IN THE MATTER OF

Rodriques

vs

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Transcript of Deposition of

Barbara A. Franz

Volume I

On December 11, 2014

_______________________________________

Reported by Joel P. Moyer

Certified Court Reporter

___________________________________________________________________

 

 DONOVAN REPORTING

 & VIDEO CONFERENCING

 237 Roswell Street Marietta, GA 30060

 770.499.7499 800.547.1512 FAX: 770.428.5801

 <www.donovanreporting.com>

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.955 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

 

JERRICK J. RODRIQUES, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs. CASE NO. 1:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG

DELTA AIR LINES, INC., 

 Defendant. 

 - - - 

 Deposition of BARBARA A. FRANZ, 

 Taken by Felicia Duncan Brock,

 Before Joel P. Moyer,

 Certified Court Reporter,

 At the Offices of

 Delta Air Lines General Offices,

 Atlanta, Georgia,

 On Thursday, December 10, 2014,

Beginning at 8:53 a.m. & ending at 1:44 p.m.

 - - -

 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.956 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

2

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

2 For the Plaintiff:

3 FELICIA DUNCAN BROCK

 IAB Attorneys At Law PLLC

4 25447 Plymouth Road

 Redford, MI 48239

5 313.318.3180

6 For the Defendant:

7 RICHARD M. TUYN

 Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &

8 Stewart PC

 Suite 300

9 34977 Woodward Avenue

 Birmingham, MI 48009 

10 248.593.6400 

11 KELLY K. GIUSTINA

 RYAN D. LANGEL 

12 Delta Air Lines Inc.

 1030 Delta Boulevard, Dept. 981

13 Atlanta, GA 30320 

 404.773.6520

14

15 

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.957 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

3

1 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS

2 EXAMINATION INDEX

3

BARBARA A. FRANZ

4

 Examination by Ms. Brock 7

5 Examination by Mr. Tuyn 183

 Re-Examination by Ms. Brock 184

6 

Certificate Page 190

7 _______________________________________________

8 EXHIBIT INDEX

9 Plaintiff's Exhibit

10 1 Final Corrective Action Notice 52

 Regarding Performance to Jason

11 Conover dated 11-21-2012 (DEF-000174

 - DEF-000175)

12

 2 Corrective Action Notice Regarding 62

13 Performance to Christopher Culpepper

 dated 11-21-2012 (DEF-000166 -

14 DEF-000167)

15 3 Written Coaching Notice Regarding 68

 Performance to Christopher Culpepper

16 dated 11-21-2012 (DEF-164 - DEF-165)

17 4 Delta policy excerpt (DEF-000093) 78

18 5 Confidential - Excerpt from the 82

 Human Resources Practices Manual

19 titled Personnel Conduct Standards

 and Appearance Guidelines dated

20 8-25-2011 (DEF-000132 - DEF-000136)

21 6 Confidential - Excerpt from the 90

 Personnel Practices Manual titled

22 Reliability dated 3-30-2005

 (DEF-000121 - DEF-000123)

23

 7 Confidential - Delta document 91

24 entitled Reliability (DEF-000124 -

 DEF-000129)

25

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.958 Filed 03/04/15 Page 4 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

4

1 8 Document titled Topics Discussed 93

 with Agent, Agent Jerrick Rodriques

2 (DEF-000054)

3 9 Confidential - E-mail thread ending 95

 with e-mail from James C. Kriksciun

4 to Mohammad Sarsour dated 12-11-2012

 (DEF-000234 - DEF-000236)

5

 10 Confidential - E-mail from Domingo 98

6 DeLaTorre to Barbara Franz dated

 12-17-2012 (DEF-000324)

7

 11 Notice to File regarding Jerrick 99

8 Rodriques dated 12-18-2012

 (DEF-000057)

9

 12 Internal Memorandum dated 12-18-2012 101

10 to Tyesha Gray from Barbara Franz

 (DEF-000041)

11

 13 ACS/CGO Operation Checklist 104

12 Recommendation for Termination of

 Employment (RFT) (DEF-000044)

13

 14 Confidential - E-mail thread ending 107

14 with e-mail from Barbara Franz to

 Nhia Francis dated 12-18-2012

15 (DEF-000210 - DEF-000211)

16 15 Confidential - E-mail thread ending 109

 with e-mail from Barbara Franz to

17 Domingo DeLaTorre dated 12-18-2012

 (DEF-000193)

18

 16 Confidential - Memo to Mohammad 111

19 Sarsour from Domingo De La Torre

 dated 12-15-2012 (DEF-000335)

20

 17 Confidential - Memo to Mohammad 112

21 Sarsour from Domingo De La Torre

 dated 12-15-2012 (DEF-000042)

22

 18 Confidential - Support Document.pdf 113

23 (DEF-000337)

24

25 (Continued on next page)

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.959 Filed 03/04/15 Page 5 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

5

1 19 Confidential - E-mail from Barbara 121

 Franz to Tyesha M. Gray dated

2 12-18-2012 (DEF-000176)

3 20 Confidential - E-mail from Barbara 123

 Franz to Mohammad Sarsour dated

4 12-21-2012 (DEF-000181)

5 21 E-mail from Lisa Ali to Domingo De 123

 La Torre and Mohammad Sarsour dated

6 1-9-2013 (DEF-000055)

7 22 Confidential - E-mail thread ending 125

 with e-mail from Barbara Franz to

8 James Kriksciun dated 1-9-2013

 (DEF-000231 - DEF-000232)

9

 23 Confidential - E-mail thread ending 125

10 with e-mail from Barbara Franz to

 Lisa Ali and others dated 1-10-2013

11 (DEF-000234 - DEF-000238)

12 24 Confidential - E-mail thread ending 126

 with e-mail from Barbara Franz to

13 Kelley Nabors dated 4-5-2013

 (DEF-000226 - DEF-000227)

14

 25 Confidential - E-mail thread ending 128

15 with e-mail from Barbara Franz to

 Kelley Nabors dated 4-8-2013

16 (DEF-000222 - DEF-000224)

17 26 Document regarding Employee: 138

 Jerrick Rodriques with the first

18 block dated 1-28-2013 (DEF-000058 -

 DEF-000062)

19

 27 Confidential - E-mail thread ending 152

20 with e-mail from Barbara Franz to

 Cassandra LeeAustin dated 1-9-2013

21 (DEF-000196 - DEF-000197)

22 28 Confidential - Delta Air Lines Inc. 156

 Ethics and Compliance Reporting

23 report number ending in 311 dated

 1-3-2013 (DEF-000095 - DEF-000096)

24

25 (Continued on next page)

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.960 Filed 03/04/15 Page 6 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

6

1 29 Confidential - ACS/CGO Compliance 164

 Call Report (DEF-000097 -

2 DEF-000098)

3 30 Confidential - E-mail thread ending 165

 with e-mail from Sheandra R. Clark

4 to Deborah Kircher dated 2-11-2013

 (DEF-000368)

5

 31 Confidential - Delta Air Lines Inc. 175

6 Ethics and Compliance Reporting

 report number ending in 660 dated

7 1-3-2013 (DEF-000099 - DEF-000100)

8 32 Confidential - ACS/CGO Compliance 177

 Call Report (DEF-000101 -

9 DEF-000102)

10 33 Confidential - Delta Air Lines Inc. 178

 Ethics and Compliance Reporting

11 report number ending in 716 dated

 1-8-2013 (DEF-000364 - DEF-000365)

12

 34 Confidential - Delta Air Lines Inc. 179

13 Ethics and Compliance Reporting

 report number ending in 159 dated

14 1-9-2013 (DEF-000103 - DEF-000104)

15 35 Confidential - ACS/CGO Compliance 179

 Call Report (DEF-000105 -

16 DEF-000106)

17 36 Confidential - Delta Air Lines Inc. 180

 Ethics and Compliance Reporting

18 report number ending in 421 dated

 1-9-2013 (DEF-000107 - DEF-000108)

19

 37 Confidential - ACS/CGO Compliance 181

20 Call Report (DEF-000109 -

 DEF-000110)

21

 38 Confidential - Delta Air Lines Inc. 182

22 Ethics and Compliance Reporting

 report number ending in 995 dated

23 1-31-2013 (DEF-000111 - DEF-000112)

24 39 Confidential - ACS/CGO Compliance 182

 Report (DEF-000113)

25

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.961 Filed 03/04/15 Page 7 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

7 (Pages 7 to 10)

7

1 December 11, 2014

2 8:53 a.m.

3 (Whereupon the reporter provided a written 

4 disclosure to all counsel pursuant to 

5 Article 8.B. of the Rules and Regulations 

6 of the Board of Court Reporting.)

7 BARBARA A. FRANZ, 

8 being first duly sworn, was examined and

9 testified as follows:

10 EXAMINATION

11 BY MS. BROCK: 

12 Q Now, Ms. Franz, if you can begin by 

13 stating your name for the record, please. 

14 A Barbara Franz, F-R-A-N-Z.

15 Q And I am Felicia Brock. I am the 

16 attorney for Jerrick Rodriques in an action 

17 that's been brought against Delta, and I'll be 

18 taking your deposition today. And for 

19 housekeeping purposes, today's deposition is 

20 being taken pursuant to notice and will be used 

21 for all reasons as allowable under the Federal 

22 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules 

23 of Evidence. 

24 Ms. Franz, have you ever been 

25 deposed before? 

8

1 A No, I have not.

2 Q Very good. Just to let you know how 

3 things are going to go, I'm sure Attorney Tuyn 

4 has spoken with you a little bit about that, I 

5 am going to ask you a series of questions this 

6 morning. I just ask that you do your very best 

7 to answer those questions. 

8 As you do so, the court reporter 

9 will take down everything that you say, 

10 everything I say, everything that Attorney Tuyn 

11 says, and create a written record for us. And 

12 because he is creating a written record for us, 

13 it is very important that you give verbal 

14 responses. 

15 So you can't nod your head up and 

16 down and side to side. You have to say yes or 

17 no. I'll also ask that you stay away from 

18 sounds like uh-huh and huh-uh, because although 

19 we understand in the room what you mean, in a 

20 couple weeks when we see the transcript we will 

21 have no idea what your actual answer was to the 

22 question. Okay?

23 A Okay.

24 Q So one of the things I will do 

25 because most witnesses tend to give nonverbal 

9

1 responses at some point is I will try to prompt 

2 you to get you to give a verbal response. So 

3 if I notice that you're nodding and the court 

4 reporter is not picking up your nod, I will say 

5 something like, okay, to get you to actually 

6 verbalize yes or no.

7 A Understand.

8 Q Thank you. Also, your counsel from 

9 time to time may help if I overlook or miss a 

10 nonverbal response because it's just as 

11 important to him that the record is accurate 

12 and that we're able to decipher what took place 

13 in the room when we see the record later. 

14 A Okay.

15 Q Thank you. Although we are working 

16 towards making flights, this is not a marathon 

17 or a race. If at any point you need a break, 

18 please let me know. I want to keep you as 

19 comfortable as I can throughout this process. 

20 All I would ask is that if there's a question 

21 on the table that you answer the question prior 

22 to taking a break. And then that way we will 

23 be able to proceed as orderly as we can this 

24 morning.

25 A Okay.

10

1 Q Ms. Franz, what is your race?

2 A I'm white.

3 Q Ms. Franz, did you meet with your 

4 counsel prior to today's deposition?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And when did you meet with -- was it 

7 Attorney Tuyn?

8 A Yes, as well as Kelly Giustina.

9 Q And how long did you meet with the 

10 two of them?

11 A About two-and-a-half hours.

12 Q And when did you meet with them?

13 A Yesterday.

14 Q Ms. Franz, are you a high school 

15 graduate?

16 A Yes.

17 Q When did you graduate from high 

18 school?

19 A 1997.

20 Q I forgot to tell you that if I ask 

21 you a question that makes no sense at all to 

22 you, ask me to clarify it for you. Because 

23 recognize that I'm working here, and sometimes 

24 the way I'm thinking things in my head is not 

25 quite how it comes out of my mouth. Okay? 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.962 Filed 03/04/15 Page 8 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

8 (Pages 11 to 14)

11

1 So if you don't understand it, let 

2 me know. I will not take offense. But if you 

3 answer it, I'm going to presume you understood 

4 what I was asking you. Okay?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And what high school did you 

7 graduate from in '97?

8 A Howell High School.

9 Q Is that in Michigan?

10 A Yes, it is.

11 Q Did you pursue any post-high school 

12 education?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Where did you attend?

15 A Grand Valley State.

16 Q My daughter's at Saginaw Valley, so 

17 she wouldn't be happy to hear that.

18 A As well as Eastern Michigan 

19 University.

20 Q What years did you attend Grand 

21 Valley?

22 A '97 to 2001.

23 Q And what area of study were you 

24 pursuing?

25 A It was a bachelor in business with 

12

1 emphasis in HR.

2 Q Did you graduate from Grand Valley?

3 A Yes.

4 Q Back during that '97-to-2001 time 

5 frame, did your course of study in human 

6 resources at Grand Valley include how to 

7 conduct investigations?

8 A Oh, I don't recall.

9 Q And then at some later point, you 

10 attended Eastern Michigan?

11 A That's correct.

12 Q What years were you at Eastern?

13 A 2001 to 2003, I believe. It might 

14 be 2004.

15 Q And what program were you in?

16 A I received an MBA from Eastern.

17 Q And what year did you graduate?

18 A Either 2003 or 2004.

19 Q Was your MBA degree focused in any 

20 way on human resource management?

21 A It was not. It was a general 

22 business degree.

23 Q Are you a certified human resource 

24 professional?

25 A Used to be.

13

1 Q And that was through SHRM?

2 A Yes.

3 (Whereupon Mr. Langel enters the 

4 deposition.)

5 Q For the record, SHRM, acronym. So 

6 you had your PHR. Did you ever go for your 

7 SPHR?

8 A I did not.

9 Q And at this point, you have not 

10 maintained your PHR certification?

11 A Unfortunately, it expired.

12 Q I'm sure mine has as well. Did you 

13 take any special training courses in 

14 preparation for your PHR, or did you 

15 self-study?

16 A I did take a three-day training 

17 through SHRM in Chicago.

18 Q How long ago was that?

19 A That would have been -- it's been a 

20 while. I would -- I would -- I don't want to 

21 guess. It's probably been at least five 

22 years. It's been quite some time.

23 Q Did that three-day training through 

24 SHRM in Chicago contain training in how to 

25 conduct investigations?

14

1 A I don't believe so. It was more 

2 law-focused -- 

3 Q That's what I thought. 

4 A -- process, yeah.

5 Q I just wanted to ask. Outside of 

6 the training that you received for your PHR 

7 certification, have you had any other 

8 specialized human resource training?

9 A When you say "specialized," can you 

10 elaborate on what you mean by that? 

11 Q Sure. Just training in HR, in 

12 HR-related subjects?

13 A So I would receive that here at 

14 Delta, yes.

15 Q Let's talk about the training that 

16 you've received here at Delta. First of all, 

17 when did you begin working for Delta?

18 A Well, to be honest, I was actually 

19 Northwest, so kind of a tricky question. So I 

20 began in April of 2005. The merger took place 

21 in 2009. So technically, that's when I became 

22 Delta, if you will.

23 Q So let's talk about from the merger 

24 forward -- 

25 A Okay.

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.963 Filed 03/04/15 Page 9 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

9 (Pages 15 to 18)

15

1 Q -- as far as your training. Can you 

2 tell me about the human resource training 

3 you've received from 2009 forward?

4 A So when I became Delta, we had an HR 

5 training. It was a two-day training to learn 

6 about how Delta handles HR issues. That would 

7 have included everything from the policy manual 

8 to leaves of absence to benefits, open 

9 enrollment, conducting investigations, 

10 basically a big-picture overview of everything 

11 that we do from an HR perspective. 

12 Following that, we have updated our 

13 training, if you will, since then. And I have 

14 received formal, specifically, investigation 

15 training, and that's facilitated by our law 

16 department as well as our equal opportunity 

17 department.

18 Q When did you receive that specific 

19 investigation training?

20 A I would say it was around about say 

21 March of 2010. That would have been when we 

22 merged our performance development process 

23 between Northwest and Delta.

24 Q Has that investigation training been 

25 repeated for you since March of 2010?

16

1 A I would be present during that being 

2 facilitated to leaders, but I haven't been a 

3 participant again.

4 Q Were you a teacher or presenter?

5 A Not of that section, no.

6 Q And how often have you been present 

7 for the presentation of how to conduct 

8 investigations for the leaders?

9 A I would say -- let's see. We do it 

10 on a quarterly basis, and I probably attend 

11 once a year since 2010.

12 Q Was the way that you were trained in 

13 your individualized or specialized 

14 investigation training different from how the 

15 leaders are being trained on how to conduct 

16 these investigations?

17 A The process, no.

18 Q What about them is different? 

19 Because you sound as if something is different, 

20 but it's not the process. What is different?

21 A The resources available and when to 

22 bring others in the investigation. So for 

23 example, if it is theft related, to involve 

24 corporate security. So we're trained as HR 

25 professionals of that. We don't necessarily 

17

1 train the leaders to that level. They get a 

2 much higher level view of that.

3 Q So is it safe to say the training 

4 that you would get as an HR professional is 

5 more in-depth than the training that the 

6 leaders are given on how to conduct those 

7 investigations?

8 A Not in how to conduct it.

9 Q Not the process?

10 A Correct.

11 Q But more in-depth as to the next 

12 levels of the investigation?

13 A I wouldn't even say next levels. I 

14 would just say who would review it and/or who 

15 would be involved. But they're aware of that. 

16 It's just our -- we're the ones who have the 

17 contact information.

18 MS. BROCK: We had an extra person 

19 join us. Who do we have?

20 MS. GIUSTINA: This is Ryan Langel. 

21 He's been in our law department for, what, 

22 about two years? 

23 MR. LANGEL: Two years.

24 MS. GIUSTINA: And he's sort of a 

25 brand new lawyer, and so he doesn't get to see 

18

1 this often, and I invited him. I hope that's 

2 okay with everybody.

3 MS. BROCK: It is okay. I just was 

4 curious. There's other attorneys that do this 

5 way better than I do, so do not put this in 

6 your book of how to take depositions.

7 MR. LANGEL: Well, you're doing fine 

8 by my book, so.

9 Q Let's talk about the process for 

10 conducting the investigation. Now, is the 

11 process for conducting an investigation the 

12 same for a situation that would occur for theft 

13 as it would be for a discrimination complaint?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Tell me the process for conducting 

16 these investigations. 

17 A So the process would be first to 

18 speak to the person who has the complaint or 

19 the concern and get as much detail as possible. 

20 We do ask employees to write a written 

21 statement typically. 

22 Following that, we're going to look 

23 to see if there's any evidence to collect 

24 related to the incident, whether it's, you 

25 know, computer records or what -- oh, gosh, 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.964 Filed 03/04/15 Page 10 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

10 (Pages 19 to 22)

19

1 whatever else we have that we can obtain. 

2 Following that, we would interview 

3 any witnesses related to the incident. And 

4 then we would look to see what potential policy 

5 is potentially violated. 

6 Once we have collected all that 

7 information, we would make a decision based 

8 upon what we could substantiate throughout the 

9 investigation and take the appropriate action.

10 Q So you would speak to the 

11 complainant typically to get additional detail, 

12 perhaps get a written statement from that 

13 individual, and then you would determine 

14 whether there was any evidence to be collected. 

15 And in particular, you mentioned like from the 

16 computer system and the like. 

17 And then any witnesses that may have 

18 been present, you would conduct interviews of 

19 those witnesses. Then you would determine 

20 whether there was a policy violated. And then 

21 you would determine what could be substantiated 

22 and what couldn't be. And then you would 

23 determine what action is taken. Did I get that 

24 correct?

25 A You did.

20

1 Q As to the interviewing of witnesses, 

2 are there instances where interviewing a 

3 witness is not necessary?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Can you explain to me what 

6 circumstances would lead you to believe that 

7 interviewing a witness is not necessary?

8 A If the person who brings forth the 

9 complaint and the person who is alleged to have 

10 violated the policy, if their recollections are 

11 exactly the same, we would not go forth and 

12 interview witnesses. We would bring in the 

13 witnesses only if there was discrepancy between 

14 those two employees.

15 Q Let's talk about your employment 

16 history a little bit. What is your current 

17 position?

18 A I'm a senior human resource 

19 manager.

20 Q And how long have you been employed 

21 with Delta as a senior HR manager?

22 A Since September of 2014.

23 Q And what position did you hold prior 

24 to September of 2014?

25 A Human resource manager.

21

1 Q Since becoming a senior HR manager, 

2 have you been located here in Georgia?

3 A That's correct.

4 Q And over what period of time were 

5 you an HR manager?

6 A Since April of 2005. The title 

7 changed a few times, but the role was the same.

8 Q So from April 2005 through about 

9 September of 2014?

10 A Correct.

11 MR. TUYN: And I assume your 

12 question's taken into account her prior 

13 testimony that she was Northwest in 2005.

