~,.",
,'~'f~?(Cc~_~~;~!l,
( -,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

vs.

)

) REGIS CORPORATION, DBA SMART )

STYLE FAMILY HAIR SALON,

)

)

Defendant.

)

lIP C 06 Case No.

t' .• S 2 4

.nmm: Judge

WATSON

Magistrate Judge MAGISTRATEJlJDGEABEt.

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of retaliation for protected opposition activity and to provide appropriate relief to Michelle
!
Wilson and Tamara Rogers, who were adversely affected by such practices.

Defendant discharged Wilson and Rogers in retaliation for their opposition to racially segregated work assignments and they suffered resulting damages.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a ("CRA of 1991").
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southem District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(f)(1) and (3).
2

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Regis Corporation, dba Smart Style Family Hair Salon (the "Employer"), has continuously been a Minnesota corporation for profit doing business in the State of Ohio and the City of Westerville, Ohio and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employer has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS Conditions Precedent
6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Michelle Wilson and Tamara Rogers each filed a Charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
Title VII Individual Claims 7. On or about September 14, 2005, Defendant Employer engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Westerville, Ohio facility in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S. C. §2000e-3(a). Such practices include Defendant's discharging Wilson and Rogers in retaliation for their opposition to racially segregated work assignments and they suffered resulting damages.
3

8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, has been to deprive Michelle Wilson and Tamara Rogers of equal employment opportunities, because of because of their protected opposition activity.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, were intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above, were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Michelle Wilson and Tamara Rogers.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors and assigns, and all other persons in active concert or partiCipation with it, from retaliating against Michelle Wilson, Tamara Rogers and all other employees similarly situated, for their protected opposition activity, including without limitation, by discharging Wilson and Rogers, in retaliation for protesting racial discrimination in employment and from engaging in any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of retaliation.
4

B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities, terms, conditions and privileges of employment for employees who have opposed unlawful employment practices and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Michelle Wilson and Tamara Rogers, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to offers to Michelle Wilson andTamara Rogers of rightful place reinstatement or frontpay in lieu of reinstatement.
D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Michelle Wilson and Tamara Rogers by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7-10 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Michelle Wilson and Tamara Rogers by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7-10 above, including emotional upset and pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Michelle Wilson and Tamara Rogers by providing punitive damages for its malicious or recklessly indifferent conduct described in paragraphs 7-10 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
5

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this Action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its
complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
RONALD S. COOPER General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE
Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC
JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR Regional Attorney Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

c,~~,

C. LARi&A N(0031443)

'-

Associate Regional Attorney

Larry.Watson@eeoc.gov (Email)

6

Jeffrey . St rn (0020107) Senior Trial Attorney Jeffrey. Stern@eeoc.gov(Ernall)
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Cleveland Field Office The AJC Federal Office Building 1240 East 9th Street, Room 3001 Cleveland, Ohio 44199 (216) 522-7455 (Watson) (216) 522-7458 (Stern) (216) 522-7430 (Facsimile)
7

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

MICHELLE WILSON,

:

and

TAMARRA ROGERS

:

Plaintiffs, -vs-

:

Case No. C2-06-824

REGIS CORPORATION., Defendant.

:

JUDGE WATSON

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ABEL

:

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343 to enforce plaintiffs’ rights under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e)

and the 1872 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C.§1981).

2. Plaintiffs Michelle Wilson and Tamarra Rogers (hereinafter plaintiffs) have complied

with all statutory prerequisites to filing suit. They have filed timely charges with the EEOC.

After the EEOC conducted an investigation, it found probable cause and then filed suit.

Plaintiffs are intervening into the suit brought by the EEOC.

3. Defendant discriminated against plaintiffs on account of their race and color in the

terms, conditions, and privileges of employment and by terminating them.

4. Defendant terminated plaintiffs because they opposed the discriminatory practices of

defendant.

