
214. In March of 2010, Ms. Harris-Robinson was approximately five and a half months pregnant. She informed her then-General Manager, Jacques Hermier, of her pregnancy and eventual need to take maternity leave.
215. After Ms. Harris-Robinson informed Hermier of her pregnancy, RCSH began treating her adversely. RCSH changed her schedule, assigning her to an opening shift rather than a closing shift.
216. Furthermore, when she worked the opening shift, Ms. Harris-Robinson was nearly always sent home (or “cut”) earlier than other non-pregnant employees. For example, nonpregnant employees who were assigned the opening shift worked until 9 or 10 p.m. in the evening. However, Ms. Harris-Robinson was cut from her shift at between 7 and 8 p.m., depriving her of additional lucrative work hours.
38

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 39 of 54
217. As a result of working fewer hours, and during less busy times, Ms. HarrisRobinson’s earnings decreased by approximately $200 to $300 per week.
218. Unlike Ms. Harris-Robinson, non-pregnant employees did not suffer this adverse employment action; namely, they were not transferred from the closing shift to the opening shift, nor were they regularly and systematically “cut” from their shift(s) early.
219. Ms. Harris-Robinson ended her employment with the Company on August 26, 2011.
Amy Fischer 220. Amy Fischer was hired by RCSH in August 2005 as a Sales Manager in the Company’s Boston, Massachusetts location. 221. In Ms. Fischer’s experience, female employees at RCSH were often treated poorly and subjected to offensive and sexist remarks. For example, when Ms. Fischer underwent reconstructive surgery in or around March 2007, a male manager at RCSH publicly remarked to co-workers that she was “getting her boobs done bigger” and that the Company would have to “put her on light duty.” On another occasion, Ms. Fischer witnessed a male manager telling a female hostess that he “bet [her] nipples were sore because [she] was breastfeeding.” These statements were made in public and in front of other employees. 222. Ms. Fischer was very successful as a Sales Manager and received excellent performance evaluations. For example, in April 2010, the General Manager made the following comments on Ms. Fischer’s Performance Assessment: Amy is truly a role model and the standard for all other Sales Managers to be judged against at our company. She not only does her job [at] an extremely high level, she is also very concerned about the overall health of this restaurant’s a la carte sales. She is relentless about taking great care of her guests and will do anything to increase sales and build relationships. We are incredibly lucky to have her.
39

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 40 of 54
223. In spite of Ms. Fischer’s excellent performance, she never received a promotion during the time she worked for RCSH. In September of 2010, she applied for a position as a National Catering Manager. Ms. Fischer was highly qualified for the position and achieved very high scores on the test she was required to take in order to apply. The position, however, was given to a male who had never before worked for the Company.
224. On or about March 18, 2011, Ms. Fischer met with Rik Jenkins, the Regional Vice President in charge of supervising the Boston restaurant. During that meeting, they discussed the performance of the restaurant generally as well as her contributions as Sales Manager. Ms. Fischer inquired as to whether she might expect a salary raise later that year. Mr. Jenkins stated that he was unsure and asked what her current salary was. When she told him, he exclaimed that he thought it was very “high.” In response, Ms. Fischer explained her excellent performance to him.
225. Shortly after this meeting, RCSH terminated Ms. Fischer allegedly because of an “incorrect accounting procedure” that she performed on the Company’s point of sale system in order to close out a guest’s check. Specifically, she voided a small portion of an angry guest’s check in order to satisfy the customer, re-rang that voided portion on a separate check, and “comped” that check, i.e., charged that small portion to the Company.
226. Male employees have performed the same or similar “accounting procedures” and were not terminated, or even punished, for doing so.
227. In fact, at the time that Ms. Fischer made the “accounting procedure” for which she was terminated, Jeffrey Menzer, the on-duty male floor manager, told her that it was fine and that he and other employees made the same entries on a regular basis. In fact, Mr. Menzer performed part of the procedure himself. He was not fired, or even punished, for doing so.
40

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 41 of 54
228. After Ms. Fischer was terminated, she was informed by a colleague that Rik Jenkins had stated that the “accounting procedure” was the “perfect excuse” for firing her because, according to Mr. Jenkins, “she makes too much money” and the Company could instead “hire someone cheaper.” On information and belief, Ms. Fischer’s job was filled by her former assistant, a 27-year-old female with no sales or management experience.
229. Two days after RCSH terminated Ms. Fischer, she was contacted by a RCSH leader. During the call, he stated that he believed that she was a leading sales representative in the Company and that she was “wrongfully terminated.” He also stated that, if he had been her boss, he would not have terminated her. He advised Ms. Fischer to research her legal options.
CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, Goorevich, Harris-Robinson, Fischer and the Class)
230. Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, Goorevich, Harris-Robinson, and Fischer incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-229 above.
231. Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, Goorevich, Harris-Robinson, and Fischer and members of the proposed Class are, or were, female employees of Defendants within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq. and are members of a protected class.
232. RCSH adopted and/or maintained and implemented employment practices by its predominately male leadership that are discriminatory, excessively subjective, and/or arbitrary with respect to compensation, promotion, and other terms and conditions of employment.
233. The discriminatory policies and/or practices of Defendants, as set forth herein, have denied Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, Goorevich, Harris-Robinson, and Fischer, and the members
41

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 42 of 54
of the proposed Class, their right to equal employment opportunity in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq., in that qualified female employees have been denied promotions that were given to equally or less qualified males, segregated in certain job categories that RCSH targeted for women, received lower pay than equally or less qualified males for the same or essentially the same work, have been denied staff assistance provided to equally or less qualified males in the same position, have been giving less desirable shifts and/or work assignments, and have been denied access to staff retreats made available to equally or less qualified males in the same position.
234. The pattern of assignment, promotion, access to opportunities, and compensation inequity on the basis of sex is not the result of random or non-discriminatory factors. Rather, it is the result of an on-going and continuous pattern and practice of intentional sex discrimination in assignments, pay, opportunities, and promotions, and reliance on policies and practices that have an adverse impact on female employees that cannot be justified by business necessity, and for which alternative policies and practices with less discriminatory impact could be utilized that equally serve any asserted justification.
235. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct caused Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, Goorevich, Harris-Robinson, and Fischer, and the Class, to suffer injury, including but not limited to loss of wages and other job benefits, and emotional distress.
236. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, Goorevich, Harris-Robinson, and Fischer request relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT II EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code §2-1401 et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, Harris-Robinson, and the Class)
42

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 43 of 54
237. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and HarrisRobinson incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-236 above.
238. At all times relevant for purposes of this Complaint, Defendants were an employer under the DCHRA § 2-1401.2(10).
239. Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, Harris-Robinson, and the members of the proposed Class are women and members of a protected class.
240. RCSH adopted and/or maintained and implemented employment practices by its predominately male leadership that are discriminatory, excessively subjective, and/or arbitrary with respect to compensation, promotion, work assignments, and other terms and conditions of employment.
241. The discriminatory policies and/or practices of Defendants, as set forth herein, have denied Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Harris-Robinson, and the proposed Class, their right to equal employment opportunity in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, in that qualified female employees have been denied promotions in favor of equally or less qualified males, have been segregated in certain job categories that RCSH targeted for women, have received lower pay than equally or less qualified males for the same or essentially the same work, have been denied staff assistance provided to equally or less qualified males in the same position, have been assigned less desirable and/or lucrative shifts and/or work assignments, have been denied access to staff retreats made available to equally or less qualified males in the same position, and have been subjected to other adverse employment actions.
242. The pattern of assignment, promotion, and compensation inequity on the basis of sex is not the result of random or non-discriminatory factors. Rather, it is the result of an ongoing and continuous pattern and practice of intentional sex discrimination in assignments, pay,
43

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 44 of 54
opportunities, and promotions, and reliance on policies and practices that have an adverse impact on female employees that cannot be justified by business necessity, and for which alternative policies and practices with less discriminatory impact could be utilized that equally serve any asserted justification.
243. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct caused Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, HarrisRobinson, and the proposed Class, to suffer injury, including but not limited to loss of wages and other job benefits, and emotional distress.
244. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and HarrisRobinson requests relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT III EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER
Sexual Harassment – Hostile Work Environment Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiff Goorevich) 245. Plaintiff Goorevich incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-244 above. 246. This is a claim against RCSH arising under Title VII, as amended, prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace. 247. The conduct of RCSH alleged herein violates Title VII because Plaintiff Goorevich was required to work in a hostile work environment which was tainted by impermissible sex and gender discrimination, including but not limited to, being subjected to repeated sexual harassment and intimidation over a period of time by male corporate leaders and co-workers at RCSH. 248. Plaintiff Goorevich is a member of a protected group, women, and did not welcome the sexual misconduct and hostile work environment created by RCSH.
44

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 45 of 54
249. The work environment at RCSH that Plaintiff was subjected to is permeated with discriminatory conduct, ridicule, and insult, thereby unreasonably interfering with the work performance and work conditions of Plaintiff Goorevich and the other women at the Company.
250. RCSH was negligent both in discovering the sexual harassment suffered by Plaintiff Goorevich, as well as in remedying the harassment
251. As a result of these unlawful employment practices, Plaintiff Goorevich suffers severe emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, shame and trauma for which she claims damages.
252. Plaintiff Goorevich requests relief as hereafter described. COUNT IV
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER Wrongful Discharge
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Fischer and the Class) 253. On behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiffs Katharine Bush, Melia Wilder, and Amy Fischer incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-252 above. 254. Plaintiffs Katharine Bush, Melia Wilder, and Amy Fischer and the members of the proposed Class are women and as such are members of a group protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq. (“Title VII”) from discrimination on the basis of sex. 255. Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Fischer and the members of the proposed Class were qualified for their jobs and their job performance was more than satisfactory. 256. Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Fischer and members of the proposed Class were discharged from RCSH due to their sex. 257. Male employees were retained under similar circumstances.
45