14 MS. BROCK: Well, yeah, because I'm 

15 getting ready to -- 

16 MR. TUYN: So you're not limiting it 

17 to Delta? 

18 MS. BROCK: No, because I'm getting 

19 ready to probe a little bit to break that up, 

20 and I know the title changed when the merger 

21 happened.

22 THE WITNESS: Yes.

23 MS. BROCK: So I was going to get 

24 that on the record.

25 Q And so as an HR manager, were you 

22

1 located in Detroit during that time?

2 A Yes.

3 Q As counsel mentioned, you are one of 

4 the individuals that have affectionately come 

5 to be known as a Northwest person. So you 

6 would have been a Northwest employee prior to 

7 becoming a Delta employee; correct?

8 A That's correct.

9 Q What was your title prior to the 

10 merger?

11 A It was a human resource generalist.

12 Q And when did your employment with 

13 Northwest begin?

14 A April of 2005.

15 Q So when you were hired in at 

16 Northwest, you were hired in as an HR 

17 generalist?

18 A That's correct.

19 Q And you remained an HR generalist 

20 until after the merger or somewhere around the 

21 merger?

22 A Thereafter. The HR manager title is 

23 relatively new. It's not really merger 

24 related.

25 Q So you remained an HR generalist 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.965 Filed 03/04/15 Page 11 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

11 (Pages 23 to 26)

23

1 after the merger. And then at some later 

2 point, the title became HR manager?

3 A Correct.

4 Q Do you recall when the title changed 

5 to HR manager?

6 A I believe it was 2013. It's fairly 

7 recent.

8 Q If you could tell me, what were the 

9 job duties that you performed when you were an 

10 HR generalist/HR manager in Detroit? 

11 A So I would have had oversight of 

12 everything HR related for the airport customer 

13 service employees in Detroit. That would have 

14 included all of the customer service agents as 

15 well as all of the ramp employees in Detroit.

16 Q The below-the-wing people?

17 A Correct.

18 MR. TUYN: Ms. Brock, I know you're 

19 asking the question HR generalist/HR manager. 

20 But as we've heard from other witnesses, 

21 there's a distinction between Northwest and 

22 Delta in that Northwest was union represented 

23 and Delta is not, so.

24 MS. BROCK: Right.

25 MR. TUYN: I assume the duties are 

24

1 different. So if you're asking for duties -- 

2 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

3 MR. TUYN: -- I think you're going 

4 to have to differentiate between Northwest and 

5 Delta.

6 MS. BROCK: Well, initially she 

7 testified that the duties stayed the same, 

8 which is why I grouped them together. So if 

9 the duties changed, we do need to separate it 

10 off, but her testimony was that the duties 

11 stayed the same. 

12 And that the title changed, but the 

13 title changed well after it became Delta. So 

14 it had nothing to do with the union going away. 

15 It had nothing to do with the merger. It 

16 wasn't until 2013 that the title actually 

17 changed to HR manager.

18 MR. TUYN: Yeah. I don't think she 

19 testified that all the duties stayed the same.

20 MS. BROCK: Well, she didn't say the 

21 word all. But I asked her did the duties stay 

22 the same, and she said yeah. So I have no 

23 problem breaking it up because I absolutely 

24 want to know the differences between what she 

25 did from the time she got there to the time she 

25

1 left coming to Detroit. So let's take the time 

2 to do that.

3 Q So your job duties, prior to the 

4 merger was there a difference in your job 

5 duties?

6 A So the -- when I said the job duties 

7 were similar, my intention was that HR -- you 

8 know, I was HR in both companies. You know, 

9 the benefits, the investigations, those duties 

10 were similar, if not the same. But the way we 

11 go about achieving those duties are different 

12 at the two organizations. So I think that's a 

13 good clarification.

14 Q So let me just start with what those 

15 duties were, and then we can back up and talk 

16 about the differences and how you accomplished 

17 those duties. So let's just talk about the 

18 duties. You began with oversight of everything 

19 for the below-the-wing staff?

20 A As well as the above-wing, the 

21 customer service agents.

22 Q Oh, above-the-wing as well?

23 A Yes, correct.

24 Q And so you would have been 

25 responsible for overseeing all of the HR 

26

1 responsibilities from hiring to benefits to 

2 training to discipline and termination?

3 A Correct. And the involvement and 

4 the process would be different.

5 Q Can you tell me when it was 

6 Northwest, what was the involvement in the 

7 process?

8 A So the involvement with the hiring, 

9 we actually did all of the hiring in-house, so 

10 the involvement was much greater. The benefits 

11 administration was all in-house. Payroll was 

12 all in-house. So those questions were more -- 

13 we had a union at Northwest. 

14 So the investigation and discipline 

15 process would have been different in that, you 

16 know, a union representative would have been 

17 present as we were conducting investigations. 

18 There was the grievance process. Let me think 

19 what else would be different.

20 Q In the Northwest days, there was an 

21 incident that occurred out at what is now the 

22 Delta cargo out on Merriman where some nooses 

23 were hung. Would you have been privy to that 

24 as the HR representative at that time?

25 A Not as Northwest. I didn't have 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.966 Filed 03/04/15 Page 12 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

12 (Pages 27 to 30)

27

1 cargo until it became Delta. That would have 

2 been a different HR person.

3 Q And so you never heard about the 

4 noose-hanging incident at the cargo?

5 A I'm not aware of that, no.

6 Q So the people that were out at the 

7 cargo, did those people eventually come over to 

8 what I'm going to call metro, I may not have 

9 the terminology for Delta/Northwest correct, 

10 but did those individuals come over to metro?

11 A When you say, "did they come 

12 over" -- 

13 Q Yeah. 

14 A -- do you mean -- 

15 Q Did they begin to work over at the 

16 metro location?

17 A The employees can bid to come to and 

18 from the cargo facility to the airport, but we 

19 didn't pick up all of the cargo employees and 

20 bring them to the airport, if that's what 

21 you're asking.

22 Q So if anyone from the Northwest 

23 cargo era chose to bid, they could very well 

24 now be working over at metro?

25 A They could be, yes.

28

1 Q And you say you weren't responsible 

2 for Northwest cargo. Who was responsible for 

3 Northwest, HR-wise, cargo?

4 A It would have been a different HR 

5 person. I don't know who that would have been 

6 at the time. We move a lot in HR, so I don't 

7 recall.

8 Q Did Northwest ever make you as an HR 

9 person aware that there had been an incident at 

10 the cargo and that employees that were at the 

11 cargo were now coming over to metro?

12 A So can you repeat that question for 

13 me?

14 Q Yeah. I guess where I'm trying to 

15 go with it is whether you were ever alerted 

16 that you had employees that may have been 

17 involved in some sort of racial issue at cargo 

18 that are now coming over and working at metro. 

19 A So I would not have received an 

20 alert of that, no. Was I aware that folks went 

21 from cargo to the airport? Yes. Would I have 

22 received an e-mail or a phone call saying 

23 Johnny's coming over tomorrow and, oh, by the 

24 way, here's his history? No.

25 Q And I understand that they didn't 

29

1 give you any indication individually. But did 

2 they give you any indication generally that 

3 there had been some racial tension or any sort 

4 of racial incident at the cargo and that these 

5 employees are also working and bidding and 

6 coming over to metro?

7 A Not that I recall.

8 Q Now, I somewhat interrupted you. 

9 You were telling me about the differences in 

10 the process pre-merger and post-merger, and you 

11 had gotten through pre-merger. And we had 

12 talked about basically it appears that prior to 

13 you becoming a Delta employee, more of the 

14 human resource responsibilities were done 

15 in-house, that you-all were more responsible 

16 locally for taking care of human resource 

17 issues. Am I correct in that?

18 A Related to benefits and payroll, 

19 yes, and recruiting.

20 Q What kinds of things still were 

21 taken care of outside of your local HR? 

22 Because you made a distinction, and I don't 

23 know where the distinction is. You pointed to 

24 benefits, you pointed to payroll, and you 

25 pointed to union activity as being something 

30

1 that was handled in-house. 

2 And I took it a step further and 

3 said locally those things were handled. And 

4 you kind of led me to believe or by your 

5 response that there were some things that were 

6 HR related that were not handled locally when 

7 you were Northwest. Am I correct in that?

8 A No. I mean, I would say parts of 

9 the grievance process would not be handled 

10 locally depending on the level that it would go 

11 to. But, you know, I didn't administer the 

12 benefit plan. That happens corporately. I 

13 mean, each location didn't have a separate pay 

14 scale or a separate benefit plan. 

15 So the administration of those plans 

16 would have been handled corporately, but the 

17 questions from employees would have been 

18 handled locally.

19 Q So is my understanding correct that 

20 the HR, the local HR, was responsible for 

21 carrying out the rules, policies, and 

22 procedures of the corporation?

23 A Yes.

24 Q And that local HR was responsible 

25 for the purview -- their reach would have been 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.967 Filed 03/04/15 Page 13 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

13 (Pages 31 to 34)

31

1 Detroit metro?

2 A Well, my reach would have been the 

3 above and below-wing employees, not all of 

4 metro. We also have pilots and flight 

5 attendants, and those would have had -- as well 

6 as, you mentioned cargo. Those would have had 

7 separate HR folks. 

8 So my reach, yes, would have been 

9 all of that within what we call airport 

10 customer service which is the above and 

11 below-wing employees.

12 Q Now, you also indicated that after 

13 the merger there were some changes to the 

14 process by which you conducted pretty much 

15 those same responsibilities. Can you tell me 

16 about those differences in the process?

17 A Yes. So to be clear, all those 

18 changes would not have happened right at merger 

19 because there had to have been, you know, a 

20 union election and things happened, you know, 

21 in a pretty orderly fashion. So I'll talk to 

22 the changes, but the changes happened at 

23 different points.

24 Q They were gradual?

25 A Correct. So the benefits, the 

32

1 payroll, retirement, those type of questions, 

2 we actually have at Delta an employee service 

3 center. So employees can call the service 

4 center to get those questions answered. 

5 Although I do answer those questions locally, 

6 many employees call that number to get those 

7 types of questions answered.

8 The focus at Delta is more 

9 employee-relations focused as well as 

10 leadership-development focused versus kind of 

11 the what we would consider traditional HR work, 

12 the benefits, the payroll, all of that type of 

13 thing. As well as the grievance process would 

14 have went away once union -- the representation 

15 vote took place.

16 Q Why did you move to Georgia? 

17 A This is a new position. It's a 

18 promotion for me.

19 Q Is this a position you had to apply 

20 for?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Was there some sort of internal 

23 posting at Delta for the position?

24 A Yes.

25 Q What made you decide to apply for a 

33

1 position that would require you to relocate?

2 A Well, it was the position that -- 

3 you know, increased responsibility. It's a 

4 promotion. There's lots more opportunity at 

5 Delta here in Atlanta as well.

6 Q In your role as a human resource 

7 generalist/manager for Delta, what involvement, 

8 if any, did you have in disciplining employees?

9 A I did not administer discipline.

10 Q Right. But my question is: What 

11 role did you play in disciplining of employees? 

12 What involvement did you have?

13 A Well, it would depend upon the 

14 circumstances. Some instances, I would have no 

15 involvement. The leader would do -- would do 

16 it on their own. Other circumstances, I may 

17 have just seen the investigation results and 

18 here's what the recommendation from the leader 

19 is and I say I support. 

20 Other instances, I may actually 

21 conduct the investigation with the leader and 

22 provide my recommendations to leadership of 

23 what to happen. So it really varies based on 

24 the circumstances.

25 Q Now, you indicated that sometimes 

34

1 you have no role at all. So is it the case 

2 that when you were in Detroit as a Delta 

3 employee that disciplines would take place and 

4 you wouldn't have any idea that the discipline 

5 took place?

6 A That's correct.

7 Q And is there a particular level by 

8 which they needed to notify you of a discipline 

9 taking place?

10 A Not a particular level, no. It was 

11 more based on the topic.

12 Q What kinds of topics did they need 

13 to notify you that a discipline had taken 

14 place?

15 A Typically, it would be circumstances 

16 where it involved a people policy versus an 

17 operational policy.

18 Q Explain to me, what do you mean by a 

19 "people policy"?

20 A So a violation of any of the 

21 corporate HR policies, such as discrimination 

22 or time and attendance or any of the people 

23 policies versus they didn't follow the 

24 appropriate procedure when working the 

25 aircraft.

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.968 Filed 03/04/15 Page 14 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

14 (Pages 35 to 38)

35

1 Q So, for example, if an employee is 

2 driving one of those little carts and they 

3 don't have their seat belt on and they get a 

4 safety infraction, they wouldn't necessarily 

5 have to notify you of that?

6 A Correct. They know what to do. 

7 They handle that.

8 Q Would they have to notify you for 

9 any sort of time card fraud discipline?

10 A Well, let me be clear. They don't 

11 have to necessarily notify me. When I say 

12 "have to," it's not -- I don't know how to 

13 describe it.

14 Q I don't either. So please try. 

15 Please try.

16 A The role of HR at Delta is to advise 

17 and counsel based on the policies. The leader 

18 makes that decision. We help them make the 

19 right decision for the company. So are there 

20 instances where there was potentially time card 

21 issues where they didn't bring it to my 

22 attention? That's very possible. 

23 However, the team in Detroit was 

24 really good about making me aware of those 

25 circumstances. Can I say absolutely every time 

36

1 they made me aware? I can't say that.

2 Q And if you needed to investigate a 

3 decision that was made that maybe you weren't 

4 made aware of, you could just ask the manager 

5 what happened, why did you take this particular 

6 course of action?

7 A Correct.

8 Q One of the things that you said is 

9 that HR advises and counsels and basically 

10 they're there to help the management to make 

11 the right decision. So if at some later point 

12 it came to your attention that the management 

13 didn't make the right decision, do you have the 

14 authority to cause any change to happen?

15 A Me personally, no. I would have to 

16 go to their leader to say, I don't believe they 

17 made the right decision, here's why. And then 

18 their leader would be the one to ultimately 

19 make the decision to change that decision.

20 Q So is it also true that as an HR 

21 employee manager/generalist in Detroit that you 

22 couldn't necessarily -- you didn't have the 

23 authority to necessarily change whatever 

24 decision had been made. Did you also have the 

25 authority to say what would happen on the front 

37

1 end? Let me try to fix the question.

2 So I asked you a question about the 

3 back end. The discipline has already been 

4 done, you've become aware of it, and what could 

5 you do about it. And basically, it's nothing 

6 except go to the higher management and say, 

7 hey, I think you have a problem here, this 

8 shouldn't have happened this way, and something 

9 different needs to happen. Am I correct in 

10 that?

11 A The influence of that.

12 Q The influence of that -- 

13 A Yes, correct.

14 Q -- on the back end. On the front 

15 end prior to the discipline actually being 

16 administered, do you have any authority to say 

17 what level of discipline should be administered 

18 on that front end? 

19 A I make recommendations, yes.

20 Q Do they have to follow your 

21 recommendations?

22 A No. But to clarify, if -- again, if 

23 we disagree, we're going to their leader. It's 

24 a very fluid process. I know it sounds kind 

25 of -- I don't know. I don't know how it 

38

1 sounds. But if we're talking and we have an 

2 issue and I say it should be this and you're 

3 the leader and you say it should be this level 

4 and we disagree, we're going to your leader. 

5 And then the leader is going to 

6 weigh in. And if necessary, we're going to go 

7 to their leader. And if not there, we're going 

8 to go to my leader until we can all agree on 

9 what the appropriate action is.

10 Q I think I understand a little bit. 

11 And be patient with me on this. 

12 A No problem.

13 Q Because I worked in human resources 

14 a lot of years. And then I've been practicing 

15 as an attorney in labor and employment for a 

16 number of years. And I've never come across a 

17 corporation that's set up quite this way. 

18 A Okay.

19 Q So you're really teaching me 

20 something very new to add to my list of things 

21 to just know. So when you say it's very fluid, 

22 would this process continue until there's some 

23 agreement between HR and the, I want to call it 

24 the operations side?

25 A Yes. And, you know, if at some 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.969 Filed 03/04/15 Page 15 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

15 (Pages 39 to 42)

39

1 point, you know, I think there's enough risk, I 

2 may involve our legal department. Or I may 

3 involve or equal opportunity department to say, 

4 you know, can you provide the operations some 

5 comparables on why what they're trying to do is 

6 not with our practice? 

7 It's rare that it gets to that 

8 point. I'd like to think I'm good at what I do 

9 and can influence the decision, but there is a 

10 process in place to do that.

11 Q But you're unable to utilize those 

12 skills if the management on the operations side 

13 didn't make you aware that a particular 

14 situation was going on; correct?

15 A That would be correct. However, as 

16 you mentioned, I may find out about it on the 

17 back end and influence a different decision. 

18 And they don't like that. They don't want to 

19 have to go back and make a different decision. 

20 So they are very good, and it is the culture 

21 that HR is involved in that, in those 

22 processes. 

23 I'm sorry if I gave you the 

24 impression that they're just out there doing 

25 whatever they want because that's not the case. 

40

1 You know, is there a seat belt violation that I 

2 wasn't aware of? Sure. But anytime it's, you 

3 know, we're taking statements and it's an 

4 investigation, they're very good about reaching 

5 out to the HR person and saying here's what we 

6 have, what's the appropriate level of 

7 performance development. 

8 I just don't want to give you the 

9 impression that absolutely everything comes 

10 across my desk because that wouldn't be 

11 accurate either.

12 MR. TUYN: Barb, Felicia's very good 

13 at asking questions. You have to be careful to 

14 just answer her questions.

15 THE WITNESS: Okay.

16 MR. TUYN: You're going well beyond 

17 her questions.

18 THE WITNESS: Okay.

19 MR. TUYN: If she wants to go into 

20 that, she can. 

21 THE WITNESS: Okay.

22 MR. TUYN: You've got to listen to 

23 her question and answer her question.

24 Q I was going to kind of come back 

25 anyways, so thank you. Because let me just 

41

1 clarify my understanding because I've gotten my 

2 understanding from lots of different people and 

3 none of them are fully the HR person that you 

4 are. And so that's why I wanted to talk to you 

5 so badly, because I thought that you could help 

6 me to clarify what is still unclear for me in 

7 my head. 

8 So the PL has the authority to make 

9 a decision about whether to discipline an 

10 employee or not. Am I correct in that?

11 A Yes.

12 Q Once the PL makes that decision, do 

13 they run that decision up to their leader?

14 A Almost always.

15 Q Can they make the decision without 

16 running it up to their leader?

17 A Can they?

18 Q Yes. 

19 A Yes.

20 Q In particular, if a PL decides not 

21 to discipline an employee, there would be no 

22 way for that direct manager to necessarily know 

23 that the PL made that decision. Am I correct 

24 in that? So something happens. I see you do 

25 something. And I'm not going to discipline you 

42

1 for whatever the reason. 

2 The department manager would not 

3 necessarily be aware of that; correct?

4 A Correct.

5 Q Now, if the PL makes the decision to 

6 put something in writing, would that then cause 

7 the DM to be aware that some discipline took 

8 place?

9 A Most of the time, yes.

10 Q Explain to me the "most of the 

11 time." Under what circumstances or what are 

12 you thinking about that causes you to say, 

13 indefinitely, yeah, if they put it in writing 

14 that they're going to run it up to the DM or 

15 the DM would be aware?

16 A The DM typically reviews the 

17 letter. The DM is sometimes present when the 

18 letter is issued. But to say that that happens 

19 a hundred percent of the time, I can't say 

20 that.

21 Q And then under what circumstances 

22 does the DM, if you know, because I don't even 

23 know if this changes based on DM, does the DM 

24 take that discipline decision to the general 

25 manager?

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.970 Filed 03/04/15 Page 16 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

16 (Pages 43 to 46)

43

1 A I don't know when -- I mean, can you 

2 repeat the question for me?

3 Q Yeah. Because I've gotten -- I've 

4 taken you from PL -- 

5 A Yeah.

6 Q -- and what the PL's authority is. 

7 And we've talked about the authority to decide 

8 not to discipline and that really no one would 

9 know that they decided -- necessarily know that 

10 they decided not to discipline. 

11 We've talked about the PL deciding 

12 to discipline and that the letter being 

13 presented to the DM, but you can't say a 

14 hundred percent of the time, but typically 

15 being presented to the DM. 

16 Now, I'm at the DM level, and I'm 

17 saying from the DM to the GM. Would that 

18 letter then go from the DM to the GM?

19 A At certain levels, yes.

20 Q What levels would the discipline 

21 then go from the DM to the GM, if you know?

22 A The final corrective action for 

23 sure.

24 Q And the GM for the below-the-wing 

25 folks, I think I'm jazzy now, would that have 

44

1 been Mohammad Sarsour during the 2012 time 

2 period?