5. The acts and practices alleged in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Complaint violated 42
U.S.C. 2000e-2, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3, and 42 U.S.C. 1981.
6. The actions of defendant alleged above were malicious and with wrongful disregard
for the plaintiffs.
7. Plaintiffs suffered lost wages and mental and emotional distress because of
defendant’s actions that have been alleged above.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, plus
reasonable attorneys fees and court costs.
s/Alexander M. Spater Alexander M. Spater (0031417) SPATER LAW OFFICE 360 S. Grant Ave. Columbus Ohio 43215 Tel(614) 222-4734 Fax(614) 222-4738 Trial Attorney for Plaintiffs-Intervenors e-mail-sspater@spaterlaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 22, 2007, the foregoing Complaint in Intervention was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
s/Alexander M. Spater Alexander M. Spater

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Plaintiff
v.
Regis Corporation d/b/a Smart Style Family Hair Salon,
Defendant

: : Civil Action 2:06-cv-824 : Judge Watson
: Magistrate Judge Abel :

ORDER Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brings this action alleging that Defendant Regis Corporation participated in unlawful retaliation against two of its employees by firing them for protected opposition activity. This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion for entry of a protective order. (Doc. 20). I. Arguments of the Parties Defendants seek to protect the personnel files of its former and current employees, a harassment/discrimination training DVD prepared by Regis for employee use, payroll information, Regis policies and procedures, and Regis customer information from disclosure outside of this litigation. Defendants contend that the employee personnel files contain social security numbers, wage information, and discipline history that could be embarrassing to their non party employees or potentially could subject them to harm if disclosed. Further, Defendant states that it

should be able to protect its customer information, including names and contact information, from use outside this litigation because the Interveners are hair stylists in direct competition with Defendant for customers. Finally, Defendant states that the DVD should be protected from disclosure outside the litigation because it is copyrighted, and its disclosure free from restrictions could result in the use of the information by Defendant’s competitors. (See Def.’s Reply, Exhibit A).
Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s motion should be denied because it has not met its necessary burden of proof. It contends that the protective order sought by Defendant is overbroad as it will cover a large portion of discovery documents, and is further unnecessary as these types of documents are routinely produced in employment discrimination cases. Plaintiff states that Defendant cannot specifically point to any legitimate harm that it fears would flow from disclosure as concerns about financial information or social security account numbers can be addressed by redaction. Further it claims that Defendant does not state that it is trying to protect business secrets. II. Analysis
Rule 26(c) permits courts to enter orders protecting a party from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense . . . .” An order may be entered “(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a designated way . . . .” Responses to written discovery requests are not public records. Seattle Times Co. v.
2

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984); In Re: The Courier-Journal, 828 F.2d 361, 366 (6th Cir. 1987). Courts may constitutionally restrict the distribution of information obtained through discovery. Seattle Times, 467 U.S. at 33-34. A party to a lawsuit has a protectable privacy interest in confidential information contained in documents provided to the opposing party during discovery. C.W. Howes v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 1991 WL 73251 at *8 (6th Cir. May 6, 1991).
Employees who are third parties to this lawsuit have a privacy interest in their personnel files. See Knoll v. AT&T, 176 F.3d 359, 365 (6th Cir. 1999)(recognizing that employees who are third parties to a lawsuit have a protectable privacy interest in their address, phone number, marital status, wage information, medical background, credit history, and other work-related problems unrelated to the claims and defenses of the parties); Gehring v. Case Corp., 43 F.3d 340, 342 (7th Cir. 1994); Hahn v. Village of Downers Grove, 1999 WL 35081 (N.D. Ill. May 26, 1999).
It is the normal practice to restrict disclosure of documents from third party employees’ personnel files to those relevant to the claims and defenses of the parties in the lawsuit. See Gehring v. Case Corp., 43 F.3d 340, 342 (7th Cir. 1994); Hahn v. Village of Downers Grove, 199 WL 350861 at *6. Cf. Knoll v. AT&T, 176 F.3d 359, 365 (6th Cir. 1999)(restricting access to employee records to plaintiff’s counsel only).
Defendant seeks to protect its employees’ personnel records by designating them “confidential” and limiting their use to the prosecution or defense of this litigation, including appeals and requests for extraordinary relief. As the unlimited disclosure of
3