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 46 of 54
258. Plaintiffs Bush, Wilder, and Fischer and members of the proposed Class suffered injuries as a result, including but not limited to lost pay (past and future), embarrassment, humiliation, loss of self-esteem, emotional distress, frustration, and lost benefits.
COUNT V EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER
Wrongful Discharge District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code §2-1401 et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder and the Class) 259. On behalf of themselves and the proposed Class, Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-258 above. 260. At all times relevant for purposes of this Complaint, Defendants were an employer under the DCHRA § 2-1401.2(10). 261. Plaintiffs Katharine Bush and Melia Wilder and the members of the proposed Class are women and, as such, are members of a group protected under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act from discrimination on the basis of sex. 262. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder and other members of the proposed Class were qualified for their jobs and their job performance was more than satisfactory. 263. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder and other members of the proposed Class were discharged from RCSH due to their sex. 264. Male employees were retained under similar circumstances. 265. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder and other members of the proposed Class suffered injuries as a result, including but not limited to lost pay (past and future), lost benefits, and emotional distress. 266. Plaintiffs Bush and Wilder request relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
46

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 47 of 54
COUNT VI RETALIATION Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-3(a) et seq. (On Behalf of Plaintiffs Goorevich, Wilder, and Fischer) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) (On Behalf of Plaintiff Fischer) 267. Plaintiffs Goorevich, Wilder, and Fischer incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-266 above. 268. Plaintiff Goorevich engaged in activity protected under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) when she complained to her employer about the sexual harassment she suffered from Brian Forster. 269. Defendants subjected Plaintiff Goorevich to adverse employment actions including, but not limited to, a negative performance review, the denial of a pay raise, and a disciplinary write-up. 270. RCSH subjected Plaintiff Goorevich to these adverse employment actions in retaliation against her because of her complaint of sexual harassment. 271. Plaintiff Goorevich suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct, including but not limited to loss of income, humiliation, loss of reputation, loss of income, emotional distress and physical illness. 272. Plaintiff Wilder engaged in activity protected under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) when she complained to her employer about the sexual harassment perpetrated by RCSH Regional Vice President Kevin Armantrout. 273. Defendants subjected Plaintiff Wilder to adverse employment action—namely, termination—in retaliation against her because of her complaint of sexual harassment by Mr. Armantrout.
47

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 48 of 54
274. Plaintiff Wilder suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct, including but not limited to loss of income, humiliation, loss of reputation, loss of income, and emotional distress.
275. Plaintiff Fischer engaged in activity protected under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e3(a) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C § 623(d) when, as an older female at the company, she requested additional compensation.
276. Defendants subjected Plaintiff Fischer to adverse employment action — namely, termination — in retaliation against her because of her request for additional compensation.
277. Plaintiff Fischer suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory conduct, including but not limited to loss of income, humiliation, loss of reputation, and emotional distress.
278. Plaintiffs Goorevich, Wilder, and Fischer request relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT VII EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER
Constructive Discharge Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiff Goorevich) 279. Plaintiff Shelly Goorevich incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-278 above. 280. Plaintiff Goorevich repeatedly complained to her managers, RCSH human resources personnel and others about the sexual harassment she was experiencing. 281. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff because of her protected activity. 282. Aggravating factors justified Plaintiff Goorevich’s conclusion that she had no option but to end her employment.
48

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 49 of 54
283. Ms. Goorevich received a negative performance review for the first time in her history with the Company.
284. As a result of her negative November 2008 performance review, Ms. Goorevich did not receive a raise.
285. Ms. Goorevich was also treated with near-constant hostility by her supervisor, Doranne Hughes, as well as many of her co-workers. Ms. Goorevich was almost completely isolated by her boss and co-workers and was rarely spoken to, and only if absolutely necessary.
286. Ms. Goorevich was also subjected to ongoing mistreatment by her supervisor, Doranne Hughes.
287. As a result of the retaliatory treatment by RCSH, Ms. Goorevich suffered physical and emotional distress.
288. Given the ongoing hostility she experienced at work after her complaint of discrimination, as well as the physical and emotional ramifications of such hostility, Plaintiff’s working conditions were intolerable.
289. RCSH’s failure to ensure tolerable working conditions free of retaliation was intentional, malicious, deliberate, willful and oppressive, and was carried out with the intent to cause Ms. Goorevich to resign her position.
290. Because of her intolerable working conditions, Plaintiff Goorevich was forced to resign her Sales Manager position with RCSH on or about August 4, 2009.
291. Defendants’ wrongful and illegal conduct caused Plaintiff Goorevich injury including, but not limited to, lost income (past and future), lost benefits, emotional distress and physical injury.
49

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 50 of 54
COUNT VIII EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER
Pregnancy Discrimination District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977, D.C. Code §2-1401 et seq.,
including §2-1401.5 (On Behalf of Plaintiff Harris-Robinson) 292. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-291 above. 293. At all times relevant for purposes of this Complaint, Defendants were an employer under the DCHRA § 2-1401.2(10). 294. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson is a woman, and was pregnant, and, as such, is a member of a group protected under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act from discrimination on the basis of sex (including pregnancy). 295. Defendants were aware that Ms. Harris-Robinson was pregnant. 296. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson was qualified for her job and her job performance was more than satisfactory. 297. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson was subjected to adverse employment actions as a result of her sex, including her pregnancy. 298. Namely, Plaintiff Harris-Robinson was assigned a less desirable work shift, was “cut” from her shifts early, and had her work hours reduced. As a result, Plaintiff HarrisRobinson earned significantly less money. 299. The aforementioned adverse employment actions occurred in circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. 300. The aforementioned adverse employment actions were caused by Plaintiff HarrisRobinson’s pregnancy.
50

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 51 of 54
301. Non-pregnant employees were not subjected to such adverse employment actions. 302. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson suffered injuries as a result, including but not limited to lost pay and emotional distress. 303. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson requests relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT IX EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER
Pregnancy Discrimination Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e) et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiff Harris-Robinson) 304. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-303 above. 305. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson is a woman, and was pregnant, and, as such, is a member of a group protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) from discrimination on the basis of sex (including pregnancy). 306. Defendants were aware that Ms. Harris-Robinson was pregnant. 307. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson was qualified for her job and her job performance was more than satisfactory. 308. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson was subjected to adverse employment actions as a result of her sex, including her pregnancy. 309. Namely, Plaintiff Harris-Robinson was assigned a less desirable work shift, was “cut” from her shifts early, and had her work hours reduced. As a result, Plaintiff HarrisRobinson earned significantly less money. 310. The aforementioned adverse employment actions occurred in circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.
51

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 52 of 54
311. The aforementioned adverse employment actions were caused by Plaintiff HarrisRobinson’s pregnancy.
312. Non-pregnant employees were not subjected to such adverse employment actions. 313. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson suffered injuries as a result, including but not limited to lost pay and emotional distress. 314. Plaintiff Harris-Robinson requests relief as provided in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT X EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AGE
Termination Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiff Fischer) 315. Plaintiff Fischer incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-314 above. 316. At all times relevant for purposes of this Complaint, Defendants were an employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 630(b). 317. Plaintiff Fischer is over forty years of age and, as such, is a person protected by the provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. from discrimination on the basis of age. 318. Plaintiff Fischer was qualified for her job and her job performance was more than satisfactory. 319. Plaintiff Fischer was discharged from RCSH due to her age and replaced by a younger employee under 40 years of age.
52

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 53 of 54
320. Plaintiff Fischer suffered injuries as a result, including but not limited to lost pay
(past and future), embarrassment, humiliation, loss of self-esteem, emotional distress, frustration,
and lost benefits.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
1. That this case be maintained as a class action on behalf of the proposed class, that Plaintiffs be designated as representatives of the class, and that their counsel of record be designated as Class Counsel;
2. That the practices of the Defendants complained of herein be determined and adjudged to be in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and common law prohibiting gender discrimination in employment;
3. That an injunction be issued prohibiting RCSH and its officers agents, employees, and successors from engaging in the employment practices complained of herein and requiring the adoption of appropriate policies and programs consistent with RCSH’s legal obligations to operate a work environment free from gender discrimination;
4. That judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and the members of the Class set forth herein, and against Defendants, for back pay (including interest or an appropriate inflation factor), front pay, benefits and all other amounts owed to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class;
5. That the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class be awarded compensatory and punitive damages;
6. That the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class be awarded pre and post judgment interest;
7. That the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class be awarded such other and further legal and equitable relief as may be found appropriate and as the Court may deem just or equitable;
8. That the Court award Plaintiffs and the members of the Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the prosecution of this lawsuit;
9. That the Court retain jurisdiction over RCSH until such time as it is satisfied that it has remedied the practices complained of and is determined to be in full compliance with the law.
53

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 56 Filed 02/15/12 Page 54 of 54
JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues triable of right by jury. Dated: January 26, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,

____________________________ Hassan A. Zavareei D.C. Bar No. 456161 Andrea R. Gold D.C. Bar No. 502607 TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 L Street NW Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 973-0900 (telephone) (202) 973-0950 (fax) hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Cyrus Mehri D.C. Bar No. 420970 Janell Byrd D.C. Bar No. 376609 Taryn Wilgus Null D.C. Bar No. 985724 MEHRI & SKALET PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822-5100 (telephone) (202)822-4997 (fax) cmehri@findjustice.com

54

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KATHARINE BUSH, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. RUTH’S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 10-1721 (BJR) MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING IN PART & DENYING IN PART THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL I. INTRODUCTION
The plaintiffs are former female employees of Ruth’s Chris Steak House who allege that they were subjected to gender discrimination by Defendants, Ruth’s Chris and other related corporate entities. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated women, prosecuting claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq., and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”). In December 2011, the court issued an order that bifurcated the class and merits discovery. See generally Order (Dec. 19, 2011). The parties disagree on their interpretation of various provisions of that Order. These disagreements have prompted Plaintiffs to file a motion to compel, which is currently before the court. For the reasons discussed below, the court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion.

II. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS A. W-2 data
The court’s December 19, 2011 order (“the Order”) requires Defendants to produce a computer-readable copy of W-2 data for “all persons employed during [January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2009] as Regional Vice President, General Manager, Sales Manager, National

Sales Manager, Assistant General Manager, and Assistant Sales Manager, as well as for a random sample of 100 persons employed as Bartender and Key Employee” (hereinafter, “the relevant positions”).1 See Order (Dec. 19, 2011) at 5. The court limited the scope of human resources data like the W-2 data to what is presently available in Defendants’ databases for January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2009 (“the relevant time period”). Id. Further, the Court ordered that “Defendants shall not be required to compile results from review of employee records.” Id.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have not complied with the Order because they have only produced summary reports of W-2 annual earnings totals, as opposed to the “raw W-2 data as it is kept in the ordinary course of business.” Pls.’ Mot. at 2. Plaintiffs further argue that even those summary reports produced by Defendants are deficient because Defendants have limited their production of an employee’s W-2 data to only those years that he or she held one of the relevant positions. Id. Thus, the plaintiff argues that if an employee was a Manager in 2006 and was later promoted to an Assistant General Manager in 2009, Defendants would have only provided the 2009 W-2 information, for instance, and not his 2006, 2007, and 2008 W-2s. Id.
Defendants insist that they have produced the W-2 data that that they maintain in their ordinary course of business. Defs.’ Opp’n at 3. According to Defendants, satisfying Plaintiffs’ request would require them “to run individual payroll reports for each relevant employee at issue, or run one report for all of the relevant employees and extract the information from that report” for each individual employee – a burdensome task. Id. at 3-4. Additionally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ request would expand the scope of the Order to include positions other than the relevant positions, like servers and managers, “bringing the number of employees at issue

1

Employees during the relevant time period employed as the relevant positions are described

herein as “relevant employees.”

2

potentially into the thousands.” Id. at 4. Lastly, Defendants argue that the “paycheck-bypaycheck” information sought by Plaintiffs is irrelevant to this case. Id. at 4-5.
The court’s prior order makes clear that Defendants are not required to sift through their employees’ records and compile certain forms of Human Resources Data, including W-2 data. Defendants are therefore not required to produce paycheck-by-paycheck material. By July 20, 2012, Defendants shall, however, turn over the 2006-2009 W-2 data for any relevant employee, including W-2 data for those years within the relevant time period when the employee did not hold one of the relevant positions.
B. Job History The Order requires Defendants to produce information on “job history including any changes in job function” for those employed during the relevant time period and in the relevant positions. Order (Dec. 19, 2011) at 4. Plaintiffs acknowledge that Defendants have produced “the relevant employees’ initial salary and position information and the employees’ job histories between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2009.” Pls.’ Mot. at 6. However, Plaintiffs also seek pre-January 1, 2006 job history data in cases where a relevant employee was hired before January 1, 2006, so as to fill any gaps between the hire date and 2006. Id. Such information, according to Plaintiffs’ expert, is necessary “to analyze fully the data on promotions and determine the appropriate comparators.” Id. In response, Defendants argue that notwithstanding the court’s Order limiting discovery to the time period between January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2009, Plaintiffs now seek job history information relating to dates outside this period. Defs.’ Opp’n at 5. Moreover, Defendants contend that the job history information sought by Plaintiffs is irrelevant since their discrimination claims “center upon the fact that males from outside of the company were hired into Regional Vice President positions from 2006 forward.” Id.
3

The Order unambiguously limits the production of job history information for those employees who were employed in relevant positions during the January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2009. Order (Dec. 19, 2011) at 4-5. The Order does not explicitly limit the job history information that must be produced to the job history that occurred between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2009. Id. The Order does, however, then go on to limit the production of all of the human resources data to “what is presently available in their database(s) for the relevant time period.” Id. at 5.
Although this later limitation admittedly muddles the waters, common sense dictates that job history information should not be limited to the history that occurred between 2006 and 2009. For instance, the court also ordered Defendants to produce “educational background” information for relevant employees, similarly limiting the educational background information to what is presently available in Defendants’ databases for the relevant time period. Yet the court did not mean to limit production to only that the schooling that was completed during the 20062009 time period. To read the Order in such a narrow way would defeat the purpose of ordering such discovery in the first place. The same can be said with respect to the court’s Order that Defendants produce job history for the relevant employees.
Moreover, the Order not only requires Defendants to produce job history information but also more detailed position-related information for the relevant employees, specifically “pay grade, job title or position (including job code, if any), location, division, department, months in position . . . .” See Order (Dec. 19, 2011) at 5, ¶ 5. It defies logic that the court would order disclosure of job history and the more detailed position-related information if the latter category automatically subsumes the first (because it would naturally include the job history for the 20062009 period); yet this is the conclusion that Defendants’ arguments demand. In sum, the court meant for job history to signify more than just the positions and grades held by the relevant
4

employees during 2006-2009. Accordingly, on or before July 20, 2012, Defendants shall produce all job history information to Plaintiffs for all relevant persons, including those positions that were held since the initial hire dates but pre-dating 2006.
3. Servers The Order limited the scope of discovery to those positions “which were either held by Plaintiffs or positions they hoped to obtain.” Order (Dec. 19, 2011) at 3. The court named these positions, specifically excluding the position of server. Id. Plaintiffs represent that it has now come to their attention that one of the named plaintiffs, LaDawn Harris-Robinson, worked as a server, and they therefore seek that Defendants turn over human resources data on employees who held the position of server. Pls.’ Mot. at 8-9. Plaintiffs argue that they should not be penalized due to their “oversight,” in “fail[ing] to notify the Court prior to December 19 that Ms. Harris-Robinson had been employed as a server.” Id. Data on servers, Plaintiffs maintain, will allow them to “analyze the promotions pipeline.” Id. Defendants respond that Plaintiffs’ attempt to include discovery on all servers employed by Ruth’s Chris Steak House during the relevant time period is an inappropriate request given that Plaintiffs knew or should have known that Ms. Harris-Robinson was a server in 2002. Defs.’ Opp’n at 6. Defendants also argue that the position of server is irrelevant here, as Ms. HarrisRobinson alleges she was discriminated against while she was working as a bartender and aspiring to be a key employee, not a server. The Order plainly limits discovery to certain positions, excluding servers, and the court agrees with Defendants that revisiting this issue would be inappropriate. Plaintiffs knew or should have known as to Ms. Harris-Robinson’s employment history. Furthermore, Ms. HarrisRobinson states that she was hired as a server for only a few months back in 2002 and immediately became a bartender. Defs.’ Opp’n, Ex. C (Harris-Robinson’s Dep.) at 25. As
5

defendants note, the discrimination she alleges involve her attempts to move from a bartender position to that of key employee. In sum, opening discovery to all servers as a result of Ms. Harris-Robinson’s stint as a server in 2002 would be imprudent and the court declines to do so.
4. Third Party Vendors According to Plaintiffs, Defendants have failed to produce information from Ruth’s Chris’s applicant tracking database as well as certain test results because the information is being maintained by third-party vendors. Pls.’ Mot. at 10. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are required to produce these items because they are within Defendants’ custody or control, and that Defendants must pay any costs associated with obtaining the records. Id. Defendants respond that they do not have control because they have neither possession of the documents nor an employment relationship with the third party vendors, such that Defendants would have a legal right to obtain the documents at issue “on demand.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 10. Defendants propose that the more appropriate course of action would be for Plaintiffs, as the requesters of the information, to either pay for the production of these documents or to request them through a third party subpoena. Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) allows a party to request the production of documents and electronically stored information from an adversary if the sought items are in the adversary’s “possession, custody, or control.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a). Control does not require that the party have legal ownership or actual physical possession of the documents at issue, but rather “the right, authority or practical ability to obtain the documents from a non-party to the action.” In re NTL, Inc. Sec. Litig., 244 F.R.D. 179, 195 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); see also United States ITC v. ASAT, Inc., 411 F.3d 245 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (defining control as “the legal right, authority or ability to obtain documents upon demand”). Moreover, “a party upon whom a discovery demand is served need not seek such documents from third parties if compulsory process against
6