3 A Yes.

4 Q Now, I think Mr. De La Torre, he 

5 testified that he takes all of his disciplinary 

6 decisions up to the general manager. Is that 

7 your experience with Mr. De La Torre?

8 A Yes.

9 Q When in the process of the 

10 discipline moving from the PL to the DM to the 

11 GM is HR involved, or is it at various stages?

12 A Various stages.

13 Q Were you involved at all in the 

14 disciplines of Jason Conover or Christopher 

15 Culpepper?

16 A Yes.

17 Q How were you involved?

18 A I reviewed the investigation and 

19 their recommendation for discipline.

20 Q What did the investigation that you 

21 reviewed consist of?

22 A Statements from both Conover and 

23 Culpepper as well as summary from I believe -- 

24 I don't recall who the leader was who ran that 

25 investigation.

45

1 Q Summary from the leader, that would 

2 be the PL?

3 A Or the department manager.

4 Q And so do you remember anything else 

5 being a part of this investigation that you 

6 reviewed for Conover and Culpepper?

7 A Not that I recall.

8 Q Were the -- I'm going to help you a 

9 little bit.

10 A Okay.

11 Q Were the Kronos punches a part of 

12 that investigatory packet?

13 A Not that I recall.

14 Q Were the County swipes a part of 

15 that investigatory package?

16 A Not that I recall.

17 Q Did you pull any information outside 

18 of what was provided to you on Mr. Conover or 

19 Mr. Culpepper?

20 A No.

21 Q The investigatory information that 

22 you reviewed on Mr. Conover and Mr. Culpepper, 

23 where does that information go? And by that I 

24 mean, if someone is under investigation leading 

25 to discipline, are the investigatory documents 

46

1 put in their personnel record? Are they kept 

2 in the file cabinet marked investigations? I 

3 mean, what happens to those documents?

4 A The actual investigation documents?

5 Q Yeah.

6 A Is that what you're asking? 

7 Q Yeah.

8 A They would be kept in an 

9 investigation file.

10 Q And where is that file kept?

11 A That particular one would likely be 

12 in my office.

13 Q Now, after you left, what happened 

14 to the files that were in your office?

15 A They're still there.

16 Q Okay.

17 A I don't know. You would have to ask 

18 the person who's there now.

19 Q Who took your place down there? Do 

20 you know?

21 A Who replaced me? 

22 Q Yeah. 

23 A Danielle Hughes.

24 Q Is she in your office now?

25 A Yes.

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.971 Filed 03/04/15 Page 17 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

17 (Pages 47 to 50)

47

1 MS. BROCK: Just for the record, 

2 Attorney Tuyn, and I know you're aware of this, 

3 I didn't receive a written statement for 

4 Mr. Conover. And I also did not receive a 

5 summary from the PL or department manager as to 

6 the Conover-Culpepper incident.

7 Q If you could tell me, at least for 

8 the summary, I think I have -- I have 

9 Mr. Culpepper's statement, so I know what he 

10 said. I have Mr. Conover's testimony of what 

11 he said in his written statement, so I think 

12 I'm good there. 

13 I don't have that summary. Can you 

14 tell me, what do you recall being in the 

15 summary from the PL or department manager? And 

16 I understand you don't remember which. But can 

17 you tell me what was in that summary? What do 

18 you remember?

19 A I don't recall what was in the 

20 summary.

21 Q Let me ask this. And if you know 

22 it, then maybe it came from the summary. And 

23 we can try to figure out, if it didn't, when 

24 you found it out. Were you made aware that 

25 Mr. Culpepper -- well, let me back up. 

48

1 You are aware or you were aware that 

2 Mr. Culpepper removed Mr. Conover from the RTS 

3 line; correct?

4 A Yes.

5 Q And that he was not the ALA, the RTS 

6 ALA, and he should not have been removing 

7 anyone from the line; correct?

8 A Correct.

9 Q Were you aware at the time of this 

10 discipline, that would have been back in 

11 November of 2012 -- it's hard to forget things, 

12 I'm asking you to forget it if you found it out 

13 later -- were you aware that Mr. Culpepper also 

14 was being disciplined because he was punched in 

15 and was not working for part of the shift?

16 A At that point, no.

17 Q Were you made aware at that point 

18 that Mr. Culpepper was actually docked four 

19 hours of pay for being punched in and not 

20 working part of the shift?

21 A No.

22 Q When did you become aware that 

23 Mr. Culpepper was also being disciplined for 

24 time card fraud? And when I say "time card 

25 fraud," because I know it says that in the 

49

1 discipline, so that's not a fair question. 

2 When I say "time card fraud," I mean that he 

3 was accused of being punched in and not working 

4 for part of his shift. 

5 A Yesterday.

6 Q When did you, and I know it's a 

7 similar question, slightly different, when did 

8 you find out that Mr. Culpepper's pay was 

9 docked for four hours for being punched in and 

10 not working part of his shift in that November 

11 2012 time frame?

12 A Per you just saying it. I was not 

13 aware of that.

14 Q Let's talk about Mr. Conover just a 

15 little bit. Now, I do know that you're aware, 

16 and we're going to get to how I know and all 

17 the documents in just a minute, I do know that 

18 you were aware that Mr. Conover asked 

19 Mr. Culpepper to remove him from the RTS line; 

20 correct?

21 A Yes.

22 Q Were you aware that Mr. Conover went 

23 and found a place to sleep and would sleep 

24 throughout the vast majority of his shift that 

25 day?

50

1 A Yes.

2 Q Were you aware that Mr. Conover's 

3 pay was docked pretty much the entire shift for 

4 his being punched in and being somewhere else 

5 asleep -- 

6 A No.

7 Q -- on the job that day?

8 A No.

9 Q Now, I understand you weren't aware 

10 of that in the 2012 time frame. Were you aware 

11 of his pay being docked for his being punched 

12 in and not working the vast majority of his 

13 shift back in November of 2012 prior to today?

14 A No.

15 Q You just found that out when I said 

16 it?

17 A That's correct.

18 Q Were you made aware in the January 

19 of 2014 time frame that Mr. Culpepper's 

20 discipline was reduced from a written 

21 corrective to a written coaching?

22 A No.

23 Q Have you ever in your time as a 

24 Delta employee, which would -- bad question.

25 During your time as an HR 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.972 Filed 03/04/15 Page 18 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

18 (Pages 51 to 54)

51

1 generalist/manager, which means you would have 

2 been in Detroit, Delta employee, were you aware 

3 of an employee being disciplined and then that 

4 discipline being later reduced to a lower 

5 discipline?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Under what circumstances?

8 A I can't give you a specific 

9 circumstance.

10 Q Well, can you tell me what 

11 circumstances, not referencing anyone in 

12 particular -- your testimony is that you know 

13 it's happened; correct?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Can you tell me what circumstances 

16 would lead to an employee's discipline being 

17 reduced?

18 A The ones that I recall were -- I 

19 can't recall the specific infraction, but it 

20 would have been an employee who came to myself 

21 or the next level of leadership and said, I 

22 think this is inappropriate. And after review, 

23 it was determined that, yes, it was 

24 inappropriate, and a different letter or in 

25 some cases the -- no letter, you know, the 

52

1 letter was just removed, took place.

2 Q Thank you for that, because that was 

3 a good explanation. Have you in your time as 

4 HR in Detroit, I'm trying to make it easier on 

5 myself, as HR in Detroit ever seen such a 

6 reduction in discipline happen more than a year 

7 after the discipline took place?

8 A No.

9 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

10 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.)

11 Q Ms. Franz, I've handed you what has 

12 been marked as Exhibit 1. And it is the Final 

13 Corrective Action Notice for Jason Conover. Do 

14 you see that?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And have you seen this discipline 

17 before?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And so this is the discipline that 

20 we've been talking about where he requested to 

21 have Mr. Culpepper remove him from the RTS 

22 system; correct?

23 A Yes.

24 Q And it indicates in the second 

25 sentence of the first paragraph that 

53

1 Mr. Conover was being investigated for time 

2 card fraud. Was what Mr. Conover was accused 

3 of doing considered time card fraud?

4 A No.

5 Q Why not?

6 A From what I recall, he was given 

7 authorization to be off the clock or to be away 

8 from his work area.

9 Q So your recollection is that 

10 Mr. Conover was given permission to be away 

11 from his work area. To your knowledge, did 

12 that permission extend to remaining punched in 

13 and sleeping for the vast majority of his 

14 shift?

15 A No.

16 Q And so would his being punched in 

17 and being somewhere else sleeping for the vast 

18 majority of his shift be considered time card 

19 fraud?

20 A I would not have considered it that.

21 Q And why not?

22 A Because he was given authorization 

23 to do so.

24 Q You're saying that it's your 

25 understanding that Mr. Culpepper gave him this 

54

1 permission you're referring to?

2 A Correct.

3 Q And so Mr. Culpepper gave him 

4 permission to stay on the clock and get paid 

5 while being asleep for the vast majority of his 

6 shift?

7 A Correct.

8 Q So did Mr. Culpepper commit time 

9 card fraud in giving an employee permission to 

10 be away from his work area asleep while getting 

11 paid?

12 MR. TUYN: Well, let me just object 

13 as to lack of foundation. And I think you're 

14 representing facts that aren't in evidence. 

15 There's no evidence that Culpepper knew that 

16 Conover was sleeping. Conover doesn't say 

17 that. Culpepper didn't say that. 

18 So that isn't what Culpepper was 

19 disciplined for.

20 MS. BROCK: Well, I understand your 

21 objection. But this is the HR person who was 

22 there. And she was there, and neither of us 

23 were. And so although she may not have known 

24 he was away sleeping, she certainly knew that 

25 Mr. Culpepper is who removed him from the line.

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.973 Filed 03/04/15 Page 19 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

19 (Pages 55 to 58)

55

1 MR. TUYN: Yeah. And she testified 

2 to that. But she didn't testify that Culpepper 

3 knew that Conover was sleeping after he took 

4 him off the line.

5 MS. BROCK: Well, let me ask it this 

6 way. Whether she knew he was sleeping or not, 

7 whether she knew he was punched in and wasn't 

8 working.

9 Q When Mr. Culpepper removed 

10 Mr. Conover from the RTS line, were you aware 

11 as to whether Mr. Culpepper knew that -- well, 

12 I take it back. 

13 Didn't you just tell me that 

14 Mr. Conover had permission to be away from his 

15 work station?

16 A Correct.

17 Q He had permission to be punched in 

18 and away from his work station?

19 A Yes.

20 Q And Mr. Culpepper is who provided 

21 him that permission; correct?

22 A Yes.

23 Q So was it time card fraud for 

24 Mr. Culpepper to have allowed an employee to be 

25 away from their work station, not working, and 

56

1 remaining punched in?

2 A No.

3 Q Why not?

4 A We have employees who are given 

5 authorization to be away from their work area 

6 and continue to be paid. That in and of itself 

7 would not be considered time card fraud.

8 Q What would make it time card fraud?

9 A If they didn't have the 

10 authorization.

11 Q So as long as a supervisor said it 

12 was okay for him to be on the clock and away 

13 from his work area, not working, it's okay?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Then why, if you know, was 

16 Mr. Conover's pay docked -- 

17 A It wasn't aware.

18 Q -- for that time?

19 A I wasn't aware of that.

20 Q Well, sitting here today now that 

21 you are aware, what reasons can an employee's 

22 pay be docked? If I'm punched in, if I'm a 

23 Delta employee and I'm punched in and I'm 

24 punched in an entire shift and management takes 

25 my pay for almost the entire shift, for what 

57

1 reasons can that occur?

2 A I'm not aware that we've done that.

3 Q Right. But I'm representing that we 

4 have. 

5 A Yeah.

6 Q So my question to you is: How could 

7 that occur, or why could that occur?

8 A I can't speak to that. I didn't 

9 make that decision.

10 Q And have you ever seen an employee 

11 punch in and have the entire shift, just about, 

12 taken away from them?

13 A No.

14 Q Mr. Conover is the first person 

15 that, as far as you know, that's ever occurred 

16 for?

17 A Yes.

18 Q And what about Mr. Culpepper's 

19 situation where he was docked for four hours of 

20 pay that day? Have you ever known of another 

21 employee to be on the clock and have their pay 

22 taken for four hours?

23 A No.

24 Q Can you, sitting here today, think 

25 of any circumstance where the reaction of 

58

1 management would be to take a person's pay for 

2 so many hours that they were punched in?

3 A No.

4 Q Can you, sitting here today, and I 

5 know it's tough because a million things could 

6 happen that could probably lead to this kind of 

7 situation, but sitting here today, can you 

8 think of any situation that would warrant 

9 management to say, yes, that person was punched 

10 in, but we're taking four hours or six hours or 

11 more from them of their pay for that day?

12 A No.

13 Q Sitting here today, considering that 

14 you didn't become aware of Mr. Conover's pay 

15 being docked until today, do you still know 

16 whether Mr. Conover committed time card fraud 

17 or not? Want me to change the question?

18 A Yeah.

19 Q Because it's a little icky. 

20 A I'm not sure I understand.

21 Q What I'm asking is, is you don't 

22 know why his pay was docked. So can you be 

23 sure that he didn't commit time card fraud?

24 MR. TUYN: Well, is your question -- 

25 first of all, I don't think we've defined time 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.974 Filed 03/04/15 Page 20 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

20 (Pages 59 to 62)

59

1 card fraud.

2 MS. BROCK: Well, let me have her -- 

3 stop right there. Let me have her define it. 

4 We can go question by question, and that way 

5 we'll get every objection you have answered.

6 Q What is time card fraud?

7 A I would define it as an employee 

8 being paid for time that they were not on 

9 property that they didn't have authorization to 

10 not be on property.

11 Q So in order for it to be time card 

12 fraud in your mind, the person has to be off 

13 the property?

14 A When I say off property, I mean not 

15 working. Thank you for that clarification.

16 Q And so again, my question is: 

17 Considering that you were not aware that 

18 Mr. Conover's pay was docked, can you say that 

19 he was not off property in November of 2012? 

20 Can you still say that?

21 A Repeat that question for me.

22 Q Yeah. 

23 A Because there were --

24 Q Considering that you did not know 

25 his pay was docked -- 

60

1 A Correct.

2 Q -- can you still say he was not off 

3 property?

4 A I don't know. I mean, I don't know 

5 where he was.

6 Q So now you recognize that you really 

7 didn't know where Mr. Conover was at the time 

8 that this discipline took place?

9 MR. TUYN: Well, your question was 

10 did he engage in time card fraud.

11 MS. BROCK: No. That's not my last 

12 question. That was the question a few 

13 questions ago.

14 MR. TUYN: Well, I mean, if your 

15 question is did he do anything wrong, that's 

16 different than -- 

17 MS. BROCK: No, that's not what I'm 

18 asking.

19 MR. TUYN: -- was it time card 

20 fraud.

21 MS. BROCK: I'm being very specific 

22 about what I'm asking.

23 Q Do you need me to ask it again? 

24 Because I don't want to get an objection that 

25 I've asked it and you've answered it. Do you 

61

1 feel comfortable that you've given me an answer 

2 to my question?

3 A Go ahead and repeat it again for me.

4 Q Okay.

5 A I'm sorry.

6 Q It's okay. I don't mind. I don't 

7 mind. I plan to be here all day, so it's okay. 

8 Let me try to walk up to it, and maybe that 

9 will help us get there. 

10 At the time that this discipline was 

11 issued, you were not aware that Mr. Conover's 

12 pay had been docked almost the entire shift?

13 A That's correct.

14 Q And you also testified that, based 

15 on your understanding of what Mr. Conover did, 

16 that would not be time card fraud; correct?

17 A Well, I wasn't aware that -- you're 

18 putting those two things together. Can you 

19 rephrase that for me? Because you're putting 

20 the pieces together, but I wasn't aware of this 

21 piece.

22 Q And I get it. 

23 A Okay.

24 Q And so I'm kind of at your 

25 before-awareness mind. 

62

1 A Okay.

2 Q Before you became aware, so let's 

3 wipe out that he was docked at this point, from 

4 what you were told and what you're aware that 

5 Mr. Conover did, you would not consider that 

6 time card fraud; correct?

7 A That's correct.

8 Q Now you have become aware that 

9 Mr. Conover was actually docked for the vast 

10 majority of his shift on this November 2012 

11 day. Can you still say he did not commit time 

12 card fraud?

13 A Yes.

14 Q How and why?

15 A Because I don't understand why he 

16 was docked. So until I understood that 

17 decision, my thought is the same in that it is 

18 not time card fraud.

19 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

20 Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.)

21 Q Okay. Now I need to ask a similar 

22 set of questions about Mr. Culpepper, but I 

23 think it will be easier for him because we got 

24 through it on Mr. Conover. 

25 Before we get to Exhibit 2, 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.975 Filed 03/04/15 Page 21 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

21 (Pages 63 to 66)

63

1 Exhibit 1 indicates that Mr. Conover was being 

2 investigated for time card fraud. Is it your 

3 understanding today that, although he was 

4 investigated for time card fraud, he wasn't 

5 disciplined for time card fraud?

6 A That is my understanding, yes.

7 Q Then what was Mr. -- I mean, looking 

8 at this discipline, I need to see what are we 

9 saying in this paper that Mr. Conover was 

10 disciplined for. 

11 MR. TUYN: And before you respond, 

12 make sure you read it.

13 MS. BROCK: Oh, absolutely. I'm in 

14 no hurry today.

15 A Okay.

16 Q So what was, according to the 

17 discipline, Mr. Conover disciplined for? He 

18 was investigated for time card fraud. What was 

19 he disciplined for?

20 A In reading this, job performance.

21 Q Isn't it true that Delta considers 

22 any disciplinary action a performance 

23 opportunity?

24 A Yes.

25 Q So when you say when it says 

64

1 performance, couldn't it very well be just a 

2 performance opportunity?

3 A What do you mean by that? 

4 Q Yeah. It's a phrase. Mr. Domingo 

5 De La Torre told me that Delta uses a general 

6 term in his testimony, and it's performance 

7 opportunities, that we try to work through 

8 performance opportunities. We give disciplines 

9 to try to improve performance, but that would 

10 be for anything that we discipline you for, is 

11 to improve performance.

12 A No. Every discipline is not going 

13 to say job performance.

14 Q Or it's going to say attendance, or 

15 it's going to say safety. 

16 A Or it could say conduct.

17 Q What about Mr. Conover's performance 

18 caused him to receive this discipline?

19 MR. TUYN: We're still talking about 

20 Conover? 

21 MS. BROCK: We are.

22 A Can you repeat that question for 

23 me? 

24 Q Sure. What about Mr. Conover's 

25 performance caused him to be disciplined?

65

1 A Based on what this says, not being 

2 in his work area.

3 Q And you know I've asked this a bunch 

4 of different ways at this point. Have you ever 

5 known of an employee to be docked pay for poor 

6 performance?

7 A No.

8 Q Ms. Franz, taking a look at what has 

9 been marked Exhibit 2, we see a corrective 

10 action notice regarding performance, and it's 

11 for Christopher Culpepper. Do you see that?

12 A Yes.

13 Q And this also indicates that he was 

14 being investigated for time card fraud, yeah, 

15 in that second sentence of the first paragraph. 

16 Do you see that?

17 A Yes.

18 Q And so for Mr. Culpepper, what was 

19 he actually disciplined for? I understand he 

20 was investigated for time card fraud. But what 

21 was he disciplined for?

22 A He was disciplined for using his ALA 

23 authority when he was not in an ALA capacity.

24 Q And he was also demoted; correct?

25 A That is correct.

66

1 Q And your understanding per your 

2 testimony is that Culpepper gave Conover 

3 permission to remain punched in and be away 

4 from his work station; correct?

5 A Yes.

6 Q In the giving an employee permission 

7 to be, based on your understanding -- I'm not 

8 saying it happened that way, but that's your 

9 understanding of it. For an ALA to give 

10 permission to an employee to be punched in and 

11 away from their work station, is that time card 

12 fraud?

13 A No.

14 Q Why not?

15 A They have the authorization to do 

16 so.

17 Q So an ALA can actually tell an 

18 employee, you can stay punched in and not work?

19 A Yes.

20 Q And make sure they -- and they still 

21 can get paid for that?

22 A Yes.

23 Q Wow. Now, with Mr. Culpepper and 

24 the fact, and I know it's not discussed in this 

25 discipline, the fact that he was on the clock 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.976 Filed 03/04/15 Page 22 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

22 (Pages 67 to 70)

67

1 and not working for part of his shift, would 

2 that be considered time card fraud?

3 A Repeat that for me.

4 Q Sure. Mr. Culpepper, he was punched 

5 in, and he didn't work for part of his shift. 

6 Would that be considered time card fraud?

7 A If he did not have authorization, 

8 yes.

9 Q Is it your position that 

10 Mr. Culpepper was not disciplined for time card 

11 fraud?

12 A Yes.

13 Q And how come? How come that's your 

14 position that it wasn't time card fraud?

15 A Because the discipline was for his 

16 misuse of his ALA authority.