Defendant’s employees’ personnel files could cause the employees embarrassment or other harm, the portion of Defendant’s protective order which seeks to limit the use of this information to this litigation is reasonable.
Protective orders should give the producing party the right to designate a document “CONFIDENTIAL.” The order should give the requesting party an opportunity to contest that designation. If the parties reach no agreement on confidentiality of a particular document or a set of documents, requesting party may file a motion to remove the confidential designation. The producing party bears the burden of demonstrating that the document is entitled to protection under Rule 26(c).
The protective order at issue follows the above specifications. Thus, Defendant may mark its training DVD and customer information as “CONFIDENTIAL” before turning them over to Plaintiff. If Plaintiff believes that the documents should not be subject to the protective order, it may, after making a good faith attempt to resolve the issue with Defendant, file a motion with the Court to remove the confidential designation. III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s motion for entry of a protective order (doc. 20) is GRANTED.
Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §63(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., and Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. F, 5, either party may, within ten (10) days after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for reconsideration by
4

the District Judge. The motion must specifically designate the Order, or a part thereof, in question and the basis for any objection thereto. The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
s/Mark R. Abel United States Magistrate Judge
5

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO DISTRICT
EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Case No. 2:06cv824

Plaintiff,

MICHELLE WILSON and TAMARRA ROGERS,

Plaintiff-Interveners, v.

Judge Michael H. Watson

REGIS CORPORATION, D/B/A SMART STYLE FAMILY HAIR SALON,

Defendant.

CONSENT DECREE

The EquaI Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), an agency of the

United States government, filed this action, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964 ("Title VII") and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("1991 CRA"). In its Complaint,

the Commission alleged that Defendant Regis Corporation, D/E/A Smart Style Family Hair Salon

("Defendant" or "Regis"), violated Title VII and the 1991 CRA by discharging Interveners Wilson

and Rogers in retaliation for their opposition to racially segregated work assignments and they

suffered resulting damages.

Defendant waived service of Summons, received a copy of the Commission's Complaint

tiled in this matter, filed an Answer and for purposes of this Consent Decree only, admits the

jurisdiction of this Court over the subject matter of this action.

The Commission, Plaintiff-Interveners and Defendant have conferred and resolved their

differences and have advised this Court that they desire to resolve the allegations in EEOC's

Complaint ""ithout the burden, expense and delay of further litigation.

Now, therefore, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law raised by the

Commission's Complaint, it is the finding ofthis Court that: (1) this Court has jurisdiction over the

CH I 11335067.1

parties and the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.c. Sections 451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345; and (2) the provisions of Title VII and the 1991 CRA will be carried out by the implementation of this Decree and this Decree is entered into pursuant to Title VII and the 1991 CRA.
It is therefore DECREED as follows: I. The term of this Decree shall be three (3) years, with the option of extensions of up to two years if the parties agree to an extension, or upon motion of any party, the Court determines that reasonable cause exists for the requested extension. 2. The provisions ofthis Decree shall apply to the SmartStyle hair salons and employees working in the SmartStyle hair salons in the area supervised by Kendra King, or her successor, including Salon Nos. 3531, 3543, 35003, 35035, 35036, 35041, 35042, 35044,35063, 35078 and 35102. See Attachment C to this Decree for salon addresses. 3. During the term of this Decree, the Commission may review compliance with this Decree as follows: (a) requiring written statements verifying compliance with this Decree every six (6) months; (b) within twenty-one (21) calendar days after the EEOC so requests, mailing to the EEOC copies of records of each employee who complains of, or opposes, race discrimination, including discrimination in the provision of services, and the records of each employee who is terminated or suspended including the names, addresses, social security numbers, and telephone numbers of said employees; provided, however, that said records are relevant to the employee's complaint of or opposition to race discrimination, or to the employee's termination or suspension. Further, prior to providing the social security numbers of employees, the parties shall enter into a confidentiality agreement with similar confidentiality requirements and provisions as set forth in the Protective Order entered by the Court in this litigation. (c) within twenty-one (21) calendar days after the EEOC so requests, inspecting Defendant's place(s) of business for the purpose of verifying that the required notices in Paragraph 8 are posted and inspecting evidence relevant to compliance with this Decree; provided however, that if the
2
CHI 11335067.1