the third parties is available to the party seeking the documents.” Nosal v. Granite Park LLC, 269 F.R.D. 284, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (determining that the defendant hotel would not be required to produce documents in the possession of the vendor it had hired to refinish the hotel bathroom because hotel did not control the vendor (internal quotations and alterations omitted)).
To evaluate whether Defendants have the right, authority, or practical ability to obtain the information from the third party vendors, the court must examine the relationship between Defendants and the vendors. Turning first to the issue of the applicant tracking records, the Defendants state that retrieval of this information requires “someone” to pay the third party vendor a flat rate of $500. Def.’s Mot. at 8. It appears that the applicant tracking third party vendor has entered into an agreement with Ruth’s Chris, by which the vendor provides a service, i.e. the maintenance of applicant records, for a flat rate retrieval fee. The details of the arrangement, however, remain unclear, and such details are critical to evaluate whether Ruth’s Chris has control over the third party vendor.
It would require a large investment of the court’s time to determine whether Defendants control this third party vendor. This would not only take up judicial resources but also prevent this case from moving forward expeditiously. Given these considerations, as well as the relatively small fee at issue here, the court orders each party to pay half of the $500 fee.2
Next, the court turns to analyze the Defendants relationship with Kenexa, the third party vendor that owns Batrus Hollweg, a test taken by Ruth Chris’s employees that Plaintiffs allege contributes to barriers in advancement for female employees. Kenexa maintains the assessment scores and individual test results for the employees at issue. To retrieve the data, Kenexa is charging $150 per hour, and the task could amount to forty or more hours. Defs.’ Opp’n at 9. Defendants admit that these records are also kept in their own personnel files but refuse to

2

In the future, the court expects that the parties will be able to work out such disagreements.

7

compile the records themselves, noting that the court explicitly stated in its Order that “Defendants shall not be required to compile results from review of employee records.” Id. at 8.
The test data sought is in Defendants’ possession, and therefore must be disclosed under Rule 34. Although the court’s Order did specify that Defendants would not be “required to compile results from [their] review of employee records,” this applied to human resources data, not the test records at issue here. Indeed, the Batrus Hollweg test records are discussed under a different subheading of the court’s Order entitled “Test Data,” under which there is no mention of the language cited by Defendants. See Order (Dec. 19, 2011) at 5, 8. As such, the court orders Defendants to produce these test results by July 20, 2012.
5. Performance Evaluation Scores The court previously ordered Defendants to produce a computer-readable copy of relevant performance evaluation scores and the date for each evaluation. Order (Dec. 19, 2011) at 4. As with other types of human resource data, the court specified that Defendants are only responsible to produce the information that is presently available in their databases for the relevant time period. Id. at 5. Further, Defendants are not required to compile results from a review of the employee records. Id. Defendants have produced the evaluation data to the extent that Ruth’s Chris tracked such information in its databases. Pls.’ Mot., Ex. A-12. Plaintiffs argue that the evaluation score data produced is of limited value because the scores are rounded to the closest whole number. Pls.’ Mot. at 12-13. Thus, the large majority of the evaluation scores were recorded as “3,” making it impossible to appreciate the difference in a performance score of 3.0 and 3.49, for instance. Id. Essentially, Plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider its prior order that Defendants are not required to compile information from employees’ records, and ask that Defendants be required to
8

“pull the underlying actual performance evaluations” from the relevant employees’ files and provide that to Plaintiffs. Id. at 13. The court declines to reconsider its Order. This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, not their motion for reconsideration. The court has already considered and weighed in its prior analysis the burden that would be imposed on Defendants to compile this type of information. Therefore, the court declines the relief requested by Plaintiffs as to this issue.
6. Date of Birth Plaintiffs request that Defendants produce the birthdates for employees who held specific positions during the relevant time period. Pls.’ Mot. at 14. Plaintiffs want to use the date of birth information to compare how female employees’ qualifications compared to their male counterparts, and whether “gender-based statistical differences as to promotions exist.”3 Id. at 15. Defendants argue that using age as a proxy for work experience is misleading because, as noted by an opinion written in 1990 by the District Court for the District of Columbia, it “assumes that women are working as consistently and continuously as men and makes no allowance for time off for childbearing nor for time or leave for childbearing which under today’s societal practices generally falls on women.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 13-14. In elaborating on this argument, Defendants argue that two of the five named Plaintiffs did indeed take time off from work in order to care for their families. Id. at 14. The court grants the plaintiffs’ request for discovery on date of birth information. Many courts have more recently allowed parties to use age as a proxy for experience when running statistical analyses. See e.g., Reed v. Advocate Health Care, 268 F.R.D. 573, 591 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Gutierrez v. Johnson & Johnson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80834, at *15 n.6 (D.N.J. Nov.

3

Alternatively, Plaintiffs request that “the Court order Defendants to produce the documents and

information that show the actual work history of employees who have held relevant jobs during

the Time Period and prohibit Defendants from relying, in any way, on date of birth information.”

Id. at 16.

9

6, 2006); Wright v. Stern, 450 F. Supp. 2d 335, 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Defendants’ arguments against allowing age as a proxy for work experience are based on sex-based stereotypes, but Defendants have failed to provide evidence to support the validity of these stereotypes. Melani v. Board of Higher Education, 561 F. Supp. 769, 779 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (declining to dismiss class action suit despite defendant’s arguments that age was an inappropriate proxy for women, and concluding that “[s]uch sex-based stereotypes . . . if supported by evidence relevant to the class at issue” are more appropriately brought up in the defendant’s rebuttal). Instead, Defendants’ arguments rest on case law – cases in which the court decided that age was not an appropriate proxy for experience based on the record before them. See Trout v. Garrett, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10060, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 1990) (noting that both parties had filed briefings and a hearing had been held on the issue of whether age was an appropriate proxy for experience and considering the expert testimony provided on the topic); Vuyanich v. Republic Nat’l Bank of Dallas, 505 F. Supp. 224, 293 (N.D. Tex. 1980) (referring to expert’s analysis which “illustrat[ed] how age could be a bad proxy for experience for females”). This court anticipates doing the same by considering evidence as opposed to stereotypes when determining whether the age proxy is appropriate here.
After the plaintiffs have conducted their regression models, the experts may weigh in on issues like sex-based differences in work experience and debate whether the statistical models can accurately account for such differences. Gutierrez v. Johnson & Johnson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80834, at *15 n.6 (D.N.J. Nov. 6, 2006) (noting that “decisions regarding what control variables to include in an expert report go to weight, not admissibility” and “any inadequacies in the methodology could be addressed in cross-examination”). The court will then be in a better position to determine whether or not the regression is reliable, i.e. whether age is an appropriate proxy for experience.
10

IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued this 18th day of June, 2012. June 18, 2012
BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11

 
 Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 52 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KATHARINE BUSH, MELIA WILDER (f/n/a STOPA), SHELLY GOOREVICH, and LADAWN HARRIS-ROBINSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RUTH’S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH’S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., and RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01721 (BJR)
SCHEDULING AND CLASS CERTIFICATION DISCOVERY ORDER

This matter is bef ore the court on the parties’ Joint Meet and Confer Report [Docket No. 49; Filed Novem ber 23, 2011] (the “Report”). This order establishes a schedule for class certification pr etrial and resolves disputes regarding discovery limitations identified in the Re port. Havi ng considered the parties’ proposal and arguments and being fully advised, no additional briefing shall be permitted unless otherwise directed.
Plaintiffs are former employees of Ruth’s Chris who allege that they were subjected to employment discrimination on the basis of their gender and that this discrimination against women occurs companywide. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated women, prosecuting the following class claim s: gender discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq., and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 52 Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 9
Defendants deny that Plaintiffs, or any class of wom en that Plaintiffs purport to represent, were subjected to any unlawful treatm ent, or that class treatment is appropriate.
1. The court, adopting the parties’ agreem ent, bifurcates class and merits discovery. There will be no dispositive m otions until the m erits phase of the case. Once the issue of class certification is resolved, the parties will subm it a new case management plan for the m erits issues which will include a schedule for dispositive motions.
2. Having considered the positions of the parties, the court orders that the deadline for adding any new partie s and for amending the pleadings shall be January 31, 2012.
3. Although the parties do not oppose assigning discovery m atters in whole or in part to a magistrate judge, this court will handle discovery.
4. The parties have no currently scheduled settlem ent talks although they have had them in the past. The court will not refer the parties to settlem ent or ADR at this time but may consider doing so in the future.
2

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 52 Filed 12/19/11 Page 3 of 9
5. Having considered the pa rties’ arguments concerning the scope of discovery for the class certification portion of the case, 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
Discovery in this case shall com ply with the court’s prior order directing that the time period for class discovery be limited to January 1, 2006 to Decem ber 31, 2009 (he reinafter the “Tim e Period”). See Order [#41] at 1. The court has ordered that discovery should include positions whic h were either held by Plaintiffs or positions they hoped to obtain. See id. The court finds that discovery should also include positions which are similar or functionally comparable to those positions. See Cook v. Boorstin , 763 F.2d 1462, 1468-69 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The relevant categories, therefore , are Regional Vice President, General Manager, Sales Manager, National Sales Manager, Assistant General Manager, Assistant Sales Manager, Key Em ployee, and Bartender. The court excludes m anagers, hostesses, and servers.
Moreover, the court concludes that discovery related to positions relevant to yet to be added P laintiffs is not appropriate at this tim e. If P laintiffs are added in the future, discovery shall be expanded to include positions relevant to their claims. Finally, although Plaintiff Harris-Robinson’s claim s are more limited than
1 The court notes that the Report contains briefing on discovery disputes that currently exist between the parties. Although this briefing arguably violates the court’s procedure for resolving discovery disputes, see, e.g., Standing Order [Docket No. 50], the court elects to consider the issues raised.
3