17 Q Sitting here today now that you know 

18 some additional information, are you sure that 

19 his discipline was for the misuse of his 

20 authority?

21 A That's what it says.

22 Q So as far as you know, he didn't get 

23 disciplined for being punched in and not 

24 working part of his shift?

25 A That's my understanding.

68

1 Q Now, I've represented to you today 

2 that Mr. Culpepper was docked for four hours, 

3 but I think you've already testified that you 

4 have no reason why he would have been docked 

5 for four hours of pay for that day. 

6 A I'm not aware of that.

7 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

8 Plaintiff's Exhibit 3.)

9 Q Ms. Franz, you've been handed 

10 Exhibit 3. And it is a Written Coaching Notice 

11 Regarding Performance for Christopher 

12 Culpepper. Do you see that?

13 A Yes.

14 Q And if you turn the page, we're 

15 going to come back, but if you just turn the 

16 page, you'll see that it's dated January 15th 

17 of 2014; correct?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And you would have still been the HR 

20 manager at that point; correct?

21 A Yes.

22 Q If you look back at the first page 

23 and you compare it to Exhibit 2, you will 

24 notice that it's all the same except for the 

25 title. You see where the title is changed? 

69

1 Exhibit 2 says Corrective Action Notice 

2 Regarding Performance, and Exhibit 3 is a 

3 written coaching. Do you see that?

4 A Yes.

5 Q And again it says he was 

6 investigated for time card fraud. Do you see 

7 that?

8 A Yes.

9 Q And then I think there's a couple of 

10 other differences. If you turn the page, you 

11 will see that in that second paragraph on the 

12 second page the amount of time that the 

13 discipline would remain in his journal has been 

14 changed. Do you see that?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And let's go back to the signature 

17 date. Mr. Culpepper signed Exhibit 2 November 

18 21st of 2012; correct?

19 A Yes.

20 Q He signed Exhibit 3, his written 

21 coaching for the same infraction, January 15th 

22 of 2014; correct?

23 A Yes.

24 Q So that was a year and two, three 

25 months after the original signature; correct?

70

1 A Yes.

2 Q Before today, were you aware that 

3 Mr. Culpepper's discipline had been reduced in 

4 this manner?

5 A Before today?

6 Q Yes.

7 A Yes.

8 Q Before yesterday, were you aware 

9 that Mr. Culpepper's discipline was reduced in 

10 this manner?

11 A No.

12 Q In your role as human resource 

13 generalist/manager for Delta, what involvement, 

14 if any, did you have in terminating employees?

15 A I'm involved. Can you --

16 Q And what is your role?

17 A Okay. Thank you. I may -- the 

18 role's going to vary based upon the 

19 circumstances. I may be part of the 

20 investigation and then the subsequent 

21 termination or -- but always, I am involved in 

22 reviewing the termination file and the 

23 recommendation for termination from the 

24 operation.

25 Q I'm sorry for taking you back and 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.977 Filed 03/04/15 Page 23 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

23 (Pages 71 to 74)

71

1 forth. I just had a thought. We talked about 

2 you seeing the disciplinary file for 

3 Mr. Conover, and we talked about the fact that 

4 you saw several documents. You talked about 

5 the statements from, oh, from both Culpepper 

6 and Conover. 

7 The summary from the PL or 

8 department manager, was there a summary for 

9 both Conover and Culpepper?

10 A I don't recall.

11 Q If there was no summary for one or 

12 the other -- well, let me ask it this way. Do 

13 you remember there being a summary for one of 

14 them?

15 A I remember there being a summary.

16 Q And your remembrance right now is of 

17 one summary, it sounds like. Is that the case?

18 A I can't recall.

19 Q But you know there was a summary. 

20 You don't know if there was one or two, and you 

21 don't know for which individual?

22 A Correct.

23 MR. TUYN: Before you go any 

24 further, can we take a break? 

25 MS. BROCK: Yeah. If you can just 

72

1 let me finish about what was in Culpepper's, 

2 and I won't ask anything outside of that.

3 MR. TUYN: Okay.

4 Q So you can't recall whether it was 

5 for one or the other of them or whether it was 

6 just one that covered both of them. You just 

7 can't recall?

8 A Right.

9 Q But you know there was a summary. 

10 Yes?

11 A Yes.

12 Q For any information that was not in 

13 the summary, you would have had to have asked 

14 the PL or the department manager what was going 

15 on; correct?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And I'm almost done with this line. 

18 For Culpepper, I know I asked for Conover, did 

19 you see any Kronos punches in that 

20 investigatory file for Culpepper?

21 A Not that I recall.

22 Q Did you see any County swipes for 

23 that investigatory file for Culpepper?

24 A Not that I recall.

25 Q And you didn't pull anything in 

73

1 addition to what you were provided for 

2 Mr. Culpepper?

3 A That's correct.

4 Q Would Mr. Culpepper's investigatory 

5 file also be in your former office to the best 

6 of your knowledge?

7 A I don't know.

8 Q That's where you left it?

9 A I don't -- I don't specifically know 

10 if, this particular investigation, there's a 

11 file in my office for it.

12 MS. BROCK: Okay. I understand. 

13 And I can appreciate that. We can get a break. 

14 MR. TUYN: Okay.

15 (Proceedings in recess, 10:30 a.m. to 

16 10:43 a.m.)

17 Q Before we took the break, we had 

18 gotten over into the Conover-Culpepper world 

19 once again, and now I'm back to the termination 

20 world. And I had asked you before we went back 

21 to Conover and Culpepper about your role as a 

22 human resource generalist/manager in the 

23 termination process. 

24 And you did provide me with some of 

25 your responsibilities in that regard. And one 

74

1 of them in particular that I noted was that you 

2 review the file. And when you review the 

3 termination file, what are you looking for?

4 A I'm looking for the reason that the 

5 operation is recommending to term. I'm looking 

6 to see if that's supportive with the infraction 

7 or the policy violation. And I'm looking for 

8 documentation to support that decision.

9 Q Do you conduct any independent 

10 investigation into the termination files when 

11 you receive them?

12 A No.

13 Q So your decision as far as whether 

14 to recommend termination or not recommend 

15 termination is based on the file that the 

16 management or operations side would have put 

17 together and sent to you?

18 A There may be additional questions or 

19 additional documentation that isn't in the file 

20 that I asked for, but I don't do an 

21 investigation.

22 Q Have you ever in your time as Delta 

23 HR in Detroit denied or recommended that a 

24 termination -- a recommended termination not 

25 take place?

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.978 Filed 03/04/15 Page 24 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

24 (Pages 75 to 78)

75

1 A Yes.

2 Q Under what circumstances have you, 

3 and it doesn't have to be specific to one 

4 person, under what circumstances have you 

5 recommended that a recommended termination not 

6 take place?

7 A If any of those things that I'm 

8 looking for are not in the file. So if the 

9 decision is not consistent with what we've done 

10 in the past as far as the infraction, if 

11 there's not documented evidence of what took 

12 place, there's stuff missing, then it -- yeah.

13 Q And have you had any occasion where 

14 the operations side didn't accept your 

15 recommendation that termination not take place?

16 A Yes.

17 Q Under what circumstances have they 

18 not taken your recommendation?

19 A I can't give you a specific 

20 circumstance.

21 Q In the instances when the operations 

22 side did not accept your recommendation for 

23 termination, did you exercise your option of 

24 taking it up the management chain?

25 A Every time.

76

1 Q And taking it up the management 

2 chain, were you able to get the termination 

3 reversed or the recommendation to terminate 

4 reversed?

5 A Yes.

6 Q Was the Rodriques, Beydoun, and 

7 Leela termination the first ethics compliance 

8 hot line investigation you conducted?

9 A No.

10 Q How many ethics hot line 

11 investigations would you estimate that you've 

12 conducted in your career as a Delta HR 

13 manager/HR person?

14 A I don't know.

15 Q Well, let me get a range. Was it 

16 ten times? Because it's a long career, but I 

17 don't know if you get -- I guess what I'm 

18 trying to sense, is it a high volume or is it a 

19 low volume of hot line calls for Detroit for 

20 race discrimination. 

21 Would you say less than ten in your 

22 career there?

23 A No.

24 Q Less than 20?

25 A Well, are you specifically talking 

77

1 about the type of compliance call or compliance 

2 calls in general? 

3 Q The type. I'm talking about -- 

4 A I couldn't speak to -- 

5 Q -- racial discrimination. 

6 A -- the type. I'm sorry. I thought 

7 you were asking about compliance calls in 

8 general.

9 Q Have you ever done a race 

10 discrimination compliance call other than the 

11 one involving Jerrick Rodriques?

12 A I can't speak to the specifics of 

13 the previous compliance calls.

14 Q And I understand that. 

15 A Yeah.

16 Q So sitting here today, is it safe to 

17 say you have no recollection of doing a race 

18 discrimination call from the hot line other 

19 than Mr. Rodriques, the one involving 

20 Mr. Rodriques?

21 A I have no recollection of the 

22 previous topics of the compliance calls.

23 MR. TUYN: And just to clarify, 

24 you're saying the one concerning Mr. Rodriques, 

25 but I assume you're grouping. There were six 

78

1 different hot line complaints that essentially 

2 said the same thing.

3 MS. BROCK: Yeah.

4 MR. TUYN: Or that mention Rodriques 

5 in one vein or another. 

6 MS. BROCK: Yeah.

7 MR. TUYN: So when you say the one, 

8 you're talking about the six? 

9 MS. BROCK: Yeah.

10 Q So outside of that one, you have no 

11 recollection -- 

12 A Yeah, no, I don't.

13 Q Let me ask you this. Have you, 

14 since you can't remember any specific 

15 investigation or any specific topics of 

16 investigation, have you ever found that Delta 

17 did commit race discrimination in one of your 

18 investigations? 

19 A No.

20 Q And you didn't find that Delta 

21 committed race discrimination as to 

22 Mr. Rodriques; correct?

23 A Correct.

24 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 4.)

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.979 Filed 03/04/15 Page 25 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

25 (Pages 79 to 82)

79

1 Q Ms. Franz you've been handed what 

2 has been marked as Exhibit 4, and it appears to 

3 be a policy of Delta's. Am I correct in that?

4 A Looks like it, yes.

5 Q Have you ever seen this policy 

6 before?

7 A Yes.

8 Q Now, it indicates that Delta is 

9 committed to a workplace free from 

10 discrimination. And that's in the very first, 

11 We Value Diversity paragraph?

12 A Uh-huh (affirmative).

13 Q Yes? 

14 A Yes.

15 Q Have you found that Delta is 

16 committed to a workplace free from 

17 discrimination?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And then moving down a little bit, 

20 it says, "Discrimination Is Not Tolerated." 

21 Have you found that Delta does not tolerate 

22 discrimination?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Have you ever known of anyone to be 

25 terminated for discriminating?

80

1 A No.

2 Q Do you know of anyone ever being 

3 disciplined for discrimination?

4 A No.

5 Q Have you ever known of anyone being 

6 investigated for discrimination other than the 

7 one set of investigations you conducted with 

8 Jerrick Rodriques? And I know I asked you for 

9 you, but I'm just talking generally now. Not 

10 necessarily investigations that you performed, 

11 per se, but have you ever known of anyone to be 

12 investigated for race discrimination?

13 A To be able to give specifics of 

14 that, no.

15 Q Even without the specifics, are you 

16 aware of anyone being investigated for race 

17 discrimination?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And to the best of your knowledge, 

20 whatever person, whatever group of people, 

21 whatever situations you're thinking of, was it 

22 found that discrimination existed?

23 A Not that I recall.

24 Q In the very last paragraph on 

25 Exhibit 4, it talks about reporting any kind of 

81

1 discrimination, harassment, and the like. And 

2 it says you can report it to your leader, your 

3 manager, the HR professional, or the equal 

4 opportunity department. Where is that 

5 department located?

6 A Here in Atlanta.

7 Q And the equal opportunity 

8 department, is the method by which to contact 

9 them published somewhere? Like how would I 

10 call them?

11 A The directory, the corporate 

12 directory. 

13 Q That corporate directory, is it 

14 online?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And does it direct you to any one 

17 person, or do you just call the department? 

18 Would you just call that department?

19 A You would call the department. Or 

20 if you knew the name, you could search for a 

21 name as well.

22 Q And then it continues that you may 

23 also call Delta's ethics and compliance help 

24 line. I've been calling it a hot line, so I 

25 probably will not be able to stop calling it a 

82

1 hot line. 

2 A Okay.

3 Q So if I say hot line, I mean Delta's 

4 ethics and compliance help line. Okay? What 

5 is the purpose of the hot line?

6 A To report concerns to Delta.

7 Q Is it any other purpose other than 

8 just reporting? Is it to try to get a concern 

9 resolved or fixed or corrected, or is it just 

10 to report it? 

11 A I would say it's all those things.

12 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

13 Plaintiff's Exhibit 5.)

14 Q Mr. Franz, you've been handed 

15 Exhibit 5, and it is what appears to be a 

16 policy entitled Personnel Conduct Standards and 

17 Appearance Guidelines. Do you see that?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Am I correct that this is a policy?

20 A It appears to be, yes.

21 MR. TUYN: Well, objection. It says 

22 guideline.

23 Q Well, let me ask. What's the 

24 difference between a guideline and a policy?

25 A In my definition, a policy would be 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.980 Filed 03/04/15 Page 26 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

26 (Pages 83 to 86)

83

1 this is -- it's black and white. A guideline 

2 may be gray.

3 Q Am I correct that you don't have to 

4 follow a guideline?

5 A No.

6 Q So you do have to follow a 

7 guideline?

8 A But it's a guideline, so there could 

9 be room to do something potentially 

10 differently.

11 Q So you don't have to 100 percent 

12 follow a guideline?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Do you have to 100 percent follow a 

15 policy?

16 A Yes. That's my definition.

17 Q Well, you're the HR manager. 

18 A I'm just --

19 Q Now, you're a senior person, so I'm 

20 willing to take your word for it. And the 

21 first page, you will see, is just a cover 

22 sheet. I just wanted to have something so we 

23 could know what this document is, but I did not 

24 put every page of it. 

25 You'll see the numbers at the bottom 

84

1 kind of skip because I didn't need all of the 

2 sections and I didn't want to ask you about all 

3 of the sections. But I thought it was only 

4 fair if I kind of told you where it came from, 

5 so to speak.

6 The second page has a 

7 nondiscrimination policy. Do you see that 

8 there?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And it indicates that in that first 

11 paragraph near the bottom right before you get 

12 to the first bullet point, it says, "The 

13 Director - Equal Opportunity is responsible for 

14 coordinating the day-to-day implementation of 

15 Delta's equal opportunity program."

16 Do you know who the director - equal 

17 opportunity is?

18 A Well, the head of equal opportunity 

19 is Melissa Seppings. I'm not sure if that's 

20 her title.

21 Q And it says the date -- have you 

22 seen this document before, first of all?

23 A I have.

24 Q It says, "the day-to-day 

25 implementation of Delta's equal opportunity 

85

1 program," and then it says, "which primarily 

2 consists of the following policies and 

3 objectives." Do you see that?

4 A Yes.

5 Q So those things that are listed 

6 directly under that sentence, would that be 

7 the, to the best of your knowledge, "the equal 

8 opportunity program," quote-unquote?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Now, understanding that the entire 

11 document is a guideline, but it indicates here 

12 that these are policies and objectives. So 

13 with that, does that mean that these bullet 

14 points are things that you have to follow? 

15 They're policies?

16 A Well, some are objectives.

17 Q Tell me which ones are policies and 

18 which ones are objectives. 

19 A I wouldn't be comfortable 

20 differentiating that.

21 Q Is that safe to say that you're 

22 unsure which ones are policies and objectives?

23 A I'm unsure how they would -- how 

24 equal opportunity would define it.

25 Q Is this policy only interpreted by 

86

1 equal opportunity, or do you use it in your 

2 day-to-day work as an HR manager?

3 A I would use the first bullet. I 

4 would not use the second bullet. I don't 

5 conduct business with outside firms. So some 

6 of it, yes, and some of it, no.

7 Q So as to that first bullet, is that 

8 a policy or an objective?

9 A I would say it's a policy.

10 Q The last bullet, "ensuring 

11 compliance with applicable laws," is that a 

12 bullet that you would make use of?

13 A Yes.

14 Q I understand why two and probably 

15 three you may not day-to-day make use of. 

16 Would bullet number four be a policy or an 

17 objective?

18 A I would say it's a policy.

19 Q In that paragraph under the fourth 

20 bullet point, it says, "involved as well as the 

21 company's obligations as a federal government 

22 contractor." So Delta is a federal government 

23 contractor?

24 A That's what it says.

25 Q Are you aware of whether they're a 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.981 Filed 03/04/15 Page 27 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

27 (Pages 87 to 90)

87

1 federal contractor?

2 A I am not.

3 Q Have you ever seen -- in the last 

4 sentence, it indicates implementation of the 

5 company's affirmative action plan. Have you 

6 ever seen the company's affirmative action plan 

7 before?

8 A I've seen the Detroit plan, not 

9 necessarily the whole company's.

10 Q And under what circumstances did you 

11 come to see the Detroit affirmative action 

12 plan?

13 A We're provided a copy every year.

14 Q What can you tell me about Detroit's 

15 affirmative action plan? What is the Detroit 

16 affirmative action plan?

17 A I wouldn't be able to speak to the 

18 specifics.

19 Q You receive it every year?

20 A Yes.

21 Q Did you read it every year?

22 A Cover to cover? No.

23 Q Did you read any of it every year?

24 A Yeah.

25 Q The part that you read, what did it 

88

1 say?

2 A The part that I reviewed was the 

3 demographic information.

4 Q And when you say "the demographic 

5 information," is it the information that you 

6 yourself would be reporting or your department 

7 as to how many of each group works there?

8 A I wouldn't report it. But yes, 

9 it's that information.

10 Q Does it have any goals of where you 

11 would want to be as to those relative race 

12 categories?

13 A I don't believe so. It may. I 

14 don't recall.

15 Q And you would review those 

16 statistical -- that statistical data and 

17 information for Detroit for what reason?

18 A For knowledge.

19 Q What would you do with that 

20 knowledge? Anything in particular? I guess 

21 I'm trying to find out, did you do something? 

22 Do you read it and see the numbers and say, 

23 hey, we need to work on this or that? Or do 

24 you just read it and you just -- so you can 

25 just know?

89

1 A Well, I read it so I would know.

2 Q Would you take any action based on 

3 the numbers that are reported? Would you take 

4 any action as far as hiring? Would you create 

5 a retention plan? Would you do anything in 

6 particular after you review those numbers?

7 A No.

8 Q Based on your remembrance, the 

9 numbers that you saw in that report, were they 

10 satisfactory to you as far as the number of 

11 minorities that were employed within Delta at 

12 Detroit?

13 A There was nothing that stuck out, so 

14 yes.

15 Q Were there as many, to the best of 

16 your remembrance, African-Americans employed 

17 with Delta in Detroit as Caucasians?

18 A I don't recall.

19 Q But nothing stuck out in your mind?

20 A Correct.

21 Q Well, you worked there for quite 

22 some time. When you left the Detroit location, 

23 were there just as many African-Americans 

24 employed there as white employees?

25 A I couldn't speak to that. 

90

1 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 6.)

3 Q You've been handed Exhibit 6, 

4 Ms. Franz, and it is a document entitled 

5 Reliability. Do you see that?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And this appears to be a 

8 Delta-issued document; is that correct?

9 A It looks familiar. The formatting 

10 looks a little bit different, but yes.

11 Q Good. I'm glad you said that. 

12 Looking at the bottom where it says Personnel 

13 Practices Manual, what is the Personnel 

14 Practices Manual?

15 A Yeah, we don't have that anymore.

16 Q And when was the Personnel Practices 

17 Manual done away with?

18 A Well, it wasn't necessarily done 

19 away with. It was reformatted. I don't recall 

20 when that occurred.

21 Q Has this policy -- well, let me ask. 

22 Is this a policy? Is Exhibit 6 a policy?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Was this policy rolled over into the 

25 on-the-road document or off-the-road document?

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.982 Filed 03/04/15 Page 28 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

28 (Pages 91 to 94)

91

1 A No.

2 Q I don't recall -- am I'm using the 

3 right name?

4 A I don't think you're using the right 

5 term.

6 Q I'm not using the right name. 

7 There's a manual that I saw, and it has a big 

8 airplane on the front of it. And it says 

9 either on-the-road of off-the-road. I can't 

10 remember.

11 A Well, there's Rules of the Road. 

12 But no, this would not be in that document.

13 Q Where was this document rolled over 

14 into? Where is it now?

15 A The term that's used, I believe, 

16 online is -- I don't know exactly what it's 

17 called. I think the link says People Policies.

18 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

19 Plaintiff's Exhibit 7.)

20 Q You've been handed Exhibit 7. And 

21 it appears to be the same as Exhibit 6, but 

22 it's kind of set up a little bit different. Is 

23 this what you're meaning when you said it's 

24 like been reformatted?