EEOC enters Regis' premises to verify compliance, it shall request permission ofthe salon manager to see the notice or inspect the premises, and ifthe manager is not present, ask a stylist to call the salon manager or area supervisor to advise one ofthem of EEOC's request for inspection; and
(d) within twenty-one (21) calendar days after the EEOC so requests, providing the EEOC with the home addresses, social security numbers, and phone numbers of non-supervisory employees so that the EEOC can conduct interviews to determine Regis' compliance with this Decree. Prior to providing the social security numbers of employees, the parties shall enter into a Confidentiality Agreement with similar confidentiality requirements to the Protective Order entered by the Court in this litigation. In the event the EEOC is unable to contact a non-supervisory employee for purposes of verifying compliance with this Decree, it shall so notify Regis and Regis shall, within five (5) business days, provide the EEOC with the non-supervisory employee's scheduled hours of work over the next fourteen (14) day period, to the extent known, so that the EEOC can conduct these interviews at the employee's breaks, at the end of the day, or at some other time convenient to the employee and the EEOC. Within twenty-one (21) calendar days after the EEOC so requests, Regis agrees to require its supervisory employees to participate in interviews during the employees' work hours either by telephone or at a location no farther than ten (10) miles from the supervisory employees' assigned salons. Regis agrees that it will not discourage employees from participating in interviews with the EEOC.
4. Defendant, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and all others in active concert with them, shall not discriminate against Michelle Wilson, Tamara Rogers and all other employees similarly situated, for their protected opposition activity, and from engaging in any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of retaliation.
5. All terms and conditions of employment shall be maintained and conducted by Defendant in a manner which does not discriminate in violation of Title VII and the 1991 CRA.
6. Nothing in this Decree shall preclude the Commission or Plaintiff-Interveners from bringing suit to enforce the terms ofthe Decree; nor shall this Decree preclude future action by the Commission or other persons to remedy any other alleged violations of Title VII and the 1991 CRA
3
CHI 11335067.1

by the Defendant. 7. This Decree, being entered with the consent of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the Defendant, shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits ofthis case nor shall it be deemed an admission by Defendant of any violation of Title VlI and the 1991 CRA.
8. Defendant shall post copies of Attachments A (Notice to All Employees) and B (EEOC's "Retaliation Information") to this Decree on the bulletin boards usually used by Defendant for communicating with employees at its salons covered by this Decree. The Attachments shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendant will distribute a copy of Attachment A to each employee.
9. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Decree, Defendant will revise its "No Retaliation" policy (such as the policy on page 13 ofthe SmartStyle U.S. New Employee Orientation Packet) to include "opposing" and "discrimination, including discrimination in job assignment and the provision of services" as stated bases of prohibited retaliation, or words to that effect.
As a further part of its "No Retaliation" policy, Defendant shall, within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Decree, implement a policy and a procedure such that all adverse employment actions including without limitation, terminations, regarding persons who have complained about or provided information about race discrimination, including discrimination in provision ofservices, are reviewed by Smartstyle's Salon Director in conjunction with Regis' in-house employment counsel to assure that such actions are not retaliatory. In the event salon management determines that it is necessary to immediately remove an employee from the salon who has complained about or provided information about race discrimination, including discrimination in provision ofservices, because the employee's on-the-job conduct disrupts the salon or endangers the safety of staff or customers, the employee may be suspended pending termination to enable a review by the Salon Director and Regis' in-house employment counsel to ensure that the proposed termination is not retaliatory.
10. Defendant agrees that within 6 months after the Court's approval ofthe Decree it shall
4
CHI1I335067.!

create a training DVD addressing discrimination in the provision ofservices and opposition to same. Following completion, said DVD shall be made a part of Defendant's required training for new employees at its salons.
II. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the entry ofthis Decree, Defendant's area supervisors and regional managers responsible for salons subject to this Decree, shall attend a training session on the issue of retaliation, covering at a minimum each ofthe matters discussed in Attachments A and B.
12. Defendant will report in writing to the Associate Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cleveland Field Office, The AJC Federal Office Building, 1240 East 9th Street, Room 3001, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, when the undertakings outlined in paragraphs eight (8) through eleven (II) of this Decree have been completed. The report will describe the manner in which the undertakings were carried out, including the names of the supervisors and manager receiving the training under paragraph eleven (11) above including the training date(s), training location(s), identification of the trainer and copies of the training script, agenda, handout or slide show. This report shall be submitted not later than one hundred (180) days from the date of this Decree. As new area supervisors or regional managers are hired for salons subject to this Decree, they too will receive the training described in this paragraph, except that Defendant shall not be required to provide said training more often than every 12 months.
13. Defendant shall, during the term of this Decree, submit to The Commission semiannual reports listing the names ofthe newly-hired area supervisors and regional managers receiving the training under paragraph eleven (11) above including the training date(s), training location(s), identification of the trainer and copies of the training script, agenda, handout, video, audio or slide show. The first semi-annual report is due six (6) months and thirty (30) days after the date of this Decree, and thereafter reports are due every six (6) months covering the term of this Deeree.
14. Within twenty-one (21) calendar days of receipt of an executed copy of the Release and Waiver Agreements and the Court's approval and entry ofthis Consent Decree, Defendant shall pay the gross amount of $1 00,000 to Plaintiffs-Interveners Tamarra Rogers, Michelle Wilson and
5
CHI 11335067J