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 52 Filed 12/19/11 Page 4 of 9
other putative class m embers, the court finds that discovery should not be lim ited to her restaurant as Defendants suggest. However, as shown be low, the court concludes that a sm aller sample of information related to positions relevant to he r claims is appropriate.
Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: A. Human Resources Data On or before January 13, 2012 , Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs a computer-readable copy of the following inform ation from its database (s) for all persons employed during the Tim e Period as Regional Vice Preside nt, General Manager, Sales Manager, National Sales Manager, Assistant Ge neral Manager, and Assistant Sales Manager, as well as for a random sample of 100 persons employed as Bartender and Key Employee: 1. basic employee information, including, where available, unique
identifier; initial salary and job function; subfunction and title; grade; job history including any changes in job function, subfunction and title, or grade; gender; date of service; date of hire or any rehire; 2. educational background, where available; 3. evaluation score and date of evaluation for each perform ance evaluation (including, but not lim ited to, a ll Performance Plus results and information); 4. all data relating to com pensation (including initial salary, me rit
4

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 52 Filed 12/19/11 Page 5 of 9
increases, other increases, bonuses, stock option allocations, other benefits, and any other em ployee compensation), including each raise, other increase, decrease, or any other change; 5. pay grade, job title or position ( including job code, if any), location, division, department, and months in position, including the date of and decision maker(s) responsible for any prom otions, transfers, demotions, or other job changes;2 6. W-2 data; and 7. any disciplinary action. By the same date, Defendants shall produce any codebook, key, ha ndbook, or other docum ents that m ay be necessary to read the data or m ay aid in interpreting the inform ation on the database. Defendants’ responsibility to produce the information is limited by what is presently available in their database(s) for the relevant time period. Defendants shall not be required to compile results from review of employee records. B. Job Posting On or before January 13, 2012, Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs in computer-readable form any applicant tracking records of Defendants’ job posting system(s), if any, that existed during the Tim e Period, and any other com puterized
2 It is unclear how status changes between full and part-time positions is relevant to this request, and the court removes any reference to such information here.
5

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 52 Filed 12/19/11 Page 6 of 9

data or data collections regarding positions that were poste d for Regional Vice

President, General Manager, Sales Manager, National Sales Manager, Assistant

General Manager, Sales Manager, and Key Em ployee, applications for these

positions, and inform ation regarding those applications including the position

description, the applicant’s unique identifier, the gender of the applicants, any

information contained on the application, and the disposition of the applications.

By the sam e date, Defendants shall produce any c odebook, key, handbook, or

other documents that may be necessary to read this data or m ay aid in interpreting

the information on the database.

C. Personnel Files

On or before January 13, 2011, Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs any

information relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims created during the Time Period contained

in personnel files (excluding m edical information and private informa tion that

could not reasonably be related to Plaintiffs’ claim

s),3 including the

supplementation of a ny files previously produced, for the following persons:

Kevin Armantrout, Jeff Bla ir, Matthew Brice, Michael Connolly, Greg Dabran,

David Delulio, Kelly Duerr, Moham med Fakhara, Am y Fischer, Gil Fornaris,

Brian Forster, LaDawn Harris-Robinson, Kurt Ham ilton, Anthony Hensley,

3 To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to define the type of information contained in personnel files that they believe is relevant to their claims, they should do so consistent with this order, but they are not entitled to complete sets of personnel files for nonparties. Further, to the extent that Defendants contend that privacy concerns prevent disclosure of certain information, the protective order entered by the court should adequately address those concerns.
6

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 52 Filed 12/19/11 Page 7 of 9

Jacques Hermier, Doranne Hughes, Chuck Jalowski, Indy Jam es, Lanette Jarvis,

Rik Jenkins, Tom Khandakar, Chuck Lamb, Anthony Lavely, Susan Lum b, John

Maloney, Jeffrey Menzer, Angela Miceli, Noad (last nam e currently unknown),

Joe O’Donnell, Eric Ostrow, Juan Carlos Parkhurst, Kim

Redmond, Juan

Rodriguez, Jason Ruderm an, Geoffrey Stiles, Pete Tam bini, Scott Uguccioni,

Michael Wellikoff, and Steve Wells.

D. Sex and/or Gender Discrimination Complaints

On or before January 13, 2011 , Defendants sha ll produce all available

documents related to com plaints, both formal and informal, alleging of sex and/or

gender discrimination by Defendants and/or any of their agents, em ployees, etc.

during the Time Period.

E. Data and Reports on Sex and/or Gender Representation of

Workforce

On or before January 13, 2012 , unless otherwise privileged , Defendants

shall produce in complete, readable, and useable form any previously com piled

computerized or hard-copy data and inform ation that investigate, analyze, report,

study, or comment on, the gender representation of Defendants’ workforce during

the Time Period. Any privilege log submitted in reference to this information shall

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). If, after this deadline , disputes remain about

the validity of the privilege log or the asse rtion of a privilege, Plaintiffs m ay file a

five-page motion addressing the dispute and attaching the privilege log. Any 7

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 52 Filed 12/19/11 Page 8 of 9
response by Defendants shall be limited to five pages. F. Test Data On or before January 13, 2012, Defendants shall produc e information on
any test results, including but not lim ited to the Batrus Hollwe g test,4 used in the evaluation and/or assessment of all persons em ployed as Regional Vice President, General Manager, Sales Manager, National Sales Manager, Assistant Ge neral Manager and Assistant Sales Manager, as well a s for a random sample of 100 persons employed as Bartender and Key Em ployee during the relevant Time Period.
6. Each party sha ll be perm itted to take TEN (10) depositions , exclusive of expert witnesses, not to exceed SEVEN (7) hours each except that one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition may last an additional seven (7) hours.
7. Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with their e xpert witness reports no later than June 1, 2012 . Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with their expert witness reports no later than August 2, 2012 . Depositions of P laintiffs’ class certification experts m ust be com pleted by July 2, 2012 . Depositions of Defendants’ class certification experts must be completed by September 3, 2012.
8. IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following schedule for class certification shall govern this case:
4 In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he Batrus Hollweg testing potentially contributes to barriers in advancement for female employees at the company.” Second Am. Cmplt. ¶ 56.
8

Case 1:10-cv-01721-BJR Document 52 Filed 12/19/11 Page 9 of 9

Exchange of class certification witness lists

March 2, 2012

Non-expert Class certification discovery deadline April 2, 2012

Deadline for Motion for Class Certification

October 3, 2012

Deadline for Opposition to Motion for Class Certification

November 2, 2012

Deadline for Reply

December 3, 2012

Class Certification Hearing

January 2013 TBD

9. As noted earlier, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that discovery shall be

bifurcated between class discovery and m erits discovery. The issue of bifurcation

of liability a nd damages shall be addressed pursuant to the m erits phase case

management plan.

10. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a new ca se management plan

should be prepared and filed by the parties within 30 days after resolution of the

class certification.

11. A trial date will be set after receipt of the m

erits phase case

management plan.

No other matters need to be included in the scheduling order.

Dated: December 19, 2011

__________________________________________________________________
BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9

 
 Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 1 of 18
CLOSED,JURY,TYPE−H
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10−cv−01721−BJR

BUSH et al v. RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC. et al Assigned to: Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein Demand: $10,000,000 Cause: 42:2003 Job Discrimination
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/08/2010 Date Terminated: 10/10/2013 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

KATHARINE BUSH

represented by Andrea R. Gold TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 1828 L Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 973−0900 Fax: (202) 973−0950 Email: agold@tzlegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cyrus Mehri MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822−5100 Fax: (202) 822−4997 Email: cmehri@findjustice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hassan A. Zavareei TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 1828 L Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 973−0900 Fax: (202) 973−0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janell Maria Byrd MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822−5100 Fax: (202) 822−4997 Email: jbyrd@findjustice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D. Lieder MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 446−1909 Fax: (202) 822−4997

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 2 of 18

Email: MLieder@findjustice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taryn Wilgus Null Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 601 D Street, N.W. Patrick Henry Building, Room 4033 Washington, DC 20579 202−616−3874 Fax: 202−514−1005 Email: twilgusnull@findjustice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Danielle Elizabeth Davis MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 822−5100 Email: ddavis@findjustice.com TERMINATED: 09/13/2011

Plaintiff
MELIA WILDER born MELIA STOPA

represented by Andrea R. Gold (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cyrus Mehri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hassan A. Zavareei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janell Maria Byrd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D. Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taryn Wilgus Null (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Danielle Elizabeth Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/13/2011

Plaintiff SHELLY GOOREVICH

represented by Andrea R. Gold (See above for address)

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 3 of 18

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cyrus Mehri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hassan A. Zavareei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janell Maria Byrd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D. Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taryn Wilgus Null (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Danielle Elizabeth Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/13/2011

Plaintiff LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON

represented by Andrea R. Gold (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cyrus Mehri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hassan A. Zavareei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janell Maria Byrd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D. Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taryn Wilgus Null (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 4 of 18