25 A Yes.

92

1 Q So the way that you recall seeing it 

2 is how it looks in Exhibit 7; correct?

3 A I recall seeing it in both formats, 

4 but 7 is the more recent.

5 Q And we don't know when the format 

6 changed?

7 A I do not.

8 Q What is regular and predictable 

9 attendance?

10 A Are you asking me what that means?

11 Q Yes.

12 A So regular and predictable 

13 attendance, to me, means that you are reliable 

14 and you come to work.

15 Q Where can the reliability policy be 

16 found?

17 A On the company intranet site.

18 Q Intranet. Intranet?

19 A Yes.

20 Q And that's under People Policies; 

21 correct?

22 A Yes.

23 Q What are the other headers that you 

24 can remember? Because People Policies is an 

25 odd phrase. What other ones do they have? 

93

1 Other types of policies?

2 A No. Well, Operational Policies.

3 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

4 Plaintiff's Exhibit 8.)

5 Q I've handed you what has been marked 

6 as Exhibit 8, and it is a Topics Discussed with 

7 Agent for Jerrick Rodriques. Do you see that? 

8 A Yes.

9 Q And would this be Mr. Rodriques's 

10 journal?

11 A No.

12 Q What is the journal? I haven't been 

13 able to get a sense of what is the journal. If 

14 this isn't the journal, what is the journal?

15 A Well, I wouldn't call this a 

16 journal. This is the Northwest equivalent of 

17 the journal. So this is the electronic 

18 performance development system. We called it 

19 EPD. It's equivalent to the journal, but I 

20 would not call this a journal.

21 Q How would I know that I have the 

22 journal? What would I see that lets me know I 

23 have the journal?

24 A You would see dates and 

25 documentation of conversation that was -- that 

94

1 took place with Mr. Rodriques.

2 Q Is this document Exhibit 8 still 

3 utilized?

4 A No.

5 Q When did Delta stop utilizing this 

6 Exhibit 8?

7 A Around March of -- well, I'm not 

8 sure.

9 Q Okay. It says -- and that may 

10 explain why it says it. That was my question. 

11 It says, "Manager: Manager does not exist." 

12 Why?

13 A The system wasn't that robust to 

14 feed that. Everybody's would have said manager 

15 does not exist.

16 Q And then it says, "Manager 

17 reassignment on March 12, '12." Do you know 

18 why it says that?

19 A No.

20 Q And then up under that, it says, 

21 "Document Code S, nature of document, manager." 

22 Are those just the headings for each of those 

23 lines underneath?

24 A Yes.

25 Q And then there's a March -- I don't 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.983 Filed 03/04/15 Page 29 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

29 (Pages 95 to 98)

95

1 know. I think the date comes first in military 

2 date, so I'm going to say the 13th of March, 

3 2012. 

4 A Yes.

5 Q And then it has a number. But do we 

6 know what any of that means?

7 A So the number is the employee number 

8 of the person who pulled it up. So the B27556 

9 would be somebody's Northwest employee number. 

10 Date would have been auto-populated.

11 Q And when you say "auto-populated," 

12 what do you mean?

13 A When this was pulled up, it would 

14 have been March 13th of 2012.

15 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

16 Plaintiff's Exhibit 9.)

17 Q Ms. Franz, this e-mail from December 

18 11th of 2012 at 1800 hours has been marked as 

19 Exhibit 9. Do you see that? 

20 A Yes.

21 Q And this is an e-mail that you were 

22 cc'd on; correct?

23 A Yes.

24 Q And this is an e-mail that's 

25 regarding Mr. Rodriques's punch discrepancy. 

96

1 Do you see that?

2 A Yes.

3 Q If you would turn with me to the 

4 second page, the very last paragraph of 

5 Mr. Domingo De La Torre's e-mail indicates that 

6 Mr. Kotula has an additional incident of punch 

7 discrepancy that he would basically be 

8 providing at some later time. Do you see that?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Do you ever recall any additional 

11 date being brought in by Mr. Kotula?

12 A When you say "date," what do you 

13 mean? 

14 Q Yeah, date that there was a 

15 discrepancy. 

16 A No.

17 Q So we have above that four dates of 

18 discrepancy there. And I know we'll talk about 

19 the November 10th later, shortly actually, but 

20 there were four dates that were brought that 

21 are listed in this e-mail; correct?

22 A Yes.

23 Q And as far as you know, it was only 

24 those four dates that were taken under 

25 consideration in Mr. Rodriques's termination; 

97

1 correct?

2 A There were four dates, yes.

3 Q And not necessarily these four, and 

4 I get it. 

5 A Yeah.

6 Q Because we're going to talk about 

7 the one. 

8 A Okay.

9 Q But there were four dates; correct? 

10 A To the best of my knowledge, yes.

11 Q And why, if you know, were you cc'd 

12 on this e-mail from Mr. Kriksciun -- I didn't 

13 pronounce that right. 

14 A Kriksciun.

15 Q -- Kriksciun to Mr. Sarsour?

16 A I would believe it was because I was 

17 copied on the previous e-mail.

18 Q So it just carried on. So 

19 Mr. De La Torre copied you because he tends --

20 A Huh-uh, no. He sends it to his 

21 leader.

22 Q Let me back up. Okay. So he sent 

23 it to his leader, who sent it to -- 

24 A His leader.

25 Q -- his leader, and he brought you 

98

1 in?

2 A Correct.

3 Q So for whatever the reason, he felt 

4 HR needed to be aware of what was happening?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And so that's how you ended up being 

7 involved in what was happening with 

8 Mr. Rodriques at this stage?

9 A Can you repeat that question? 

10 Q Yeah. That's how you ended up being 

11 notified of what was happening with 

12 Mr. Rodriques?

13 A Yes.

14 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 10.)

16 Q Exhibit 10 is an e-mail from 

17 Mr. De La Torre to you dated December 17th of 

18 2012. And it has some attachments to it: 

19 documents and statements, journal, RFT for J. 

20 Rod., and support document. Do you see that?

21 A Yes.

22 Q And then he also asked, "Do you have 

23 a moment today to go over the documents and the 

24 RFT file?" Do you see that?

25 A Yes.

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.984 Filed 03/04/15 Page 30 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

30 (Pages 99 to 102)

99

1 Q Did you in fact meet with 

2 Mr. De La Torre to go over the documents in the 

3 RFT file?

4 A Yes.

5 Q And what assistance did 

6 Mr. De La Torre need that he wanted to go over 

7 the file with you? What did he need you to do?

8 A That's normal. That's normal 

9 protocol.

10 Q And what was the purpose in him 

11 going over the file with you?

12 A To show why he was recommending him 

13 for termination.

14 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.)

16 Q Exhibit 11 is dated December 18th, 

17 2012. It looks like it's a memo, and it's 

18 signed by you. Do you see that?

19 A Yes.

20 Q And the first sentence of the 

21 document says Note to File regarding Jerrick 

22 Rodriques. A note to what file?

23 A His employment file.

24 Q And you began the next sentence 

25 reporting the investigation into 

100

1 Mr. Rodriques's time card records, but dot, 

2 dot, dot. Who conducted the investigation?

3 A Domingo.

4 Q My mind is jumping, so my apologies. 

5 Could Mr. Culpepper have been demoted without 

6 his DM being aware?

7 A I don't believe so.

8 Q Could he have been demoted without 

9 the general manager being aware?

10 A I don't think so.

11 Q In the 11-17, back to Exhibit 11, 

12 11-17 of '12 summary of information, you give 

13 some information in regard to Mr. Rodriques and 

14 what occurred on November 17th. And you're 

15 welcome to take a moment and read to refresh 

16 your memory. 

17 Where did you get that information 

18 from that's provided under November 17th of 

19 2012?

20 A Domingo.

21 Q Did Mr. De La Torre tell you where 

22 he got that information?

23 A From Mr. Kotula.

24 Q Did he tell you whether he looked 

25 into it to see whether Mr. Rodriques's task 

101

1 line actually turned green indicating he had 

2 punched in?

3 A When you say who, who are you 

4 referring to? 

5 Q De La Torre. 

6 A He did not indicate that.

7 Q Did he indicate what Mr. Kotula had 

8 done to try to substantiate Mr. Rodriques's 

9 whereabouts on that day?

10 A Not that I recall.

11 Q So for the November 17th, November 

12 20th, and December 11th dates that are on this 

13 memo to the file or note to the file, you 

14 weren't directly involved in any of these 

15 steps, were you?

16 A That's correct.

17 Q Why is it you that wrote the note 

18 summary versus the individual who was involved, 

19 like Mr. De La Torre? Why would you write the 

20 summary versus him?

21 A I would -- this is my summary based 

22 upon what I saw in the file and my conversation 

23 with Domingo.

24 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 12.)

102

1 Q Exhibit 12 is an internal memo dated 

2 December 18th of 2012 from you to Tyesha Gray 

3 regarding Mr. Rodriques; correct?

4 A Yes.

5 Q And why did you send this memo to 

6 Ms. Gray?

7 A This is part of our recommendation 

8 for term process.

9 Q And do you know why the process 

10 requires this to be sent to Ms. Gray?

11 A She's my boss.

12 Q Are you just making her aware? Are 

13 you, as is indicated at the bottom, seeking her 

14 approval? What's the reason for sending it?

15 A So the reason is the operation is 

16 recommending his termination. I'm supporting 

17 it. So I'm sending it to her to get her 

18 support as well.

19 Q Did you and Mr. De La Torre discuss 

20 any discipline short of termination for 

21 Mr. Rodriques?

22 A Not that I recall.

23 Q Did you and Ms. Gray discuss any 

24 discipline short of termination for 

25 Mr. Rodriques?

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.985 Filed 03/04/15 Page 31 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

31 (Pages 103 to 106)

103

1 A Not that I recall.

2 Q Would you have been willing to hold 

3 that conversation if Mohammad Sarsour would 

4 have recommended something short of 

5 termination?

6 A We would have had discussion.

7 Q Would you have had that discussion 

8 if Mr. De La Torre would have recommended 

9 something short of termination?

10 A We would have had discussion, yes.

11 Q And of course, because it didn't 

12 happen, you can't say today whether you would 

13 have agreed to that or not, can you?

14 A No.

15 Q Now, this particular memo to 

16 Ms. Gray doesn't list the dates, you know, 

17 like, and I'm going to show you shortly, 

18 Mr. De La Torre actually put the dates and what 

19 was done. Your memo to Ms. Gray didn't include 

20 that detail. Why not?

21 A That's not -- I wouldn't include 

22 that. What I'm focused on is what is the 

23 violation that was -- what is the violation or 

24 the policy that was violated. That's what I'm 

25 intending to speak to.

104

1 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 13.)

3 Q Exhibit 13 is a checklist or appears 

4 to be a checklist for recommendation of 

5 termination of Mr. Rodriques. Do you see that?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And I know his name isn't on it, but 

8 I believe it's for Mr. Rodriques. Now, the 

9 second box says, "Date MSS transaction 

10 completed." What does that mean?

11 A It's a manager self-service. That's 

12 our system where the leaders would put in 

13 transactions for employees.

14 Q What kind of transactions for 

15 employees?

16 A In this particular case, it would 

17 have been a suspension transaction.

18 Q Now, the date that this indicates 

19 that the suspension transaction was put in is 

20 December 11th. Am I correct that Mr. Rodriques 

21 was suspended on the 12th?

22 A Well, he would have been spoken to 

23 on the 11th, so the suspension would have been 

24 effective the 12th.

25 Q And so his suspension was keyed in 

105

1 on the 11th?

2 A Yes.

3 Q And then the next line says, "RFT 

4 approval received; VP senior leader." What 

5 does that mean?

6 A That means we've spoken to the 

7 senior leader in the station.

8 Q Which was who?

9 A At the time, it would have been 

10 Andrew Zarras.

11 Q Give me the name again. 

12 A Andrew Zarras, Z-A-R-R-A-S.

13 Q And what is Mr. Zarras's role?

14 A He was the vice president.

15 Q And so who would have spoken to him?

16 A Most likely Mr. Kriksciun.

17 Q And when you say he would have been 

18 spoken to, for what reason?

19 A We're recommending termination of 

20 this employee and here's why and to gain his 

21 support.

22 Q RFT approval received, what does 

23 that mean?

24 A Rec for term approval received.

25 Q The recommendation for termination 

106

1 approval received. So that means that this VP 

2 person, Mr. Zarras, approved the recommendation 

3 of termination?

4 A Correct.

5 Q And that approval was on -- can you 

6 read that date there?

7 A I would say that's 12-13.

8 Q Me too. And so the actual 

9 recommendation for termination was approved the 

10 day after the effective date of Mr. Rodriques's 

11 suspension?

12 A From Mr. Zarras.

13 Q From Mr. Zarras. The day after the 

14 suspension?

15 A (Nods head affirmatively.)

16 Q Yes? 

17 A Yes.

18 Q And although the recommendation for 

19 termination was approved the day after his 

20 suspension, it still wasn't actually effective 

21 until January of 2013. Do you know why?

22 A Well, there's a process in between 

23 that.

24 Q I understand. But that's still a 

25 long time. So do you know why it took from -- 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.986 Filed 03/04/15 Page 32 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

32 (Pages 107 to 110)

107

1 everything at metro level, I'm going to call 

2 it, was completed by December 13th of 2012. 

3 A No, it wasn't.

4 Q Why did it take --

5 A Because -- did we look at -- because 

6 I met with Domingo on the 17th.

7 Q So -- 

8 A Right, so -- 

9 Q -- the senior VP approved it before 

10 you did?

11 A Yes.

12 Q So he didn't know the position HR 

13 was going to take at the time that he approved 

14 it?

15 A Correct.

16 Q The VP, is he only a VP over like 

17 operations?

18 A He would be the VP of airport 

19 customer service, so the above and below-wing.

20 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

21 Plaintiff's Exhibit 14.)

22 Q Exhibit 14, it's another e-mail. 

23 And it's an e-mail from you to Nhia Francis 

24 dated December 18th of 2012. And it states -- 

25 so the original report you received -- oh, 

108

1 yeah, that the 17th was not on the report sheet 

2 that you received for punches; correct?

3 A Well, there were several that 

4 weren't, according to this e-mail.

5 Q So you had to request from her his 

6 punches because he had already been suspended; 

7 correct?

8 A The data, yes.

9 Q Because you couldn't get them out of 

10 Kronos because he had already been suspended?

11 A I would not have been able to get 

12 them out of Kronos, period. I don't have 

13 access to Kronos. But our attendance 

14 coordinator would not have been.

15 Q And so you had not seen any of his 

16 punches. Or let me ask it a different way. 

17 Were any of his punches printed 

18 prior to this request to your knowledge?

19 A Not to my knowledge.

20 Q So when you got the RFT file, the 

21 punches, the Kronos punches for Mr. Rodriques, 

22 would they have been in that file at the time 

23 you received it?

24 A No.

25 Q So the Kronos punches is something 

109

1 that you requested after you were provided the 

2 file to review?

3 A Yes.

4 Q The same thing about the swipes, the 

5 County swipes. Were the County swipes in the 

6 file for Mr. Rodriques when you actually 

7 received it?

8 A I don't recall. They should have 

9 been in the file when I sent it. I don't know 

10 if they were in it originally.

11 Q So Ms. Francis did ultimately send 

12 you those November 17th punches; correct?

13 A Yes.

14 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 15.)

16 Q Exhibit 15 is an e-mail from you to 

17 Mr. De La Torre dated December 18th, 2012, at 

18 12:44. And you say to him, "Please see the 

19 attached punches." Did you send him some of 

20 the punches that you had received from 

21 Ms. Francis?

22 A It appears that way, yes.

23 Q You don't remember, though?

24 A Specifically, no. By reading the 

25 e-mail, yes, that's what occurred.

110

1 Q And then you point out to him, "In 

2 the RFT it states: November 10th, County swipe 

3 at 14:27 and punch in at 14:28." Do you see 

4 that?

5 A Yes.

6 Q Would there have been a problem if 

7 the County swipe was 14:27 and the punch in was 

8 14:28?

9 A I would want -- yes.

10 Q What would have been the problem?

11 A It takes more than a minute to get 

12 from where the bus swipe would be to the time 

13 clock.

14 Q How many minutes does it normally 

15 take to your knowledge?

16 A On average, I would -- I mean, I've 

17 never rode the bus. But from what I hear from 

18 employees, you know, roughly five minutes.

19 Q And so you bring it to his attention 

20 that there seemed to be some problem with the 

21 November 10th date that was in his list of four 

22 dates that were problematic with 

23 Mr. Rodriques. Am I correct in that?

24 A Yes.

25 Q Did Mr. De La Torre respond to you 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.987 Filed 03/04/15 Page 33 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

33 (Pages 111 to 114)

111

1 in e-mail, to the best of your remembrance, in 

2 regard to these punches?

3 A I don't recall.

4 Q So in fact, at the stage that 

5 Mr. De La Torre sent you the RFT file, it was 

6 incorrect in regard to that November 10th date?

7 A Yes.

8 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

9 Plaintiff's Exhibit 16.)

10 Q Exhibit 16 is a memo dated December 

11 15th of 2012 from Mr. De La Torre to 

12 Mr. Sarsour. Do you see that?

13 A Yes.

14 Q And again we have Mr. De La Torre 

15 listing those four dates that were at issue for 

16 Mr. Rodriques; correct?

17 A Yes.

18 Q And we know that ultimately that 

19 November 10th date was the incorrect actual 

20 date; correct?

21 A Yes.

22 Q And it did get corrected at some 

23 later point; right?

24 A Yes.

25 Q And that was before it was sent to 

112

1 corporate for final approval; correct?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Now, on that November 10th date, it 

4 says County swipe at the employee lot 14:27, 

5 punch in at 14:28. Do you see that?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And as you indicated, that would 

8 have been a problem because it takes more than 

9 a minute to get from the lot over to where the 

10 clock would be; correct?

11 A Yes.

12 Q And you estimated that it would take 

13 maybe five minutes to get from the one to the 

14 other; correct?

15 A Yes.

16 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

17 Plaintiff's Exhibit 17.)

18 Q Exhibit 17 is also dated December 

19 15th, and it is a memo from Mr. De La Torre to 

20 Mr. Sarsour. Do you see that?

21 A Yes.

22 Q And on this particular memo, it 

23 looks a little bit different because it 

24 actually has Mr. De La Torre's signature on it 

25 and it doesn't have a cc line to you; correct?

113

1 A No.

2 Q But it does have the date changed, 

3 and the date was changed from November 10th to 

4 November 8th; correct?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And it indicates County swipe at 

7 employee lot 14:27. And then above that is 

8 14:24 and a few seconds written in. Do you see 

9 that?

10 A Yes.

11 Q Do you recall there being an 

12 instance by which it was determined that 

13 Mr. Rodriques actually swiped the lot at 14:24?

14 A I don't recall that specific 

15 conversation, no.

16 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

17 Plaintiff's Exhibit 18.)

18 Q Plaintiff's Exhibit 18, I am going 

19 to represent to you that this is what Delta has 

20 indicated are swipes for Mr. Rodriques in the 

21 County lot. And if you could, take a look at 

22 the November 8th dates there.

23 A Uh-huh (affirmative).

24 Q And if you would, see the very first 

25 November 8th date says, 14:24 and 11 seconds at 

114

1 the bus entry lot. Do you see that?

2 A Yes.

3 Q And so that would be employee lot 

4 bus entry. That would be entering into the 

5 parking lot; correct?

6 A Yes.

7 Q So in fact, he did swipe at 14:24 

8 and 11; correct?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Now, had you seen these swipes 

11 before today?

12 A Yes.

13 Q And so at some point, did you become 

14 aware that Mr. Rodriques actually swiped the 

15 lot at 14:24?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And then it goes on -- and did you 

18 become aware of that before the recommendation 

19 for termination package was sent to corporate?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And in spite of that, the 

22 correction, the date of November 8th was still 

23 left on his list of perceived infractions and 

24 sent to corporate?

25 A What do you mean?

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.988 Filed 03/04/15 Page 34 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

34 (Pages 115 to 118)

115

1 Q Yeah. You still told corporate that 

2 he had inconsistencies on November 8th also; 

3 right?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Let's look at the next entry, 

6 November 8th, 14:27 and 53 seconds, the door 

7 reader. Do you see that there?

8 A Yes.

9 Q Does that indicate or mean that 

10 Mr. Rodriques had gone through one of the 

11 doors?

12 A Yes.

13 Q At 14:27?

14 A That's correct.

15 Q And that was three minutes and 42 

16 seconds after he pulled into the lot?

17 A Yes.

18 Q So that was just about four minutes 

19 after he pulled into the lot?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And so what would be wrong if he -- 

22 well, let me go to the next one. 

23 And then on Exhibit 17, it says he 

24 had no punch in; however, a PACE slip for 14:28 

25 start was submitted. Do you see that?