their counsel Alexander M. Spater, in settlement of all claims for back pay, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and any other monetary relief, less lawful withholding deductions, ifany, for federal, state and local taxes, including Social Security withholding or other starutory amounts normally deducted from wages with respect to any portion of the gross amounts attributable to back pay.
IS. The payments above shall be made by del ivery to the Interveners' attorney, Alexander M. Spater, as Trustee for the Interveners. Both payments shall be accompanied by statements detailing the gross amount, itemization and identification of all deductions for withholding, and the net amount. Defendant shall, at the time payments are made, deliver copies of the payments and accompanying statements to the Associate Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cleveland Field Office, The AlC Federal Office Building, 1240 East 9th Street, Room 3001, Cleveland, Ohio 44199. Defendant shall deliver the appropriate W-2 form (with respect to amounts deemed backpay) and Form 1099 (with respect to amounts deemed compensatory or other damages and attorneys' fees) to Interveners and their attorney, in the year following payments at the time required by law by mailing same to the individual Interveners or their attorney, as applicable.
16. In order to receive any relief pursuant to the terms of this Decree, each PlaintiffIntervener must sign a Release and Waiver, in a form acceptable to Defendant and PlaintiffInterveners.
17. PlainliffInlerveners will direct all potential employers making an inquiry regarding their employment at SmartStyle to Scott Oremland, Vice-President/Salon Director, Smartstyle, at Regis' corporate office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Defendant will limit its references, whether oral or \I>Titten, to potential employers of Plaintiff Interveners with the following neutral reference information: dates of employment and last position held.
18. This Court shall retain jurisdiction oftltis case for purposes of compliance with this Decree and entry of such further orders 'as may be necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of tltis Decree.
19. Each party to this action shall bear its own costs and fees, including bearing its own attorneys fees.
6
CHI 11335067.1

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS

U'IlitedSiates District Judge

J

7
CHI 11335067.1

ATTACHMENT A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES This notice to all employees is being posted as part of the remedy agreed to between Regis Corporation, DIB!A Smart Style Family Hair Salon and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in settlement of an employment discrimination suit. Federal law requires that there be no discrimination or retaliation against any employee or former employee beeause of the employee's reporting or opposing race discrimination, including discrimination in job assignments and in the provision of services. It is Regis' policy to maintain a working environment free of race discrimination, discrimination in provision ofservices and retaliation. All incident~ of race discrimination, including discrimination in provision of serviees, will be promptly and thoroughly investigated and appropriate action will be taken by Regis. Any officer or employee who engages in or permits race diserimination, discrimination in provision of services or retaliation against employees who report or oppose such discrimination, will be subject to appropriate corrective action, up to, and including discharge. The importance of fulfilling this policy cannot be overemphasized. Any violation of the letter or spirit of this policy by any officer or employee of Regis, will result in corrective action including, when appropriate, discharge.
CHI 11335067, I