AMY FISCHER

represented by Andrea R. Gold (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cyrus Mehri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hassan A. Zavareei (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Janell Maria Byrd (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael D. Lieder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taryn Wilgus Null (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC.

represented by Laurie M. Chess JONES, WALKER, WAECHTER, POITEVENT, CARRERE & DENEGRE, L.L.P Miami Center 201 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2600 Miami, FL 33131 (305) 679−5728 Fax: (305) 679−5710 Email: lchess@joneswalker.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard John Tyler JONES WALKER 201 St. Charles Avenue, 49th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 (504) 582−8266 Fax: 504−589−8266 Email: rtyler@joneswalker.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tracy E. Kern JONES, WALKER, WAECHTER, POITEVENT, CARRERE & DENEGRE 201 St. Charles Avenue 49th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170−5100 (504) 582−8134

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 5 of 18

Fax: (504) 589−8134 Email: tkern@joneswalker.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A. Casey JONES, WALKER, WAECHTER, POITEVENT, CARRERE & DENEGRE 201 St. Charles Avenue 49th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170−5100 (504) 582−8294 Fax: (504) 582−8011 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.

represented by David K. Theard JONES, WALKER, WAECHTER, POITEVENT, CARRERE & DENEGRE 201 St. Charles Avenue 49th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170−5100 (504)582−8402 Fax: (504)589−8402 Email: dtheard@joneswalker.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie M. Chess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard John Tyler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tracy E. Kern (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A. Casey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC.

represented by David K. Theard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie M. Chess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard John Tyler (See above for address)

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 6 of 18

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tracy E. Kern (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A. Casey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC

represented by David K. Theard (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurie M. Chess (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard John Tyler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tracy E. Kern (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A. Casey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/08/2010
10/12/2010 12/15/2010 12/20/2010
01/25/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616033314) filed by KATHARINE BUSH, MELIA WILDER, SHELLY GOOREVICH. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(td, ) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
Summons (2) Issued as to RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (td, ) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
2 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. All Defendants (Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
3 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (Tyler, Richard) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
MINUTE ORDER granting 3 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. The Court having considered the defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response, and it appearing to the Court that there is good cause to grant the relief requested therein based upon the consent of the plaintiffs as represented to the Court by the defendants, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiff's complaint on or before January 28, 2011. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 7 of 18

01/25/2011 01/28/2011 01/28/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/02/2011 02/02/2011 02/03/2011 02/11/2011
02/11/2011
02/14/2011
02/14/2011
03/07/2011 03/14/2011
03/14/2011

1/25/2011 (lcrbw1). (Entered: 01/25/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 1/28/2011. (ad) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
4 Affirmative Defenses and ANSWER to 1 Complaint by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC..(Tyler, Richard) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
5 Corporate Disclosure Statement by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (Tyler, Richard) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
6 ORDER for Initial Scheduling Conference set for 3/14/2011 10:30 AM in Courtroom 16 before Judge Reggie B. Walton. (mpt, ) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
7 GENERAL ORDER AND GUIDELINES FOR CIVIL CASES. (mpt, ) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Janell Maria Byrd on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Byrd, Janell) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Cyrus Mehri on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Mehri, Cyrus) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Danielle E. Davis on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Davis, Danielle) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Tracy E. Kern, :Firm− Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrre & Dengre, L.L.P., :Address− 201 St. Charles Avenue, 47th Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana 70170−5100. Phone No. − (504) 582−8134. Fax No. − (504) 589−8134 Email− tkern@joneswalker.com by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC. (Tyler, Richard) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Laurie M. Chess, :Firm− Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrre & Dengre, L.L.P., :Address− 601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 500, Miami, FL 33131. Phone No. − (305) 679−5728. Fax No. − (305) 679−5710 Email− lchess@joneswalker.com by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (Tyler, Richard) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 11 Laurie M. Chess' Motion for Permission to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice. The Court having considered Laurie M. Chess' Motion for Permission to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice, and it appearing to the Court that there is good cause to grant the relief requested therein, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Laurie M. Chess of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, LLP, 601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 500, Miami, Florida 33131, is admitted to practice before this Court pro hac vice. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 2/14/2011 (lcrbw1). (Entered: 02/14/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 12 Tracy E. Kern's Motion for Permission to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice. The Court having considered Tracy E. Kern's Motion for Permission to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice, and it appearing to the Court that there is good cause to grant the relief requested therein, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Tracy E. Kern of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, LLP, 201 St. Charles Avenue, 47th Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana 70170−5100, is admitted to practice before this Court pro hac vice. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 2/14/2011 (lcrbw1). (Entered: 02/14/2011)
13 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Scheduling Order)(Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
14 STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER FILED 10/12/2011..... MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Appendix Ahuja v. Detica, # 3 Appendix Schuler v. Pricewaterhouse)(Chess, Laurie) Modified inserting the word partial in text on 3/15/2011 (td, ). Modified on 10/13/2011 (dr). (Entered: 03/14/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Reggie B. Walton: Initial Scheduling Conference held on 3/14/2011. A Further Initial Scheduling Conference is set for 4/4/2011 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 16 before Judge Reggie B. Walton. (Court

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 8 of 18

03/14/2011 03/28/2011 03/28/2011 03/28/2011 03/28/2011 03/31/2011
04/01/2011 04/01/2011 04/04/2011 04/04/2011
04/04/2011
05/06/2011 05/20/2011

Reporter Cathryn Jones) (ad) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
15 ORDER. The parties shall appear before the Court for a further initial scheduling conference at 11:00 a.m. on April 4, 2011. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 3/14/2011 (lcrbw1). (Entered: 03/14/2011)
16 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 03/28/2011)
17 ENTERED IN ERROR.....MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Chess, Laurie) Modified on 3/29/2011 (td, ). (Entered: 03/28/2011)
18 NOTICE of Revised Proposed Scheduling Order by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (td, ) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 17 Meet and Confer Statement was entered in error and refiled as docket entry no. 18 .(td, ) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
19 ENTERED IN ERROR.....Memorandum in opposition to re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH, MELIA WILDER. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Plaintiffs' Statement of Genuine Issues of Material Fact, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service)(Mehri, Cyrus) Modified on 4/1/2011 (jf, ). (Entered: 03/31/2011)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 19 Memorandum in Opposition, was entered in error at the request of counsel and will be refiled.(jf, ) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
20 Memorandum in opposition to re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH, MELIA WILDER. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Plaintiffs' Genuine Issues of Material Fact, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service)(Mehri, Cyrus) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
21 REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC.. (Chess, Laurie) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
22 SCHEDULING ORDER. This case is assigned to the Court's Standard Track. The parties shall provide their initial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on or before April 14, 2011. The parties shall join any additional parties on or before May 6, 2011. The proponent of an expert witness shall disclose the identity and serve any report of that expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before September 16, 2011. The opponent of an expert witness shall respond with the identity of any countering expert witness and provide that expert witness's report pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) on or before October 14, 2011. Discovery in this case, including expert discovery, shall close on November 18, 2011. Finally, the parties shall appear before the Court for a status conference at 10:00 a.m. on November 18, 2011. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 4/4/2011 (lcrbw1). (Entered: 04/04/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Reggie B. Walton: Initial Scheduling Conference held on 4/4/2011, ( Additional Parties may join by 5/6/2011, Discovery shall close by 11/18/2011, Initial Disclosure by 4/14/2011, Proponent Rule 26a2 due by 9/16/2011, Opponent Rule 26a2 due by 10/14/2011. Status Conference set for 11/18/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 16 before Judge Reggie B. Walton.). (Court Reporter Cathryn Jones.) (mpt, ) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
23 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint by KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH, MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A− Plaintiffs First Amended Class Action Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B− Notice of New Parties & Claims)(Byrd, Janell) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
24 Memorandum in opposition to re 23 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Chess, Laurie) (Entered: 05/20/2011)

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 9 of 18

05/31/2011 06/23/2011
06/24/2011
06/24/2011 07/08/2011 08/04/2011 08/04/2011 09/01/2011 09/13/2011 09/13/2011 09/21/2011 09/23/2011 09/26/2011 09/26/2011 09/26/2011

25 REPLY to opposition to motion re 23 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH, MELIA WILDER. (Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
26 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Points and Authorities in Support Thereof by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Wal−Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes et al, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Chess, Laurie) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 26 Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Memorandum. The Court having considered the Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Supplement its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, and it appearing to the Court that there is good cause to grant the relief requested therein based upon the consent of the plaintiffs as represented to the Court by the defendant, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall docket the defendant's supplemental memorandum of points and authorities, which is included in the defendant's motion on pages four through nine. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 6/24/2011 (lcrbw1). (Entered: 06/24/2011)
27 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM in Opposition to re 23 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(znmw, ) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
28 RESPONSE re 27 Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed by KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH, MELIA WILDER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mehri, Cyrus) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
29 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Danielle E. Davis by KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH, MELIA WILDER (Byrd, Janell) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
30 NOTICE of Change of Address by Laurie M. Chess (Chess, Laurie) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
31 Case reassigned to Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein. Judge Reggie B. Walton no longer assigned to the case. (ds) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
MINUTE ORDER granting 29 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Danielle E. Davis terminated. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 09/13/2011. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
32 Joint MOTION for Order to Modify the Case Management Schedule by KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH, RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Byrd, Janell) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
33 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Filing Documents Subject to Protective Order (Motion to Compel) by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (Kern, Tracy) Modified on 9/26/2011 (dr). (Entered: 09/21/2011)
34 ORDER granting in part 32 Motion to Modify Case Schedule. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 09/23/2011. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Expert Disclosure Deadline 1/16/2012. Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline 2/13/2012. Discovery Deadline 3/16/2012. (tth) (Entered: 09/26/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 5/4/2012. (tth) (Entered: 09/26/2011)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 33 Notice (Other) was entered in error pursuant to the standing order advising Defendants not to file their Motion to Compel. Per Chambers request, they have recieved a courtesy copy of the Motion, and the original copy has been sent back to the parties. (dr) (Entered: 09/26/2011)