116

1 A Uh-huh (affirmative).

2 Q Yes? 

3 A Yes.

4 Q So if he walked in the door at 14:27 

5 and 53 seconds, what was wrong with him putting 

6 14:28, a minute later, as his start time on the 

7 PACE sheet?

8 A What was his shift start time?

9 Q I don't know.

10 A Oh.

11 Q I just know that -- 

12 A But you're asking me if there's an 

13 issue or not.

14 Q No. The issue -- 

15 A I would have to know the start time.

16 Q The issue here, my understanding, 

17 and maybe you can tell me because I don't want 

18 to testify, is not that he was tardy. It was 

19 that he falsified the time, that he could not 

20 have possibly been at work at 14:28 because he 

21 wasn't in the lot. 

22 That's what I've been hearing. 

23 That's what's written on everything. He wasn't 

24 in the lot. He couldn't have possibly been 

25 here. But in fact, he was in the lot. And in 

117

1 fact, he swiped through another door all prior 

2 to 14:28. So what was the problem?

3 A I don't know.

4 Q If you could go back, and we're 

5 going to work through them a little bit more, 

6 Exhibit 16, Mr. De La Torre indicated in the 

7 paragraph under the bullet points, "After 

8 further investigation, we have come to the 

9 conclusion that this is a case of time card 

10 fraud." 

11 So was Mr. De La Torre in fact 

12 recommending Mr. Rodriques's termination 

13 because of time card fraud?

14 A Yes.

15 MR. TUYN: You referenced 

16 Exhibit 16. Exhibit 17 -- 

17 MS. BROCK: I did. 

18 MR. TUYN: -- is the same -- 

19 MS. BROCK: I know what it says, 

20 Counsel. If you have a question you want to 

21 ask her, please ask her in your redirect. I am 

22 going to get to that document. But I do not 

23 want you feeding this witness testimony.

24 MR. TUYN: I'm not feeding 

25 testimony. I'm objecting because -- 

118

1 MS. BROCK: Well, what's the -- 

2 MR. TUYN: -- you are relying on an 

3 unsigned document.

4 MS. BROCK: What's the objection 

5 under the Rules of Evidence? What is your 

6 objection? 

7 MR. TUYN: Lack of foundation.

8 MS. BROCK: Then that's fine. We 

9 accept your lack of foundation objection. 

10 Thank you.

11 Q Exhibit 17. So your testimony is 

12 that at this point you're unsure as to what the 

13 problem was with the November 8th date; 

14 correct?

15 A That's correct.

16 Q Did you at the time that you were 

17 working through this recommendation of 

18 termination, did it sink in with you that on 

19 that date he really had gotten here on that 

20 date?

21 A It did not.

22 Q And at some later point, wasn't it 

23 brought to your attention -- and it's going to 

24 come up a little bit later. Maybe in his 

25 appeal I think is where it's going to come up, 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.989 Filed 03/04/15 Page 35 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

35 (Pages 119 to 122)

119

1 and we'll get to it, so I'm not trying to 

2 blindside you. 

3 At some later point, didn't it come 

4 to your attention that Mr. Rodriques actually 

5 said that Mr. De La Torre said that November 

6 8th date would not be included and he had given 

7 him a piece of paper and scratched it off. Do 

8 you remember that coming up?

9 A I remember that being 

10 Mr. Rodriques's claim, yes.

11 Q And so now does that make a little 

12 bit more sense that in fact he was told, don't 

13 worry about the November 8th date, that it 

14 wouldn't be included because he was actually 

15 here on that date and on time? Or at least he 

16 was here in time for 14:28. We don't know what 

17 time his shift started that day. 

18 A Can you rephrase that for me.

19 Q Sure. Doesn't it make sense that 

20 Mr. Rodriques would have said, hey, he told me 

21 that that date wouldn't even be considered 

22 because, in fact, he was -- he was there on 

23 that date?

24 A Well, I can't speak to that. I 

25 wasn't in the conversation.

120

1 Q Right. 

2 A So.

3 Q But you can speak to whether it 

4 makes sense or not that that's what occurred. 

5 Did it make sense that, yeah, he said that this 

6 date wouldn't even be considered?

7 A It makes sense that, based on these 

8 dates, it appears as though he was there. I 

9 can't draw the conclusion that it makes sense 

10 that Domingo said what he said because I wasn't 

11 there.

12 Q Do you recall reading in the 

13 recommendation for termination file where 

14 Mr. De La Torre indicated, and you quoted it to 

15 corporate on an occasion or two, and I think 

16 we'll get to it, that Mr. Rodriques said that 

17 the November 6 date was some sort of oversight 

18 and had mentioned that he was voting on that 

19 day. Do you remember that?

20 A I remember that. I don't recall 

21 when it occurred in the chain of events.

22 Q Now, Mr. De La Torre also made other 

23 changes from Exhibit 16 to Exhibit 17. He 

24 changed the description of what Mr. Rodriques 

25 did to, "We have determined that Mr. Rodriques 

121

1 has fraudulently submitted his time records." 

2 Do you see that?

3 A Yes.

4 Q Where on Exhibit 16, he had 

5 indicated that Mr. Rodriques had committed time 

6 card fraud; correct?

7 A Yes.

8 Q Did you instruct Mr. De La Torre to 

9 change his phrasing to fraudulently submitted 

10 his time records?

11 A I don't recall that specific 

12 conversation. I frequently change or make 

13 recommendations for change on these.

14 Q But you don't recall?

15 A No.

16 Q Do you recall whether anyone else 

17 told Mr. De La Torre to change the use of his 

18 language?

19 A No, I do not.

20 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

21 Plaintiff's Exhibit 19.)

22 Q Ms. Franz, you've been handed what 

23 has been marked as Exhibit 19. 

24 A Yes.

25 Q And it is an e-mail dated December 

122

1 18th of 2012. And it is from you to Tyesha 

2 Gray. Do you see that?

3 A Yes.

4 Q And you indicate in the e-mail to -- 

5 and Ms. Gray is your direct report; correct? 

6 She's your boss. She was your boss at the 

7 time?

8 A Yes.

9 Q And you included Mr. Rodriques's RFT 

10 HR - Time card.doc. Do you see that?

11 A Uh-huh (affirmative).

12 Q Yes? 

13 A Yes.

14 Q And Mr. Rodriques's RFT OPS -- 

15 operations?

16 A Yes.

17 Q -- - Time Card.doc; correct?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And in the body of the e-mail, you 

20 tell Ms. Tyesha that this termination is for 

21 time card fraud; correct?

22 A Yes.

23 Q So in fact, Mr. Rodriques was 

24 terminated for time card fraud?

25 A Yes.

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.990 Filed 03/04/15 Page 36 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

36 (Pages 123 to 126)

123

1 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 20.)

3 Q Exhibit 20 is an e-mail dated 

4 December 21st from you to Mr. Sarsour. Do you 

5 see that?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Now, the content of this e-mail is 

8 blank. It has an attachment, but the actual 

9 content is blank. Do you know why this e-mail 

10 is blank?

11 A No.

12 Q Was it typical for you to send 

13 Mr. Sarsour an e-mail with no content?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Why?

16 A We might have been on the phone. It 

17 could be a variety of reasons. He may have 

18 asked me in person for a copy of it. A wide 

19 variety of reasons why I would send an e-mail 

20 without -- he knows why it's coming. 

21 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

22 Plaintiff's Exhibit 21.)

23 Q Plaintiff's Exhibit 21 is an e-mail 

24 dated January 9th of 2013, and it's from Lisa 

25 Ali to Mr. De La Torre and Mr. Sarsour with you 

124

1 cc'd as well as Ms. Gray. Do you see that?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Who is Lisa Ali?

4 A She was the ACS -- I think her title 

5 was coordinator.

6 Q And what does ACS stand for?

7 A Airport customer service.

8 Q And is she located here in Atlanta?

9 A She was.

10 Q Or was she?

11 A Yes.

12 Q Is she still located in Atlanta?

13 A No.

14 Q Is she still an employee of Delta to 

15 the best of your knowledge?

16 A No, she's not.

17 Q And Ms. Ali instructed 

18 Mr. De La Torre and Mr. Sarsour and yourself 

19 and Ms. Gray via cc to inform Mr. Rodriques 

20 that he could appeal the termination decision; 

21 correct?

22 A Yes.

23 Q And was Mr. Rodriques informed that 

24 he could appeal the termination decision?

25 A I wasn't on that call, so I can't 

125

1 attest to that.

2 Q Do you know who informed him of his 

3 termination?

4 A I don't recall.

5 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

6 Plaintiff's Exhibit 22.)

7 Q Exhibit 22, an e-mail from you to 

8 Mr. Kriksciun, and it's dated January 9th of 

9 2013. And you say, "Here is the one for 

10 Rodriques." What did you mean by, "Here is the 

11 one"? Were you sending him multiple 

12 recommendations for termination, or do you 

13 remember what was going on?

14 A I don't recall.

15 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

16 Plaintiff's Exhibit 23.)

17 Q Exhibit 23, it is an e-mail from you 

18 to Lisa Ali dated January 10th of 2013; 

19 correct?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And so this e-mail is you notifying 

22 corporate that Mr. Rodriques was told about the 

23 termination; correct?

24 A Yes.

25 Q And you indicated that you're not 

126

1 the one who actually told him; right?

2 A I don't think I indicated that, but 

3 I was not.

4 Q Oh, because you told me you weren't 

5 sure who told him and -- 

6 A Okay.

7 Q -- who -- you're not getting ready 

8 to drive me crazy. I'm doing the best I can. 

9 So you didn't tell him, and you don't recall 

10 who told him?

11 A That's correct.

12 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

13 Plaintiff's Exhibit 24.)

14 Q Exhibit 24 is an e-mail from you to 

15 Ms. Kelley Nabors regarding an appeal for 

16 Jerrick Rodriques. Who is Kelley Nabors?

17 A Kelley Nabors is part of our equal 

18 opportunity department.

19 Q Does the equal opportunity 

20 department investigate the appeals of 

21 terminations? Is that part of their duties?

22 A Yes.

23 Q Going to the second page, the 

24 earlier of the e-mails, the April 1st e-mail 

25 between you and Ms. Nabors, she mentioned to 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.991 Filed 03/04/15 Page 37 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

37 (Pages 127 to 130)

127

1 you -- here's where you were told that 

2 Mr. Rodriques said that he was told the 

3 November 8th date would not be included and 

4 that Mr. De La Torre had scratched off that 

5 date and given him the slip; correct?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And she asked you to follow up with 

8 Mr. De La Torre and with Carla Bell; correct?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Who is Carla Bell?

11 A She's a performance leader or was.

12 Q Is she still an employee of Delta?

13 A Yes.

14 Q What is her current position?

15 A I don't know. She's not a 

16 performance leader anymore. I'm not sure what 

17 her actual title is.

18 Q Did she go up or down?

19 A I don't know. She took a corporate 

20 position, so I don't know if it was up, down, 

21 or sideways.

22 Q Okay. Is she out here now?

23 A I don't know where she's physically 

24 located.

25 Q Now, I understand that Ms. Bell was 

128

1 on medical during this time. Did you ever 

2 confer with Ms. Bell after she returned from 

3 medical as to this scratching off of that 

4 8th date and this slip of paper?

5 A Not that I recall.

6 Q And Mr. De La Torre, according to 

7 your e-mail, said that he didn't have any 

8 recollection of telling him that that date 

9 wouldn't count and scratching off and giving 

10 any papers; correct?

11 A That's not in this e-mail.

12 Q All right. Give me a second. I'll 

13 have it for you. But you did follow up with 

14 Mr. De La Torre?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And he did in fact tell you that he 

17 didn't remember giving him anything; correct?

18 A That's -- yes, that's my -- yes.

19 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

20 Plaintiff's Exhibit 25.)

21 Q I have the e-mail. I do actually 

22 have it. Exhibit 25, Ms. Franz, is the e-mail.

23 A Thank you.

24 Q You're welcome. It's dated April 

25 8th of 2013, and it's where you tell Ms. Nabors 

129

1 that you spoke with Mr. De La Torre and that he 

2 doesn't have any recollection of any of that; 

3 correct?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Also in this e-mail is where you 

6 indicate that this conversation between 

7 Mr. De La Torre and Mr. Rodriques should have 

8 been placed in Mr. Rodriques's journal. But 

9 based on her question, it looks like it might 

10 not be there; correct?

11 A Correct.

12 Q Did you ever pull his journal to see 

13 if it was there?

14 A I wouldn't have had the journal at 

15 this point. It would have gone with the file.

16 Q And do you recall seeing this 

17 conversation in the journal?

18 A I don't recall.

19 Q And you re-quote -- well, let me ask 

20 it. The paragraph that starts with, "During 

21 the interview, I questioned," is that a cut and 

22 paste of Mr. De La Torre's e-mail to you at 

23 some earlier point?

24 A According to this e-mail, yeah. It 

25 says it was a e-mail I received from him the 

130

1 day of suspension.

2 Q Yeah. I just didn't -- I want to 

3 ask you about it, but I didn't want to make the 

4 leap that this was not you talking because it 

5 doesn't have quotation marks. 

6 A Oh, yeah. No.

7 Q So I just wanted you to say that. 

8 A Okay.

9 Q I knew it wasn't, but I needed you 

10 to say it. 

11 A Okay.

12 Q And you were letting Ms. Nabors know 

13 that Mr. De La Torre says he admitted to 

14 turning in the slip on the 5th for a start time 

15 of 14:28; correct?

16 A Correct.

17 Q But in reality, he wasn't on the 

18 premises until 16:19. And he said it was some 

19 sort of oversight; correct?

20 A Yes.

21 Q Did you know at that point that this 

22 oversight that occurred on that day had 

23 anything to do with him being voting -- voting 

24 on that day, that it was Election Day?

25 A At what point?

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.992 Filed 03/04/15 Page 38 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

38 (Pages 131 to 134)

131

1 Q At this point, did you know?

2 A No.

3 Q At some later point, did you come to 

4 know that Mr. Rodriques was saying, I was out 

5 voting that day, and there was -- this is just 

6 a mistake?

7 A Yes.

8 Q When did you become aware of that?

9 A I don't recall timing.

10 Q Was it before or after you 

11 recommended his termination?

12 A After.

13 Q How did you become aware?

14 A I don't -- I don't recall. I just 

15 remember that conversation.

16 Q Were you aware that Mr. Rodriques 

17 had notified his PL, Mr. Ortiz, that he was 

18 running late that day?

19 A That was the conversation.

20 Q When you say, "that was the 

21 conversation," what are you meaning? Is that 

22 the conversation you're recalling where you 

23 found out that he was saying he was voting?

24 A Yes.

25 Q And you found out in the context of 

132

1 him -- someone saying, I know right now -- 

2 A Yeah.

3 Q -- you're not able to remember who, 

4 but someone saying he called in to Mr. Ortiz 

5 and told him that he was voting. He was 

6 running late because he was voting. 

7 A Yes.

8 Q Did you ever speak to Mr. Ortiz 

9 about Mr. Rodriques's claim that he had been 

10 texting him that day, letting him know he was 

11 going to be late, that this wasn't a secret, 

12 that he had been telling his PL that he was 

13 going to be late that day?

14 A I did talk to Mr. Ortiz, yes.

15 Q Did Mr. Ortiz confirm that 

16 Mr. Rodriques had been telling him that he was 

17 going to be late that day?

18 A He remembered the conversation, yes. 

19 I didn't get the specifics of what that 

20 conversation was.

21 Q Did he indicate that he had approved 

22 Mr. Rodriques to be late that day because he 

23 was out voting?

24 A I don't know that he said approved. 

25 He said he was aware.

133

1 Q And if Mr. Ortiz, and this is -- in 

2 all fairness, I don't have testimony to this. 

3 I'm not trying to tell you that this occurred. 

4 I just have a question based on what happened 

5 with Mr. Culpepper. 

6 If Mr. Ortiz can say that he gave 

7 Mr. Rodriques permission to sign in at 14:28 on 

8 that day, would this now not be time card 

9 fraud? And if the question doesn't make sense, 

10 let me take you back to your testimony.

11 You testified that, because 

12 Mr. Culpepper gave Mr. Conover permission to 

13 stay punched in on the clock and to go over and 

14 do whatever Mr. Conover was doing that day, 

15 that that would not be time card fraud because 

16 he had permission from his PL to do so. 

17 A Uh-huh (affirmative).

18 Q So my -- yes? Yes?

19 A Yes.

20 Q So my question to you is: If 

21 Mr. Ortiz gave Mr. Rodriques that same kind of 

22 permission, November 6 would not have been 

23 considered time card fraud; correct? 

24 MR. TUYN: Just a foundational 

25 objection. It's not what the evidence is in 

134

1 the case. 

2 MS. BROCK: Okay. That's not what 

3 your interpretation of the evidence is, but I'm 

4 not representing that to her. That's for 

5 argument's sake. 

6 MR. TUYN: The way you phrased it 

7 was that he gave him permission to put -- 

8 MS. BROCK: I asked the question.

9 MR. TUYN: -- 14:28 down on his time 

10 card.

11 MS. BROCK: I asked the question, 

12 and I said to her I'm not representing anything 

13 as fact to her before I even started the 

14 question. But go ahead. Because that's going 

15 to be my argument, and I don't want to put that 

16 on you.

17 MR. TUYN: All right. Well, 

18 official objection -- 

19 Q So my question is -- 

20 MR. TUYN: -- that you're asking the 

21 witness to speculate.

22 MS. BROCK: Okay. Now that's a good 

23 one.

24 Q So my question to you is, is that, 

25 if Mr. Ortiz actually gave Mr. Rodriques 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.993 Filed 03/04/15 Page 39 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

39 (Pages 135 to 138)

135

1 permission to put 14:28 on his time card even 

2 though he didn't get here until 16:19, would 

3 that still be time card fraud?

4 A I'm just thinking through.

5 Q Please.

6 A So you're stating that he, 

7 Mr. Ortiz, said, I know you weren't here, put 

8 the 14:28 on your time card, and I'll pay you 

9 for the time that you were voting.

10 Q Only --

11 A Then yes, I would say that would not 

12 have been time card fraud.

13 Q And I'm only willing to go that far 

14 if you're saying Mr. Culpepper told 

15 Mr. Conover, you can stay punched in and get 

16 paid even though you're going to go somewhere 

17 else.

18 MR. TUYN: Well, and that's not in 

19 evidence either. So lack of foundation to 

20 that.

21 MS. BROCK: She testified that her 

22 understanding was that Mr. Culpepper gave him 

23 permission. I don't want to say to go sleep 

24 because she didn't say to go sleep, so I said 

25 to go somewhere else because I didn't want to 

136

1 put that word in your mouth. 

2 But that was her testimony, that 

3 Mr. Culpepper gave him permission and that 

4 that's why it was not time card fraud. I just 

5 asked the very same thing in regard to 

6 Mr. Rodriques.

7 Q If his PL, Mr. Ortiz, gave him 

8 permission, would it not be time card fraud? 

9 A Gave him permission to be paid for 

10 voting and --

11 Q Paid. Paid, period. 

12 A -- and gave that authorization -- 

13 Q Paid, period. 

14 A I'm -- 

15 MR. TUYN: That wasn't what the 

16 question was. The question was gave him 

17 permission to put 14:28 down on a time card. 

18 Q I like that question better, so 

19 let's stick with it, to put 14:28 on his time 

20 card. 

21 A I'm not sure I understand the 

22 question.

23 Q Yeah. I like his question much 

24 better than mine. His is way better than 

25 mine. 

137

1 So if Mr. Ortiz gave Mr. Rodriques 

2 permission to put 14:28 on his time card, would 

3 that now not be time card fraud?

4 A He had authorization from his PL. 

5 No.

6 Q If you could, turn back to 

7 Exhibit 17. It's really 16 and 17. But for 

8 Attorney Tuyn's consideration, we'll focus on 

9 Exhibit 17. Mr. De La Torre indicated that 

10 during the investigation of Mr. Rodriques's 

11 payroll records, multiple time discrepancies, 

12 none of which he has been able to explain. You 

13 see that there?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Didn't Mr. Rodriques in fact explain 

16 one of his -- at least one, because we don't 

17 know the conversation as to the 8th, the 

18 November 8th date. But as for the November 6th 

19 date, didn't he explain that that was some sort 

20 of oversight? I'm not even talking about going 

21 into the election stuff. 

22 A He said it could have been an 

23 oversight.

24 Q So that is an explanation; correct? 

25 I mean, Mr. De La Torre may not have believed 

138

1 it, but it was an explanation; correct?

2 A I'm not sure that I would consider 

3 that an explanation. It could have been an 

4 oversight on his part. I mean, that's what 

5 he's stating, but I don't know that I would 

6 consider that an explanation.

7 Q But at some point, an actual 

8 explanation was proffered, correct, or given, 

9 correct, as far as him voting, him talking to 

10 Ortiz? Some explanation for the November 6 

11 date was given at some later point; correct?