ATTACHMENT B
The Us. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Retaliation
An employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise "retaliate" against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination. The same laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability, as well as wage differences between men and women performing substantially equal work, also prohibit retaliation against individuals who oppose unlawful discrimination or participate in an employment discrimination proceeding.
In addition to the protections against retaliation that are included in all of the laws enforced by EEOC, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also protects individuals from coercion, intimidation, threat, harassment, or interference in their exercise of their own rights or their encouragement of someone else's exercise of rights granted by the ADA'.
There are three main terms that are used to describe retaliation. Retaliation occurs when an employer, employment agency, or labor organization takes an adverse action against a covered individual because he or she engaged in a protected activity. These three terms are described below.
Adverse Action
An adverse action is an action taken to try to keep someone from opposing a discriminatory practice, or from participating in an employment discrimination proceeding. Examples of adverse actions include:
employment actions such as termination, refusal to hire, and denial of promotion,
other actions affecting employment such as threats, unjustified negative evaluations, unjustified negative references, or increased surveillance, and
any other action such as an assault or unfounded civil or criminal charges that are likely to deter reasonable people from pursuing their rights.
Adverse actions do not include petty slights and annoyances, such as stray negative comments in an otherwise positive or neutral evaluation, "snubbing" a colleague, or negative comments that are justified by an employee's poor work performance or history.
Even if the prior protected activity alleged wrongdoing by a different employer, retaliatory adverse actions are unlawful. For example, it is unlawful for a worker's current employer to retaliate against him for pursuing an EEO charge against a former employer.
Of course, employees are not excused from continuing to perform their jobs or follow their company's legitimate workplace rules just because they have filed a complaint with the EEOC or opposed discrimination.
Covered Individuals
Covered individuals are people who have opposed unlawful practices, participated in proceedings, or requested accommodations related to employment discrimination based on
CHI 11335067.1

race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability. Individuals who have a close association with someone who has engaged in such protected activity also are covered individuals. For example, it is illegal to terminate an employee because his spouse participated in employment discrimination litigation.
Individuals who have brought attention to violations of law other than employment discrimination are NOT covered individuals for purposes of anti-discrimination retaliation lavis. For example, "whistleblowers" who raise ethical, financial, or other concerns unrclatcd to employment discrimination are not protected by the EEOC enforced laws,
Protected Activity
Protected activity includes:
Opposition to a practice believed to be unlawful discrimination
Opposition is informing an employer that you believe that he/she is engaging in prohibited discrimination, Opposition is protected from retaliation as long as it is based on a reasonable, good-faith beliefthat the complained ofpractice violates anti-discrimination law; and the marmer of the opposition is reasonable.
Examples of protected opposition include:
Complaining to anyone about alleged discrimination against oneself or others;
Threatening to file a charge of discrimination;
Picketing in opposition to discrimination; or
Refusing to obey an order reasonably, believed to be discriminatory.
Examples of activities that are NOT protected opposition include:
Actions that interfere with job performance so as to render the employee ineffective; or
Unlawful activities such as acts or threats of violence.
Participation in an employment discrimination proceeding.
Participation means taking part in an employment discrimination proceeding, Participation is protected activity even ifthe proceeding involved claims that ultimately were found to be invalid. Examples of participation include:
Filing a charge of employment discrimination;
Cooperating with an internal investigation of alleged discriminatory practices; or
Serving as a witness in an EEO investigation or litigation,
A protected activity can also include requesting a reasonable accommodation based on religion or disability,
2
CHI 11335067.I

Retaliation Statistics
In Fiscal Year 2004, EEOC received 22,740 charges of retaliation discrimination based on all statutes enforced by EEOC. The EEOC resolved 24,751 retaliation charges in 2004, more than were filed during the course ofthe Fiscal Year, and recovered more than $90 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation).
3
CHI 11335067.1

ATTACHMENTC
CHI 11335067.1

 
 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?844842856694026-L_1...

CLOSED, JURY
U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Columbus) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv-00824-MHW-MRA

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Regis Corporation Assigned to: Michael H. Watson Referred to: Mark R. Abel Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 09/29/2006 Date Terminated: 11/13/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Jeffrey A Stern Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cleveland District Office Anthony J. Celebrezze Federal Office Building 1240 East 9th Street Suite 3001 Cleveland, OH 44199 216-522-7458 Fax: 216-522-7430 Email: jeffrey.stern@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

C Larry Watson Equal Employment Opportunity Commission AJC Federal Office Building Suite 3001 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44199 216-522-7455 Fax: FAX-522-7430 Email: larry.watson@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Tamarra Rogers

represented by Alexander Morris Spater 360 S. Grant Ave Columbus, OH 43215

1 of 6

3/24/2008 2:49 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD
Intervenor Plaintiff Michelle Wilson V. Defendant Regis Corporation doing business as Smart Style Family Hair Salon
2 of 6