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 10 of 18

09/29/2011 09/30/2011
09/30/2011 10/12/2011 10/12/2011
11/07/2011 11/07/2011 11/08/2011
11/08/2011 11/09/2011 11/09/2011 11/09/2011 11/10/2011 11/11/2011 11/11/2011 11/14/2011 11/15/2011

35 ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by All Plaintiffs. Case related to Case No. 11−cv−1251. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Byrd, Janell) Modified on 9/30/2011 (dr). (Entered: 09/29/2011)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 35 Notice of Related Case was entered in error because this court does not accept correspondence filed electronically, unless requested by the judge. The Attorney is instructed to refile using the appropriate CO−932 Notice of Related Case Form.(dr) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
36 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by All Plaintiffs. Case related to Case No. 11−cv−01251. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Byrd, Janell) (Main Document 36 replaced on 10/3/2011) (dr) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
37 ORDER granting 23 Motion for Leave to File; striking as moot 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 10/12/2011. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
38 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. filed by KATHARINE BUSH, MELIA WILDER, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, SHELLY GOOREVICH.(dr) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
39 ORDER setting telephonic Discovery Hearing for November 8, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 11/7/2011. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Discovery Hearing set for 11/8/2011 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 12 before Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein. (tth) (Entered: 11/07/2011)
40 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, Second Amended Class Action Complaint, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Byrd, Janell) (Entered: 11/08/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein: Discovery Hearing (telephonic) held on 11/8/2011. (Court Reporter Lisa Foradori.) (tth) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
41 ORDER regarding November 8, 2011 discovery hearing. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 11/9/2011. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
42 ORDER granting 40 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 11/9/2011. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
43 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC filed by MELIA WILDER, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH.(dr) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
44 NOTICE of Appearance by Taryn Null on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Null, Taryn) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
45 WAIVER OF SERVICE by MELIA WILDER, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH. RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC. waiver sent on 11/10/2011, answer due 1/9/2012. (Null, Taryn) (Entered: 11/11/2011)
46 WAIVER OF SERVICE by MELIA WILDER, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH. RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC waiver sent on 11/10/2011, answer due 1/9/2012. (Null, Taryn) (Entered: 11/11/2011)
47 ANSWER to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Second Amended Class Action Complaint by RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC..(Chess, Laurie) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
48 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− David K. Theard, :Firm− Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, LLP, :Address− 201 St. Charles Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70170. Phone No. − 504−582−8402. Fax No. − 504−589−8402 by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (Tyler, Richard) (Entered: 11/15/2011)

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 11 of 18

11/17/2011
11/23/2011 12/05/2011 12/13/2011 12/19/2011 12/20/2011 01/26/2012 02/15/2012 02/15/2012
02/15/2012 02/16/2012 02/21/2012
02/29/2012

MINUTE ORDER granting 48 David K. Theard's Motion for Permission to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice. The Court having considered Mr. Theard's Motion, and it appearing to the court that there is good cause to grant the relief requested therein, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Mr. Theard of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, LLP, 201 St. Charles Avenue, 47th Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana 70170, is admitted pro hac vice to represent Defendants in this case. The parties are reminded of their obligation pursuant to LCivR 7(m) to confer in advance of the filing of motions and to so state in their motions. Future motions which do not comply will be summarily denied. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 11/17/11. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
49 MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Revised Proposed Scheduling Order, # 3 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service)(Null, Taryn) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
50 STANDING ORDER applicable to case going forward. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 12/5/11. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
51 PROTECTIVE ORDER setting forth procedures for disclosure of confidential material. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 12/13/11. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
52 SCHEDULING AND CLASS CERTIFICATION DISCOVERY ORDER. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 12/19/11. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 1/31/2012. Motion due by 10/3/2012. Response due by 11/2/2012. Reply due by 12/3/2012. (tth) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
53 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Third Amended Class Action Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Byrd, Janell) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
54 ORDER granting 53 Motion to File Third Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 2/15/12. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
55 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Thomas A. Casey, :Firm− Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrre & Dengre, L.L.P, :Address− 201 St. Charles Ave, New Orleans, LA 70170 49th Floor. Phone No. − 504−582−8294. Fax No. − 504−582−8011 by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (Tyler, Richard) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
56 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. filed by MELIA WILDER, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, AMY FISCHER, KATHARINE BUSH, SHELLY GOOREVICH.(dr) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
Set/Reset Deadline: Answer to the Third Amended Complaint due by 3/2/2012. (tth) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting 55 Thomas A. Casey, Jr.'s Motion for Permission to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice. The court having considered Mr. Casey's Motion, and it appearing to the court that there is good cause to grant the relief requested therein, it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Mr. Casey of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, LLP, 201 St. Charles Avenue, 49th Floor, New Orleans, Louisiana 70170, is admitted pro hac vice to represent Defendants in this case. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 2/21/12. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 02/21/2012)
57 Joint MOTION to Modify the Scheduling and Class Certification Discovery Order by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tyler, Richard) (Entered: 02/29/2012)

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 12 of 18

03/01/2012 03/01/2012
03/05/2012
04/20/2012
05/02/2012
05/02/2012 05/04/2012 05/07/2012 05/09/2012 05/11/2012 05/16/2012 06/18/2012 06/18/2012

58 ORDER granting 57 Motion to Modify Scheduling and Class Certification Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 3/1/12. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Exchange of Class Certification Witness Lists May 31, 2012; Non−expert Class Certification Discovery Deadline July 2, 2012; Plaintiffs Expert Witness Disclosures August 30, 2012; Depositions of Plaintiffs Expert Witnesses October 1, 2012; Defendants Expert Witness Disclosures October 31, 2012; Depositions Defendants Expert Witnesses December 3, 2012; Deadline for Motion for Class Certification January 15, 2013; Deadline for Opposition to Motion for Class February 15, 2013; Certification Deadline for Reply March 15, 2013; Class Certification Hearing April 2013 TBD (tth) (Entered: 03/01/2012)
59 ANSWER to 56 Amended Complaint by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. Related document: 56 Amended Complaint filed by MELIA WILDER, AMY FISCHER, KATHARINE BUSH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, SHELLY GOOREVICH.(Tyler, Richard) (Entered: 03/05/2012)
60 MOTION to Compel Production of Data and Related Documents by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12)(Byrd, Janell) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
MINUTE ORDER granting leave to the plaintiffs to file a motion limited to the six discovery issues that the parties discussed with chambers on April 25, 2012. The plaintiffs' motion shall be no more than 25 pages in length and shall be filed by May 9, 2012. The defendants' opposition shall be no more than 25 pages in length and shall be filed by May 16, 2012. The court will not entertain a reply. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 5/2/12.(lcbjr2) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion limited to the six discovery issues due by 5/9/2012; Opposition due by 5/16/2012. (tg, ) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
61 Memorandum in opposition to re 60 MOTION to Compel Production of Data and Related Documents filed by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Appendix Clayton v. Vanguard Car Rental, # 3 Appendix Farahmand v. Jamshidi, et al)(Tyler, Richard) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
62 REPLY to opposition to motion re 60 MOTION to Compel Production of Data and Related Documents filed by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER. (Byrd, Janell) (Entered: 05/07/2012)
63 MOTION to Compel by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Andrea Gold, # 2 Declaration of Marc Bendick, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
64 ORDER denying 60 the plaintiffs' motion to compel. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 5/11/12.(lcbjr2) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
65 Memorandum in opposition to re 63 MOTION to Compel filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Caselaw)(Chess, Laurie) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
66 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 63 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 6/18/12.(lcbjr2) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
67 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting in part and denying in part 63 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 6/18/12.(lcbjr2) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 13 of 18

06/19/2012

68 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein held on 11−8−11; Page Numbers: 1−20. Date of Issuance:6−19−12. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa M. Foradori, Telephone number 202−354−3269, Court Reporter Email Address : L4dori@hotmail.com.

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at ww.dcd.uscourts.gov.