12 A I recall that. I don't remember 

13 when that was.

14 Q But you don't know when it was?

15 A Right.

16 Q But you know at some later point an 

17 explanation was actually provided for that?

18 A Yes.

19 MR. TUYN: Are we at a point where 

20 we can take a break?

21 MS. BROCK: Yeah. Now's fine.

22 (Proceedings in recess, 12:22 p.m to 

23 12:37 p.m.)

24 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 26.)

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.994 Filed 03/04/15 Page 40 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

40 (Pages 139 to 142)

139

1 Q Ms. Franz, you have been handed what 

2 has been marked as Exhibit 26, and it is a 

3 document that the first block on it is dated 

4 January 28th of 2013. And it says, "Received 

5 appeal." Do you see that there?

6 A Yes.

7 Q Have you ever seen this document 

8 before today?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Did you see it before yesterday?

11 A No.

12 Q And you did not draft this document 

13 then; correct?

14 A No, I did not.

15 Q If you could turn to the second 

16 page, and approximately in the middle of the 

17 page there's a small paragraph, a one-sentence 

18 paragraph that says, "Jerrick also said that 

19 Domingo told him not to worry about the 

20 November 8th, 2012, date. And he scratched off 

21 the date and gave the slip to Jerrick to keep." 

22 Do you see that?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Who provided this information to 

25 Ms. Nabors?

140

1 A I don't know.

2 Q And I do know that there was an 

3 e-mail that we talked about a little bit 

4 earlier where you told Ms. Nabors on April 8th 

5 of 2013 that Mr. De La Torre didn't remember 

6 anything about scratching anything off. But 

7 you don't know who actually informed her in the 

8 first place. 

9 You don't have personal knowledge. 

10 I think she tells us, but you don't have 

11 personal knowledge of who told her that?

12 A No.

13 MR. TUYN: Well, the document itself 

14 is talking about a conversation that EO had 

15 with Jerrick Rodriques.

16 MS. BROCK: I get it. I just wanted 

17 to know if she had any personal knowledge about 

18 it. 

19 Q And then she puts in parentheses, 

20 "follow up on this comment has been requested 

21 from HR." And that's referring to the e-mail 

22 that she sent you asking you to talk to Carla 

23 Bell and to Mr. De La Torre. Am I correct in 

24 that?

25 A I didn't write that. I would assume 

141

1 so, but. 

2 Q Oh, okay. And then she also says in 

3 italics a little bit further down, "I received 

4 an investigation summary from HR that explains 

5 the difference between all of the employees and 

6 why two employees were not terminated and the 

7 action they were placed on. The two who were 

8 not terminated had different circumstances than 

9 those who were terminated." Do you see that 

10 there?

11 A Yes.

12 Q Did you provide her with the 

13 investigation summary?

14 A I don't recall doing that, but I 

15 very well could have.

16 Q Was there someone else under your 

17 supervision that Ms. Nabors would have been in 

18 touch with during an appeal investigation?

19 A No.

20 Q So when she says HR, in essence 

21 she's saying Ms. Franz. Am I correct?

22 A Yes. I think that's a fair 

23 assumption.

24 Q So at least in her notes, she's 

25 saying it was you that sent her the 

142

1 investigation summary for Conover and 

2 Culpepper; correct?

3 A No. It doesn't say who.

4 Q Well, it just says why the two 

5 employees were not terminated. I don't know of 

6 any other two. Do you know of any other two 

7 that were not terminated?

8 A Are there two -- there's lots of 

9 employees who were not terminated.

10 Q Of the two employees that were not 

11 terminated in regard -- oh, the paragraph above 

12 says Chris Culpepper and Jason Conover. So as 

13 to those two individuals, did you send the 

14 investigation summary from HR? Did you send 

15 her an -- well, do you recall sending her an 

16 investigation summary? 

17 A I don't recall specifically doing 

18 that.

19 Q Do you recall informing her that the 

20 two who were not terminated had different 

21 circumstances?

22 A I remember having that conversation, 

23 yes.

24 Q And what about their circumstances 

25 were different from Mr. Rodriques?

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.995 Filed 03/04/15 Page 41 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

41 (Pages 143 to 146)

143

1 A With Chris Culpepper and Jason 

2 Conover, I think the two differentiating 

3 factors were that Mr. Culpepper provided 

4 Mr. Conover the authorization as well as the 

5 fact that it was a one-time incident, if I 

6 recall correctly.

7 Q But you don't remember seeing any of 

8 Mr. Conover or Mr. Culpepper's swipes or Kronos 

9 punches, do you, County swipes or Kronos 

10 punches?

11 A No.

12 Q So how do you know it was a one-time 

13 incident with the two of them?

14 A Based on the investigation that was 

15 conducted by the leader.

16 Q So not an investigation you looked 

17 into or conducted; correct?

18 A Correct.

19 Q Based on what someone else told 

20 you -- 

21 A It was a one -- 

22 Q -- this was a one-time thing?

23 A Correct.

24 Q Do you know whether they looked at 

25 Mr. Culpepper's or Mr. Conover's punches and 

144

1 swipes?

2 A They did, yes.

3 Q When I say "punches," I mean Kronos. 

4 When I say "swipes," I mean County swipes. 

5 A Yes.

6 Q How do you know that?

7 A They told me that.

8 Q Yeah. But they didn't tell you that 

9 they docked their pay, so you're saying that 

10 you believe what they told you?

11 A Absolutely.

12 Q So they told you -- and which is the 

13 "they"? Who actually said they looked at them?

14 A I don't recall specifically, but I 

15 believe it was in the e-mail communication.

16 Q I don't have any e-mails regarding 

17 Conover and Culpepper, so. 

18 A Oh, okay. I don't recall where that 

19 took place, but I do remember asking that 

20 question.

21 Q Somebody, but you don't know who, 

22 told you that they looked at Conover's and 

23 Culpepper's punches and swipes?

24 A Yes.

25 Q And they would have had to have 

145

1 requested those swipes from the County; 

2 correct?

3 A They wouldn't have been able to do 

4 it. It would have probably been the attendance 

5 coordinator who would have done so, yes.

6 Q And she can't do it either. She has 

7 to go to the person who has that authority to 

8 be able to actually e-mail over to Wayne 

9 County; correct?

10 A Okay. Yeah. 

11 Q So through the chain, they did 

12 request some swipes, because I'm -- I'm still 

13 working with Wayne County to get these swipes. 

14 And so you're saying that you know somebody 

15 told you, you don't know who at Delta, that 

16 they looked at the swipes from Mr. Conover and 

17 Mr. Culpepper during this period of time?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And after comparing those swipes to 

20 the Kronos time clocks, they said that there 

21 was no other incident other than this one 

22 incident that we're talking about in November 

23 2012?

24 A Correct.

25 Q So you gave me two reasons that the 

146

1 situation was different. One was because 

2 Culpepper actually gave Conover permission; 

3 correct?

4 A Yes.

5 Q If Culpepper gave Conover 

6 permission, why did they dock his pay, 

7 Conover's pay?

8 A I can't speak to that. I didn't 

9 make that decision.

10 Q And as far as the situation with 

11 Mr. Culpepper and Mr. Culpepper not working for 

12 part of his shift, what happened with 

13 Mr. Culpepper, do you still consider that to be 

14 different? 

15 I know you didn't know at the time. 

16 But do you still consider that as being 

17 different from what happened with 

18 Mr. Rodriques?

19 A Yes.

20 Q And how so?

21 A It was one day.

22 Q So it was okay that he punched in, 

23 did not work, was docked for that pay because 

24 he only did it once?

25 A I didn't say it was okay. I said it 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.996 Filed 03/04/15 Page 42 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

42 (Pages 147 to 150)

147

1 was different.

2 Q So the defining factor for 

3 Mr. Rodriques is the number of incidents. Am I 

4 correct?

5 A In addition to -- yeah, I mean, that 

6 was one of the factors, yes.

7 Q What were the other factors?

8 A I don't have the file to look at it. 

9 Was there -- 

10 Q I do. Would you like to see it? I 

11 have it, unless you can answer me.

12 A Okay. Ask me the question again. 

13 Sorry.

14 Q Sure. You said that it was 

15 different because it was one instance for 

16 Mr. Conover and one instance for Mr. Culpepper, 

17 that that was one of the things that made it 

18 different from what Mr. Rodriques did. 

19 I asked, so the difference was the 

20 number of instances? And you said, that among 

21 other things. I said, what else was different?

22 A I would say that is what was 

23 different.

24 MS. BROCK: Counsel, in addition to 

25 not receiving any investigation summary, we 

148

1 also didn't receive any e-mails where these 

2 documents were sent from Detroit to Atlanta or 

3 any communications back and forth in regard to 

4 those documents.

5 MR. TUYN: I don't know what you're 

6 referring to.

7 MS. BROCK: I'm specifically 

8 referring to an investigation summary from HR 

9 regarding Chris Culpepper and Jason Conover and 

10 the fact that it was sent to Ms. Nabors by HR, 

11 which is Ms. Franz.

12 MR. TUYN: It doesn't say an 

13 investigation summary regarding Culpepper and 

14 Conover. It says an investigation summary 

15 which explained the difference. So as far as I 

16 know, it may have been referring to the same 

17 information that this witness provided in 

18 investigating the hot line complaints where she 

19 differentiated between the two. 

20 That may have been the summary she 

21 sent. I don't know. It doesn't -- 

22 MS. BROCK: Well, we can speculate 

23 all day long. If it was produced, we would 

24 know.

25 MR. TUYN: Well, you say you didn't 

149

1 receive it. I know you received that.

2 MS. BROCK: Yeah, but it didn't go 

3 to Ms. Nabors. I don't have a communication 

4 where that document was sent to Ms. Nabors. 

5 And Ms. Nabors says it was sent to her. And so 

6 I don't have that. And if I did, I would have 

7 read it and I would have noted this is what it 

8 is and I wouldn't even be asking these 

9 questions. 

10 MR. TUYN: And, you know, if it was 

11 sent to her, I don't know how it was sent to 

12 her.

13 MS. BROCK: Exactly. All I'm 

14 asking -- 

15 MR. TUYN: It could have just been 

16 faxed to her. There might not be a cover 

17 e-mail.

18 MS. BROCK: All I'm asking is that 

19 you go back and look, Counsel. If there are 

20 faxing documents, then there should be a fax 

21 confirmation form. There should be something 

22 that can support a statement in an 

23 investigation, this is an investigation that 

24 was occurring, that she received this 

25 information. 

150

1 And I don't have anything showing 

2 that she received anything. I don't know what 

3 she received. I only know it was from 

4 Ms. Franz because she's saying that she's HR. 

5 MR. TUYN: All right. Well, if we 

6 need to supplement our discovery request, I'll 

7 take a look at it. 

8 MS. BROCK: I'd appreciated it.

9 MR. TUYN: But we don't have to 

10 argue it today. 

11 MS. BROCK: I'd appreciated it. 

12 Thank you.

13 MR. TUYN: I mean, as far as I know, 

14 investigation summary may have been a summary 

15 phone conversation.

16 MS. BROCK: It could be.

17 MR. TUYN: Where there wouldn't be 

18 any documentation.

19 MS. BROCK: It could be, except that 

20 she said she received it. And I've never heard 

21 anyone talk about receiving conversations. So 

22 all I want is the information, Counsel, really. 

23 Q If you would look at what is Bates 

24 stamped as page 61 at the bottom, it starts at 

25 the bottom, so don't get comfortable on this 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.997 Filed 03/04/15 Page 43 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

43 (Pages 151 to 154)

151

1 page because we're really going to flip. 

2 A Okay.

3 Q But I just wanted to take you where 

4 we started. April 15th, 2013. It says, "Hey, 

5 Barb. Can you tell me if there has been an 

6 incident with Lance Dowdell this year that 

7 would seemingly be WPV?" What does WPV stand 

8 for?

9 A Workplace violence.

10 Q Was there an incident with a Lance 

11 Dowdell?

12 A I don't recall that name.

13 Q Did you ever respond to Ms. Nabors? 

14 I don't see a response from you in her chain of 

15 stuff that was occurring.

16 A I don't recall that.

17 Q You don't recall whether you 

18 responded to her?

19 A Yeah. No, I don't. That name is 

20 familiar, but I don't recall the specifics.

21 MS. BROCK: Again, Counsel, and I'm 

22 not being difficult, but if when you look for 

23 the Conover-Culpepper information, if you could 

24 check the electronic data at Delta to see about 

25 a response to Ms. Nabors' inquiry here as to 

152

1 Mr. Dowdell in that Mr. Rodriques included him 

2 in his appeal.

3 Q Were you able to confirm or deny 

4 that there was a comment from those at the 

5 Detroit location that they were keeping the 

6 Lance Dowdell situation "away from ATL because 

7 they don't want the top dogs asking what the 

8 hell you are doing"?

9 A I don't recall that.

10 Q Were you able to confirm it or not?

11 A I don't remember this e-mail at all.

12 Q What race was Lance Dowdell?

13 A I don't know.

14 Q Now, we do know based on further 

15 down, April 8th, 2013, that effective March 4th 

16 of 2013 Lance Dowdell no longer works at Delta. 

17 Do we see that?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And you, sitting here today, can't 

20 recall why Mr. Dowdell is no longer employed?

21 A I cannot.

22 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

23 Plaintiff's Exhibit 27.)

24 Q Exhibit 27. Ms. Franz, Exhibit 27 

25 is an e-mail from you to Cassandra LeeAustin 

153

1 and Tyesha Gray. And you indicate that you 

2 have two compliance call, anonymous, on this 

3 issue and that you're collecting data. Do you 

4 see that?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And that was in response -- let me 

7 back up because these e-mails start from the 

8 bottom up. This was in response to a January 

9 9th inquiry by Ms. LeeAustin to Ms. Gray and 

10 you being cc'd saying that she had received a 

11 call from Mr. Rodriques. And he mentioned the 

12 two non-minority employees and what had 

13 happened with them; correct?

14 A Yes.

15 Q So Mr. Rodriques had made the 

16 company aware himself directly to 

17 Ms. LeeAustin that he felt that the two white 

18 employees were treated differently. He wants 

19 to understand why he's being treated 

20 differently than his non-minority peers. 

21 So he made the company aware that he 

22 felt that the two white employees were being 

23 treated differently; correct?

24 A Yes.

25 Q You then provide somewhat of a 

154

1 statement in regard to what happened with 

2 Mr. Culpepper and Mr. Conover in that paragraph 

3 that starts, "These other two employees he 

4 mentions had a completely different issue." Do 

5 you see that?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And when you gave that explanation, 

8 you only make mention of the Culpepper removing 

9 Conover from the RTS line; correct?

10 A Yes.

11 Q And that's because you didn't know 

12 about him, Culpepper, being punched in and away 

13 from his work station or not working?

14 A Correct.

15 Q Had you known, you certainly would 

16 have told them; correct?

17 A Told --

18 Q Yeah.

19 A -- Cassandra and Tyesha? 

20 Q Yeah. 

21 A Oh, absolutely.

22 Q Yeah. Who is Ms. Cassandra 

23 LeeAustin?

24 A She is or was a general manager in 

25 HR.

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.998 Filed 03/04/15 Page 44 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

44 (Pages 155 to 158)

155

1 Q Would she have worked here in 

2 Atlanta -- 

3 A Yes.

4 Q -- at that time? Is she still an 

5 employee of Delta?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And where is she now?

8 A Still here in Atlanta.

9 Q But she's not a general manager 

10 anymore?

11 A She is, just in a different area.

12 Q To the best of your knowledge, did 

13 anyone from corporate -- and when I say 

14 "anyone," I mean Ms. Nabors, Ms. Gray, 

15 Ms. LeeAustin -- conduct an independent 

16 investigation into Mr. Rodriques's claims of 

17 unfair treatment?

18 A Not to my knowledge.

19 Q So the information that those 

20 individuals had was the information you 

21 provided them to the best of your knowledge?

22 A Correct.

23 Q And you didn't have all of the 

24 information yourself; correct?

25 A What do you mean? 

156

1 Q Yeah. You didn't know about the 

2 docking of the pay. You didn't know about -- 

3 of both of them being docked. You didn't know 

4 about Culpepper being away from his work 

5 station and being docked because of it. You 

6 didn't know the whole story yourself, did you?

7 A No.

8 Q You told Ms. Gray to feel free to 

9 call you if she wanted to discuss it further. 

10 Do you recall whether she contacted you about 

11 that?

12 A I don't recall.

13 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

14 Plaintiff's Exhibit 28.)

15 Q These should go relatively quick 

16 because they look pretty much the same, so that 

17 should be a word of encouragement for you. 

18 This is Exhibit 28, and it is an Ethics and 

19 Compliance Reporting form. Do you see that?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And it is for a report number ending 

22 in 311. Do you also see that?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Have you seen this document before 

25 yesterday?

157

1 A Yes.

2 Q Did you conduct the ethics hot line 

3 investigation into complaints of race 

4 discrimination that involved Jerrick Rodriques?

5 A No.

6 Q Who conducted the investigation?

7 A Related to this complaint?

8 Q Yes.

9 A Well, it has a few components, so it 

10 was based upon the previous investigations that 

11 were conducted.

12 Q When you say "the previous 

13 investigations," are you talking about 

14 Mr. Kotula's investigation?

15 A Yes.

16 Q Mr. De La Torre's investigation?

17 A Yes.

18 Q You didn't conduct a separate 

19 investigation, did you?

20 A No.

21 Q So it would have been those two 

22 investigations. The information you provided 

23 in response to the appeal request -- 

24 A Yes.

25 Q -- are you considering that an 

158

1 investigation?

2 A No. I said I didn't conduct the 

3 investigation, so no.

4 Q So when you say that it was based on 

5 the investigation, it was based on information 

6 Mr. Kotula and Mr. De La Torre provided?

7 A Yes.

8 Q And so as far as you know, did 

9 anyone from corporate call and speak to anyone 

10 at Detroit about this situation, like witnesses 

11 to talk to people, to interview people, as far 

12 as you know?

13 A At the point that this was received?

14 Q Well, in response to it. Because 

15 you said there's a few components to the 

16 investigation of it. 

17 A No. I said there were a few 

18 components that we got information from. There 

19 were a few investigations that took place.

20 Q Maybe it will help me if you tell me 

21 what investigations took place, because you 

22 said there were a few investigations that took 

23 place.

24 A So this is referring to Chris 

25 Culpepper and claiming that his was time clock 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.999 Filed 03/04/15 Page 45 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

45 (Pages 159 to 162)

159

1 fraud, so that would have been -- I believe 

2 Mr. Sarsour was involved in that investigation. 

3 And then -- oh, sorry. Go ahead.

4 Q No, no, no. 

5 MR. TUYN: Well, no. I don't think 

6 you're done with your answer.

7 Q No, no. I do want you to answer. 

8 A Okay. So then it says Jerrick 

9 Rodriques was suspended because he punched the 

10 wrong number of hours and hasn't come back to 

11 work. So that would have been De La Torre. 

12 And then it says Fadi Beydoun was 

13 suspended for punching himself in and then 

14 going through the employee lot. I don't recall 

15 who conducted that investigation. 

16 And then it claims that I was 

17 contacted, but I was never contacted by 

18 Mr. Rodriques. So that's why I mean there are 

19 several parts to that.

20 Q So Mr. Rodriques never contacted you 

21 to find out when he would be coming back to 

22 work?

23 A Not that I recall, no.

24 Q He never contacted you to ask him 

25 why he had been suspended for such a long time?

160

1 A Huh-uh (negative), not that I 

2 recall.

3 Q Would anyone other than you have 

4 responded to this, responded to corporate 

5 regarding this 311 report?

6 A No.

7 Q And I think you said it already. 

8 But as far as you know, no one from corporate 

9 conducted an investigation outside of you into 

10 311 at metro?

11 A Not that I'm aware of.

12 Q Did anyone from corporate ever send 

13 you any communication saying, hey, we talked to 

14 people down there, and did you know this?

15 A No.

16 Q Now, you said you had seen this 

17 before yesterday. Did you receive this at the 

18 time that you were asked to look into it?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Who asked you to look into it?

21 A Well, it comes in e-mail, and it's a 

22 given to look into it. So I don't think anyone 

23 specifically told me.

24 Q The e-mail that it comes in, tell me 

25 about that e-mail. I may actually have that 

161

1 one. Tell me what it looks like. Is it an 

2 automatic from the third party? Is it -- tell 

3 me what that looks like.

4 A The original e-mail would be 

5 automated, and then I would receive it from 

6 Lisa Ali. Or would have received it from Lisa 

7 Ali, I should say.

8 Q So Ms. Ali in her former position as 

9 general manager?

10 A Huh-uh (negative). 

11 Q Am I wrong about that?

12 A Coordinator.

13 Q The general manager was the other 

14 person we just got finished talking about, 

15 Ms. LeeAustin?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And so Ms. Ali, she was in the EO 

18 department?