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?844842856694026-L_1...
614-222-4734 Fax: 614-222-4738 Email: sspater@spaterlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alexander Morris Spater (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ellen E McLaughlin Seyfarth & Shaw LLP 131 S. Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 312-460-5887 Fax: 312-460-7887 Email: emclaughlin@seyfarth.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Ross Vaughn Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease - 2 52 E Gay Street Columbus, OH 43216-1008 614-464-6400 Fax: 614-464-5672 Email: jrvaughn@vssp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pamela Q Devata Seyfarth & Shaw LLP 131 S. Dearborn Street Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603 312-460-5882 Fax: 312-460-7882 Email: pdevata@seyfarth.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J Pearlman Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 S. Dearborn Street Suite 2400
3/24/2008 2:49 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?844842856694026-L_1...
Chicago, IL 60603 312-460-5827 Fax: 312-460-7827 Email: spearlman@seyfarth.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/2006 09/29/2006 10/26/2006 10/31/2006 12/04/2006 12/14/2006
12/15/2006
12/15/2006 12/19/2006 12/28/2006 01/03/2007 01/03/2007 01/10/2007
01/23/2007 01/25/2007

# Docket Text
1 Civil cover sheet (jr) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
2 COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Defendant Regis Corporation.(jr) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
3 Summons Issued as to Regis Corporation. (jr) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed Regis Corporation waiver sent on 10/4/2006, answer due 12/4/2006. (Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
5 ANSWER to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Defendant Regis Corporation.(Vaughn, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorneys Pamela Q. Devata and Ellen E. McLaughlin. Filing fee $ 50. by Defendant Regis Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice# 2 Affidavit Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice)(Vaughn, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/14/2006)
7 ORDER granting 6 Motion for Leave for Pamela Q. Devata and Ellen E. McLaughlin to Appear pro hac vice for Defendant. Signed by Judge Mark R. Abel on 12/15/06. (jr) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number 254271 (phv for Devata & McLaughlin) (jr) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
8 NOTICE and ORDER signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 12/19/06. (jk) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
9 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail (doc 7 ) sent to James Lewis Lee. (jr) (Entered: 12/29/2006)
10 NOTICE (Certificates of Good Standing) by Defendant Regis Corporation re 7 Order on Motion for Leave to Appear. (jr) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
11 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail (doc 8 ) sent to James Lewis Lee. (jr) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
12 NOTICE of Hearing: Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 1/25/2007 @ 9:00 AM before Mark R. Abel. Conf of the parties due by 1/19/07; Rule 26f report due by 1/23/07.(sh1, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
13 RULE 26(f) REPORT by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Abel : Initial Pretrial Conference held on 1/25/2007. (mra2, ) (Entered: 01/26/2007)

3 of 6

3/24/2008 2:49 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?844842856694026-L_1...

01/26/2007 01/26/2007
01/31/2007
02/22/2007 02/22/2007 02/27/2007 02/28/2007
03/07/2007
03/09/2007 03/19/2007
04/02/2007 04/03/2007
04/03/2007 04/09/2007

14 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Defendant Regis Corporation. (Vaughn, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
15 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL ORDER: Motions to Amend due by 2/22/2007. Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures due by 2/9/2007. Primary Expert due by 12/19/2007. Rebuttal Expert due by 1/25/2008. Discovery due by 5/18/2007. Dispositive motions due by 7/2/2007. Settlement Week 9/2007. Signed by Judge Mark R. Abel on 1/26/07. (jr) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 1/31/2008 at 10:00 a.m.; Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/28/2008 at 10:00 a.m.; Jury Trial set for 3/17/2008 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Michael H. Watson. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 1/31/2007. (kw) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
17 NOTICE of Appearance (Spater, Alexander) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
18 Intervenor COMPLAINT, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Michelle Wilson, Defendant Regis Corporation.(Spater, Alexander) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
19 NOTICE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Proof of Service of Subpoena duces tecum (Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
20 MOTION for Protective Order to Preserve Confidentiality of Documents by Defendant Regis Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Email from EEOC to Regis# 2 Exhibit February 26 Letter from Regis to EEOC# 3 Exhibit February 27, 2007 Email from EEOC to Regis# 4 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Protective Order)(Devata, Pamela) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
21 RESPONSE in Opposition re 20 MOTION for Protective Order to Preserve Confidentiality of Documents filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1)(Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
22 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Defendant Regis Corporation.(Devata, Pamela) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
23 REPLY to Response to Motion re 20 MOTION for Protective Order to Preserve Confidentiality of Documents filed by Defendant Regis Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Regis DVD Training Video)(Devata, Pamela) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
24 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery New date requested 8/16/2007. by Defendant Regis Corporation. (Devata, Pamela) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
25 ORDER granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery must be completed on or before 08/16/2007; Dispositive motions to be filed on or before 10/02/2007. Signed by Judge Mark R. Abel on 04/03/2007. (sr) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
Set/Reset Columbus PPTO Deadlines: Discovery due by 8/16/2007. Dispositive motions due by 10/2/2007. (sr) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
26 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Mark R. Abel on 4/9/07. (kch) (Entered: 04/09/2007)