06/21/2012 06/25/2012 09/12/2012 09/13/2012 09/14/2012
09/26/2012
10/01/2012 10/05/2012 10/09/2012

Redaction Request due 7/10/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/20/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/17/2012.(Hand, Lisa) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
69 Joint MOTION to Modify the Scheduling Order by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Null, Taryn) (Entered: 06/21/2012)
70 ORDER granting 69 Joint Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 6/22/12.(lcbjr2) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
MINUTE ORDER. The court grants leave to Plaintiffs to file a motion to modify the court's December 2011 discovery order. Plaintiffs' motion is due on September 14, 2012. Defendant's opposition is due on September 26, 2012. Plaintiffs' reply is due on October 1, 2012. Both parties shall limit their respective briefs to five pages. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 9/12/12. (lcbjr2) (Entered: 09/12/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs' Motion due by 9/14/2012. Defendant's Response due by 9/26/2012. Plaintiffs' Reply due by 10/1/2012. (tth) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
71 MOTION to Modify December 19, 2011 Order to Include Discovery of Computerized Data for Manager and Assistant Manager Positions by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Marc Bendick, Jr., Ph.D, # 2 Declaration Taryn Wilgus Null, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
72 Memorandum in opposition to re 71 MOTION to Modify December 19, 2011 Order to Include Discovery of Computerized Data for Manager and Assistant Manager Positions Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Modification of December 19, 2011 Order filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC., RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Kern, Tracy) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
73 REPLY to opposition to motion re 71 MOTION to Modify December 19, 2011 Order to Include Discovery of Computerized Data for Manager and Assistant Manager Positions filed by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Taryn Wilgus Null)(Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
74 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Modification by RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Surreply)(Kern, Tracy) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
VACATED PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S ORDER OF 10/9/2012..........MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs are directed to file any opposition to Defendants' 74 Motion for Leave to File Surreply no later than October 10, 2012. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 10/09/2012. (lcbjr1) Modified on 10/9/2012 (cdw). (Entered: 10/09/2012)

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 14 of 18

10/09/2012 10/09/2012 10/09/2012 03/22/2013 03/22/2013 03/22/2013 04/22/2013 04/24/2013 04/24/2013 04/24/2013 04/24/2013
04/24/2013
05/13/2013 05/14/2013

Set/Reset Deadlines: Opposition due no later than 10/10/2012. (tth) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
75 ORDER denying 71 Motion to Modify; denying 74 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 10/9/2012. (lcbjr1) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of this Court's 75 Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion without reference to Defendants' surreply, the Order setting an opposition deadline on the motion to file a surreply is hereby VACATED. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 10/9/2012. (lcbjr1) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
76 Joint MOTION to Modify the Scheduling Order by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
77 ORDER granting 76 Parties' Joint Consent Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 3/22/13. lcbjr2) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion for Class Certification due by 4/24/2013; Opposition due by 5/24/2013; Reply due by 6/21/2013. (tth) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
78 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
79 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
80 NOTICE of Filing Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel Under Seal by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, MELIA WILDER (Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
81 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael D. Lieder on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Lieder, Michael) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
82 LODGED SEALED DOCUMENT filed by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration A. Gold, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit 20, # 23 Exhibit 21, # 24 Exhibit 22, # 25 Exhibit 23, # 26 Exhibit 24, # 27 Exhibit 25, # 28 Exhibit 26, # 29 Exhibit 27, # 30 Exhibit 28, # 31 Exhibit 29, # 32 Exhibit 30, # 33 Exhibit 31, # 34 Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit 40, # 42 Exhibit 41, # 43 Exhibit 42, # 44 Exhibit 43, # 45 Exhibit 44, # 46 Exhibit 45)(ztd, ) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
83 LODGED SEALED (ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS) DOCUMENT filed by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON. re 82 Lodged Sealed Document,,,, filed by AMY FISCHER, KATHARINE BUSH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, SHELLY GOOREVICH. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit E, # 4 Exhibit F, # 5 Exhibit G, # 6 Exhibit H, # 7 Exhibit I, # 8 Exhibit J, # 9 Exhibit K, # 10 Exhibit L)(ztd, ) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
84 Unopposed MOTION to Modify the Scheduling Order by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kern, Tracy) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 84 Defendant's Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. The filing of Defendant's opposiion shall be due on June 7, 2013, and Plaintiff's reply is due on July 12, 2013. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 5/14/13.(lcbjr2) (Entered: 05/14/2013)

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 15 of 18

06/04/2013 06/06/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013
06/07/2013
06/07/2013
06/07/2013
06/07/2013
06/07/2013

85 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kern, Tracy) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 85 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification may be no more than 60 pages. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 6/6/13.(lcbjr2) (Entered: 06/06/2013)
86 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel Under Seal by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Theard, David) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
87 NOTICE of Filing Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Under Seal by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (Theard, David) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
88 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs' Designated Expert, Kathleen Lundquist, and Daubert Motion by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Theard, David) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
89 SEALED DOCUMENT (Opposition) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd, ) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
90 SEALED DOCUMENT (Large Additional Attachments Part 1 Exhibit of exhibit 1) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd, ) Modified on 6/13/2013 (ztd, ). (Entered: 06/13/2013)
91 SEALED DOCUMENT (Large Additional Attachments Part 2 of Exhibit 1) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd, ) Modified on 6/13/2013 (ztd, ). (Entered: 06/13/2013)
92 SEALED DOCUMENT(Large Additional Attachments Part 3 of Exhibit 1) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd, ) Modified on 6/13/2013 (ztd, ). (Entered: 06/13/2013)
93 SEALED DOCUMENT (Large Additional Attachments Part 4 of Exhibit 1) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd, ) Modified on 6/13/2013 (ztd, ). (Entered: 06/13/2013)
94 SEALED DOCUMENT (Large Additional Attachments Part 5 of Exhibit 1) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd, ) Modified on 6/13/2013 (ztd, ). (Entered: 06/13/2013)
95 SEALED DOCUMENT (Large Additional Attachments Part 6 of Exhibit 1) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 16 of 18

06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013

GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd, ) Modified on 6/13/2013 (ztd, ). (Entered: 06/13/2013)
96 SEALED DOCUMENT(Large Additional Attachments Exhibit 2) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(ztd, . (Entered: 06/13/2013)
97 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit 3 Main Document) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4, # 2 Exhibit 5, # 3 Exhibit 6)(ztd, ) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
98 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit 7 Main Document) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 8, # 2 Exhibit 9)(ztd, ) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
99 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit 10 Main Document) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 11, # 2 Exhibit 12)(ztd, ) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
100 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit 13 Main Document) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 14, # 2 Exhibit 15)(ztd, ) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
101 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit 16 Main Document) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 17)(ztd, ) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
102 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit 18 Main Document) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 19, # 2 Exhibit 20)(ztd, ) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
103 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit 21 Main Document) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 22, # 2 Exhibit 23, # 3 Exhibit 24, # 4 Exhibit 25, # 5 Exhibit 26, # 6 Exhibit 27, # 7 Exhibit 28, # 8 Exhibit 29)(ztd, ) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
104 SEALED DOCUMENT (Exhibit 30 Main Document) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. re 89 Sealed Document filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 31, # 2 Exhibit 32, # 3 Exhibit 33, # 4 Exhibit 34)(ztd, ) (Entered: 06/13/2013)

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 17 of 18

06/24/2013 06/24/2013 06/26/2013 06/28/2013
06/28/2013 07/08/2013 07/08/2013 07/17/2013 07/17/2013 07/17/2013 07/17/2013
07/19/2013 10/09/2013

105 Memorandum in opposition to re 88 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs' Designated Expert, Kathleen Lundquist, and Daubert Motion filed by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Lundquist Report, # 2 Exhibit 2: Lundquist Transcript)(Mehri, Cyrus) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
106 MOTION to Strike 100 Sealed Document, 101 Sealed Document, 102 Sealed Document, (Defendant's Draft Summary Judgment Motions) by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Izad Transcript, # 2 Exhibit 2: Denton Transcript, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Mehri, Cyrus) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
107 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and to Modify the Scheduling Order by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Theard, David) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 107 the parties' Joint Motion for Extension and to Modify the Scheduling and Class Certification Discovery Order. The deadlines and Scheduling and Class Certification Discovery Order shall be modified as follows: i. Deadline for Defendants' Reply Brief to their Daubert motion is July 8, 2013; ii. Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply Brief to their Motion for Class Certification is July 17, 2013; iii. Class Certification Hearing date to be determined. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein on 6/28/13.(lcbjr2) Modified on 7/1/2013 (znmw, ). (Entered: 06/28/2013)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply due by 7/17/2013. (tth) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
108 REPLY to opposition to motion re 88 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs' Designated Expert, Kathleen Lundquist, and Daubert Motion filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Theard, David) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
109 Memorandum in opposition to re 106 MOTION to Strike 100 Sealed Document, 101 Sealed Document, 102 Sealed Document, (Defendant's Draft Summary Judgment Motions) filed by RCSH MANAGEMENT, INC., RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, RUTH'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.. (Theard, David) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
110 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel Under Seal by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, MELIA WILDER (Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
111 NOTICE of Filing Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel Under Seal by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, MELIA WILDER (Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
112 REPLY to opposition to motion re 106 MOTION to Strike 100 Sealed Document, 101 Sealed Document, 102 Sealed Document, (Defendant's Draft Summary Judgment Motions) filed by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER. (Mehri, Cyrus) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
113 LODGED SEALED DOCUMENT filed by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17)(ztd, ) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
114 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER (Mehri, Cyrus) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
115 STIPULATION of Dismissal With Prejudice by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA

Case: 1:10-cv-1721 As of: 11/10/2016 09:31 AM EST 18 of 18

10/09/2013

WILDER. (Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
116 NOTICE of Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice by KATHARINE BUSH, AMY FISCHER, SHELLY GOOREVICH, LADAWN HARRIS−ROBINSON, MELIA WILDER re 115 Stipulation of Dismissal (Zavareei, Hassan) (Entered: 10/09/2013)