4 of 6

3/24/2008 2:49 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?844842856694026-L_1...

04/19/2007 05/11/2007 05/22/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/30/2007 05/31/2007
06/26/2007 06/26/2007 07/24/2007 08/07/2007 08/13/2007 08/15/2007
08/16/2007 08/17/2007

27 ORDER denying 14 MOTION to Substitute Attorney filed by Regis Corporation, . Signed by Judge Mark R. Abel on 4/19/2007. (pes) (Entered: 04/19/2007)
28 NOTICE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Service of Subpoena duces tecum (Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
29 NOTICE by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Service of Subpoena (Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
30 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Steven J. Pearlman. Filing fee $ 200. by Defendant Regis Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Application for Admission) (Vaughn, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
PHV Filing fee: For Steven J. Pearlman $200, receipt number 256473 (sr) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
31 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Steven J. Pearlman. Filing fee $ 200. by Defendant Regis Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice) (Vaughn, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
32 ORDER granting 30 & 31 Motion for Leave for Steven J. Pearlman to Appear PHV on behalf of Defendant. Counsel must register for ECF filing within 15 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge Mark R. Abel on 05/31/2007. (sr) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
33 MOTION to Amend/Correct Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer And Affirmative Defenses To Complaint In Intervention by Defendant Regis Corporation. (Pearlman, Steven) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
34 MOTION to Amend/Correct Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Leave To Amend Answer And Affirmative Defenses To Plaintiff's Complaint by Defendant Regis Corporation. (Pearlman, Steven) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Abel : Interim Pretrial Conference regarding discovery dispute held on 7/24/2007. (mra2, ) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
35 NOTICE of Hearing: Settlement Week Mediation Conference set for 9/12/2007 @ 9:00 AM before Philip Downey-Mediator. (sh1, ) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
36 RE-NOTICE of Hearing: Settlement Week Mediation Conference is RESCHEDULED for 9/18/2007 @ 9:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel. (sh1, ) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
37 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery New date requested 11/2/2007. and to Extend Dispositive Motion deadline by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/15/2007)
38 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery New date requested 11/2/2007. Corrected Agreed Motion by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/16/2007)
39 ORDER granting 38 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and to extend dispositive motions deadline. The parties have till 11/02/2007 to conduct

5 of 6

3/24/2008 2:49 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:OHSD

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?844842856694026-L_1...

08/17/2007 09/18/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007
11/08/2007 11/13/2007 11/13/2007 11/29/2007

fact discovery, and until 12/03/2007 to file dispositive motions. Signed by Judge Mark R. Abel on 08/17/2007. (sr) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
Set/Reset Columbus PPTO Deadlines: Discovery due by 11/2/2007. Dispositive motions due by 12/3/2007. (sr) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Abel : Settlement Conference held on 9/18/2007. (mra2, ) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
40 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment for an Order Approving and Entering a Consent Decree by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
Notice of Correction re: 40 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment for an Order Approving and Entering a Consent Decree - incorrect document was attached. It has been deleted and will be refiled by counsel. (jr) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
41 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment for an Order Approving and Entering a Consent Decree by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Stern, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
42 CONSENT DECREE signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 11/9/07. (jk) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
43 CLERK'S JUDGMENT - Pursuant to the 11/9/07 Consent Decree, this case is dismissed. (jk) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
44 ORDER - The November 13, 2007 Clerk's Judgment is hereby VACATED and the Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to close this action. The Court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 11/29/07. (jk) (Entered: 11/29/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

03/24/2008 15:47:31

PACER Login:

wu0079

Client Code:

eeoc

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:06-cv-00824-MHW-MRA

Billable Pages:

4

Cost:

0.32

6 of 6

3/24/2008 2:49 PM