19 A No. She's in ACS.

20 Q And she's who would have forwarded 

21 you the actual report that came in?

22 A Yes.

23 Q And in her forwarding you the 

24 report, and again, I think I may have this 

25 e-mail, she would have said to you, look into 

162

1 this and let us know what's going on?

2 A I don't know that she would have 

3 said anything. It might have just been a 

4 forward, or it might have said, for your 

5 investigation. I don't know. Sometimes it 

6 says different things. But she would have just 

7 forwarded it to me, and I'd know what to do 

8 with it.

9 Q So when you received this report 

10 311, it indicates that Mr. Domingo is the 

11 person that is being accused, correct, because 

12 it says who. So it indicates that Mr. Domingo 

13 is who was being accused; correct?

14 A I don't see that.

15 Q Under Who, it says, "Caller, name 

16 declined, reported Unknown Domingo"?

17 A Oh, yes. I see that. Thank you.

18 Q Oh, you're welcome. I don't mind. 

19 And you understood that Domingo to be Domingo 

20 De La Torre; correct?

21 A Yes.

22 Q When you received this report, did 

23 you look into the reason why Mr. Rodriques's 

24 suspension was for such a long period of time?

25 A I did not look into it, no. I was 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1000 Filed 03/04/15 Page 46 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

46 (Pages 163 to 166)

163

1 aware.

2 Q Why was it such a long period of 

3 time?

4 A Part of the reason was the review 

5 process. The other part was, unfortunately, 

6 his suspension was over the holidays, and we 

7 have a practice of not communicating 

8 terminations during that period.

9 Q What is that period? When you say 

10 "that period," from when to when?

11 A It's a little different every year, 

12 so I don't know when it was at this point. But 

13 typically it's the week before Christmas 

14 through New Year's.

15 Q And so you would have been aware 

16 based on the statements of the caller, and I 

17 think this one may have actually been 

18 Mr. Rodriques, I don't have the number with me, 

19 but I think this one was him, that based on the 

20 anonymous call, that obvious discriminatory 

21 practices -- the person felt that there were 

22 obvious discriminatory practices happening in 

23 Detroit. 

24 So you knew that this was a 

25 discrimination complaint; correct?

164

1 A Yes.

2 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

3 Plaintiff's Exhibit 29.)

4 Q Exhibit 29. Now, Exhibit 29 is 

5 entitled ACS/CGO Compliance Call Report. Do 

6 you see that?

7 A Yes.

8 Q Have you seen this document before?

9 A Yes.

10 Q Now, I need to ask you about this 

11 document. When they were produced to me, 

12 you'll see that Exhibit 28 is right in front of 

13 what was marked as Exhibit 29. Do these two 

14 documents go together? Like when you see them, 

15 when you have them, when you receive 

16 Exhibit 28, would Exhibit 29 be the response to 

17 it? Do they go together?

18 A Exhibit 29 would be the response to 

19 the compliance calls, yes.

20 Q Do you do one of these for each 

21 call? And when I say "these," I mean 

22 Exhibit 29. 

23 A I do a template to respond to every 

24 compliance call, yes.

25 Q So that makes sense to me, because 

165

1 when they were produced to me, and that will 

2 help us get through the pile, each report had 

3 one of these compliance call reports behind 

4 it. So you would have just created a template 

5 and then used it in response to each call?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And so any other communication where 

8 you discuss a template, Exhibit 29 and the 

9 other exhibits which we'll mark shortly are 

10 what you would have been referring to?

11 A Referring to a template, I would 

12 call this a template, yes.

13 Q Because I'm specifically asking -- 

14 let me show you why I'm asking.

15 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

16 Plaintiff's Exhibit 30.)

17 Q I've handed you Exhibit 30, and it 

18 is an e-mail from Sheandra Clark to Deborah 

19 Kircher cc'ing Gail Perdue. Do you see that?

20 A Yes.

21 Q Now, if you look down -- and it's 

22 dated February 11th of 2013. If you look down 

23 to the bottom, you're going to see where it 

24 says, February 4th of 2013. It's an e-mail 

25 from you to Ms. Kircher. And you say, 

166

1 "Attached is the template completed for the six 

2 compliance calls." 

3 So when you say "template" in this 

4 e-mail, is Exhibit 29 what you would have been 

5 talking about?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And so Exhibit 29 you created as a 

8 template for responding to the compliance calls 

9 that had come in that involved Mr. Rodriques?

10 A Yes.

11 Q Who is Ms. Sheandra Clark?

12 A She's one of our attorneys.

13 Q And is she the attorney, if you 

14 know, who is responsible for the ethics and 

15 compliance hot line reporting?

16 A Yes. That's my understanding.

17 Q And who is Deborah Kircher?

18 A At the time, Deb Kircher would have 

19 been a peer of mine.

20 Q And when you say "a peer," tell me 

21 what position did she hold. 

22 A She would have also been an HR 

23 generalist/manager.

24 Q In what location?

25 A She was physically located in 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1001 Filed 03/04/15 Page 47 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

47 (Pages 167 to 170)

167

1 Cincinnati.

2 Q And she would have held that 

3 position as of February 2013?

4 A Yes.

5 Q So why would you have been sending 

6 the template to Ms. Kircher?

7 A Deb had the responsibility for our 

8 HR team to track and ensure the compliance 

9 calls were complete in a timely fashion. So 

10 they filtered to her and then to Sheandra for 

11 review and closure.

12 Q So it was Ms. Kircher's 

13 responsibility to make sure that, at least for 

14 your team -- and when you say your team, is it 

15 separated demographically or geographically?

16 A It's separated by division.

17 Q And at least for the division that 

18 included Detroit, it would also obviously 

19 include Cincinnati; correct?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And for that division, Ms. Kircher 

22 had the responsibility of making sure that the 

23 compliance calls were responded to timely?

24 A Yes.

25 Q What is considered a timely response 

168

1 to those calls?

2 A I believe at the time the guideline 

3 was 45 days.

4 Q Within 45 days of the call coming 

5 in?

6 A Correct.

7 Q And then you said, now, did she 

8 have -- did Ms. Kircher have any other 

9 responsibility other than making sure it was on 

10 time?

11 A No, not that I recall.

12 Q I guess what I'm asking even more 

13 specifically is, did she review your work to 

14 make sure that the investigation was complete 

15 or she -- did she have any of those kind of 

16 responsibilities?

17 A She would read it and make sure she 

18 understood it, but I don't know that she was 

19 really auditing the investigation. Right? 

20 She -- that wasn't her role.

21 Q And then you said it filtered 

22 through her and then went to Ms. Clark?

23 A Correct.

24 Q Was there anybody between her and 

25 Ms. Clark who it went to?

169

1 A No.

2 Q Do you know what would happen after 

3 it would get to Ms. Clark, the response? Do 

4 you know what happens after it gets to 

5 Ms. Clark?

6 A What do you mean, what happens?

7 Q Yeah. Does she meet with a 

8 committee? Does she just review it and make a 

9 decision? Do you know any of that?

10 A I can't speak to that.

11 Q Good. It's okay. And then she 

12 indicates in Exhibit 30, Ms. Kircher, that she 

13 had conferenced with you and Tyesha in January 

14 about those calls. Can you tell me about this 

15 conference?

16 A I can't tell you about the details. 

17 I remember it occurring. And it typically 

18 would occur based upon the number of calls.

19 Q Explain that a little bit more for 

20 me. So is it because it was so many calls?

21 A I think in this particular case, you 

22 know, it was six calls about the same topic. I 

23 believe Sheandra requested the call, if I 

24 remember correctly, to say where are we at, 

25 what's going on, and Tyesha would have been 

170

1 involved because she was my leader.

2 Q Was it unusual, as far as you know, 

3 to receive six calls about the same topic?

4 A Unusual? It's happened before.

5 Q How many times? More than five?

6 A For me?

7 Q Yeah. More than five?

8 A No, probably not.

9 Q And you said that you remember the 

10 conference happening, but you can't remember 

11 what the substance of the conference was?

12 A Right. I remember talking about the 

13 calls. But the detailed conversation, I don't 

14 recall.

15 Q And then Ms. Kircher also requested 

16 from Ms. Clark permission to close the file. 

17 Was that the standard process? You would send 

18 it to her, and she would request the close from 

19 Ms. Kircher?

20 A From Ms. Clark?

21 Q I'm sorry. 

22 A Yes.

23 Q Ms. Clark. 

24 A Yes.

25 Q That's the standard process?

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1002 Filed 03/04/15 Page 48 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

48 (Pages 171 to 174)

171

1 A Yes.

2 Q So you would not be the one who 

3 actually requested the close of the file?

4 A Well, no. I would request it, but 

5 it would filter through Deb to get to Sheandra.

6 Q So at some point, you said to 

7 Deborah, and here's what we got and can we 

8 close it, and so she would go from there and go 

9 to Ms. Clark and say here's what we've got and 

10 can we close it?

11 A Yes.

12 Q Did anyone come back and ask you 

13 questions as to why, according to Exhibit 29, 

14 you did not interview anyone about the call?

15 A No.

16 Q Did you ever ask Mr. De La Torre if 

17 he discriminated against Mr. Rodriques in the 

18 treatment?

19 A Did I ask him that specific 

20 question? No.

21 Q Did you ask Mr. Kotula whether he 

22 discriminated against Mr. Rodriques in handling 

23 this matter?

24 A No.

25 Q Did you ask Mr. Sarsour whether he 

172

1 discriminated against Mr. Rodriques in handling 

2 this matter?

3 A No.

4 Q Did you ask Mr. De La Torre whether 

5 Mr. Conover or Mr. Culpepper had been treated 

6 differently because of their race?

7 A No.

8 Q Did you ask Mr. Sarsour whether 

9 Mr. Conover or Mr. Culpepper were treated 

10 differently because of their races?

11 A No.

12 Q Why not? Why didn't you ask any of 

13 those questions?

14 A I didn't ask them because the 

15 circumstances of the situation were different 

16 enough.

17 Q As you knew them on that day?

18 A As I knew them on that day, that 

19 race was not a factor.

20 Q Do you think, had you asked about 

21 what happened with Mr. Culpepper, somebody 

22 would have told you that we docked his pay?

23 A I don't know.

24 Q They wouldn't lie to you, out and 

25 out lie to you, would they?

173

1 A No.

2 MS. BROCK: Can you read back her 

3 response to me as to why she did not ask them 

4 any of those questions? 

5 (Whereupon off-the-record discussions 

6 ensued.)

7 (Whereupon the court reporter read back 

8 the referred-to portion as follows:)

9 Q Why not? Why didn't you ask any of 

10 those questions?

11 A I didn't ask them because the 

12 circumstances of the situation were different 

13 enough.

14 (Whereupon the reading back was 

15 concluded.)

16 Q And those were the circumstances as 

17 you knew it on that day; correct?

18 A Yes.

19 Q Sitting here today, do you know why 

20 Mr. Culpepper was not terminated in response to 

21 the November 2012 incidents, with an S?

22 A When you say the November 12th, 

23 you're referring -- 

24 Q November 2012. I'm sorry. 

25 A November 2012, you're referring to 

174

1 him providing authorization to Mr. Conover? 

2 Q And to his being missing for part of 

3 his shift on that same day. 

4 A That was -- well, we've established 

5 I wasn't aware of that.

6 Q I understand.

7 A So based upon what I knew at the 

8 time, he wasn't terminated because the offense 

9 and what he violated was not a terminable 

10 offense.

11 Q Right. But my question was: 

12 Sitting here today, do you know why he wasn't 

13 terminated in response to those incidents?

14 A Well, the answer would be the same.

15 Q I just need you to say it.

16 A Yeah.

17 Q It's okay. 

18 A Okay. Yeah, the answer would be the 

19 same in that, based upon the findings of the 

20 investigation, it was not terminable.

21 Q On your template, you indicate where 

22 it says attach all statements, you say all 

23 attachments were previously sent. Are you 

24 referring to the RFT file?

25 A I can't speak to what I was 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1003 Filed 03/04/15 Page 49 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

49 (Pages 175 to 178)

175

1 referring to. Attach all statements, I don't 

2 recall what, when I say previously sent, what 

3 that would have meant.

4 Q But you didn't obtain any documents 

5 outside of the RFT file; correct?

6 A Correct.

7 Q And there's where you requested 

8 closure; correct?

9 A Yes.

10 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

11 Plaintiff's Exhibit 31.)

12 Q Exhibit 31 is Ethics and Compliance 

13 Reporting number ending in 660. Do you see 

14 that?

15 A Yes.

16 Q This call came in on January 3rd of 

17 2013. And in this call, it also indicates that 

18 Mr. Domingo is the reported person; correct?

19 A Yes.

20 Q And this complaint also references 

21 the Conover-Culpepper incident; correct?

22 A Yes.

23 Q And it mentions Mr. Rodriques and 

24 Mr. -- I believe his last name is Beydoun. 

25 A Yes.

176

1 Q Correct? Did you open up any sort 

2 of separate investigation for each of these 

3 calls that came through?

4 A No.

5 Q And you do recall receiving this 

6 particular reporting form; correct?

7 A Yes.

8 Q And you were asked to conduct the 

9 investigation as to this form; correct?

10 A No. I would have been asked to look 

11 into it, not specifically to conduct an 

12 investigation.

13 Q Very good distinction. 

14 A But yes.

15 Q So what you did was not an 

16 investigation in fact. You just looked into 

17 the complaints that were here?

18 A Correct.

19 Q And to the best of your knowledge, 

20 did anyone else conduct an investigation?

21 A Not to my knowledge, no.

22 MR. TUYN: Other than the 

23 investigations that had already been conducted.

24 MS. BROCK: Counsel -- 

25 MR. TUYN: The determinations for 

177

1 the discipline. 

2 MS. BROCK: -- we're specifically 

3 talking about in response to this complaint. 

4 This is a race discrimination complaint that 

5 was made to the hot line. And there were two 

6 now we're talking about. We're talking about 

7 report ending in 311 and report ending in 660, 

8 was there an investigation into this complaint. 

9 She said she looked into it. She 

10 said she didn't investigate it. And to the 

11 best of her knowledge, nor about anyone else.

12 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

13 Plaintiff's Exhibit 32.)

14 Q You've been handed Exhibit 22, and 

15 it is -- 

16 A I'm sorry. It says 32.

17 Q Oh. 32. I am so sorry, Ms. Franz. 

18 I am sorry. Exhibit 32. And it is your 

19 template for responding to the hot line calls; 

20 correct?

21 A Yes.

22 Q And you would have filed this very 

23 same template in response to call ending in 

24 660; correct?

25 A Yes.

178

1 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 33.)

3 Q Exhibit 33 is hot line report ending 

4 in the numbers 716. Do you see that?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And this was a complaint made on 

7 January 8th of 2013 at 6:08 p.m. Do you see 

8 that?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And this particular complaint 

11 doesn't reference Mr. De La Torre, but it does 

12 reference Mr. Rodriques and Mr. Fadi Beydoun; 

13 correct?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And it also indicates that the 

16 Caucasian employees were treated differently? 

17 A Yes.

18 Q And it also indicates that the 

19 caller feels that there is an issue of 

20 discrimination involved here?

21 A Yes.

22 Q And you did receive report number 

23 716 so that you could look into it; correct?

24 A Yes.

25 Q And you did in fact look into it; 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1004 Filed 03/04/15 Page 50 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

50 (Pages 179 to 182)

179

1 correct?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Now, I didn't hand you your template 

4 in response to report number 716, but is it 

5 true that you would have provided the same 

6 template that we've been talking about here 

7 today in response to complaint number 716?

8 A Yes.

9 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

10 Plaintiff's Exhibit 34.)

11 Q Exhibit 34, you've been handed, is 

12 compliance report number ending in 159, 

13 reported on January 9th of 2013 at 4:40 p.m. 

14 Do you see that?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And did you receive complaint number 

17 159 to conduct so that you can look into it?

18 A Yes.

19 Q And did you in fact look into it?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And you were aware that this was 

22 another race discrimination complaint; correct?

23 A Yes.

24 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 35.)

180

1 Q Exhibit 35 is another copy of your 

2 template. Am I correct that you would have 

3 provided this template in response to complaint 

4 number 159?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And when I say "template," all of 

7 the information in your templates were the 

8 same; correct?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And you obtained all of that 

11 information in the same way; correct?

12 A Yes. 

13 Q So I guess what I'm asking is that 

14 you didn't do something for number 311 that you 

15 didn't do for number 159 or vice versa?

16 A No.

17 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

18 Plaintiff's Exhibit 36.)

19 Q You've been handed Exhibit 36. 

20 Exhibit 36 is an Ethics and Compliance 

21 Reporting ending in the numbers 421, and it was 

22 reported on January 9th of 2013 at 9:47 p.m. 

23 Do you see that?

24 A Yes.

25 Q Now, did you receive this Ethics and 

181

1 Compliance Reporting document ending in 421 to 

2 look into it?

3 A Yes.

4 Q And did you in fact look into it?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And you were aware that this was yet 

7 another complaint of race discrimination?

8 A Yes.

9 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

10 Plaintiff's Exhibit 37.)

11 Q Exhibit 37 you've been handed is yet 

12 another copy of your template. And please 

13 understand, I keep giving them to you because 

14 when they were produced to me they were 

15 produced behind each of your reports or each of 

16 the compliance hot line reports. And so I just 

17 have to confirm that this was in response to 

18 that report. Okay? 

19 So the template that you have is 

20 Exhibit 37. It would be the same template that 

21 we've been speaking of here today; correct?

22 A Yes.

23 Q And this template would have been 

24 filed in response to the complaint ending in 

25 421; correct?

182

1 A Yes.

2 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

3 Plaintiff's Exhibit 38.)

4 Q Ms. Franz, Exhibit 38 is an Ethics 

5 and Compliance Reporting dated January 31st of 

6 2013. Report was made at 2:29 p.m. Do you see 

7 that?

8 A Yes.

9 Q The report number ends in the 

10 numbers 995. Am I correct?

11 A Yes.

12 Q And did you receive this particular 

13 report so that you could look into it; correct?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And did you in fact look into it?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And you were aware that this was yet 

18 another complaint of race discrimination; 

19 correct?

20 A Yes.

21 (Whereupon a document was identified as 

22 Plaintiff's Exhibit 39.)

23 Q Ms. Franz, Exhibit 39 is your 

24 template. Would you have filed the same 

25 template in response to your compliance report 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1005 Filed 03/04/15 Page 51 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

51 (Pages 183 to 186)

183

1 ending in 995?

2 A Yes.

3 Q And again for all of these 

4 templates, you didn't do anything different for 

5 this template as you did for any of the other 

6 responded templates; correct?

7 A Correct.

8 MS. BROCK: I have no other 

9 questions.

10 MR. TUYN: I have just a couple.

11 EXAMINATION

12 BY MR. TUYN: 

13 Q Ms. Franz, with respect to your 

14 involvement in reviewing the request for 

15 termination that Mr. De La Torre gave you for 

16 Jerrick Rodriques and the six hot line 

17 complaints that mentioned Mr. Rodriques in any 

18 way, did you become aware of any evidence that 

19 Mr. Rodriques was being discriminated against 

20 based on his race?

21 A No.

22 Q Did you become aware of any evidence 

23 that he was being retaliated against based on 

24 either his race or his engagement in any 

25 protected activity including raising claims of 

184

1 race discrimination in the hot line complaints?

2 A No.

3 Q Did you discriminate or retaliate 

4 against Mr. Rodriques based on his race or his 

5 engagement in any protected activity including 

6 the hot line complaints?

7 A No.

8 Q Who did you say your boss was at the 

9 time?

10 A Tyesha Gray.

11 Q And do you know what her race is?

12 A She is African-American.

13 Q And you indicated that Sheandra 

14 Clark was the Delta in-house attorney that was 

15 overseeing the ethics and compliance hot line?

16 A That's correct.

17 Q Do you know her race?

18 A She is African-American.

19 MR. TUYN: That's all I have. 

20 MS. BROCK: I just have a few 

21 follow-up.

22 RE-EXAMINATION 

23 BY MS. BROCK: 

24 Q Ms. Franz, in your looking into the 

25 six hot line calls, did you ask anyone any 

185

1 specific questions about the hot line 

2 complaints?

3 A At the time the hot line complaints 

4 came in, no. I already had the information 

5 from the previous.

6 Q From the previous investigations -- 

7 A Correct.

8 Q -- done by the other people?

9 A Correct.

10 Q Were those previous investigations 

11 into race discrimination?

12 A No.

13 Q So in your looking into the six 

14 hot line calls for race discrimination, did you 

15 ask any specific questions about those calls?

16 A No.

17 Q And as far as Ms. Gray, did 

18 Ms. Gray, I understand she's African-American, 

19 did she investigate anything dealing with 

20 Mr. Rodriques to the best of your knowledge?

21 A I don't know. There was the one 

22 phone call, but I don't know if she 

23 specifically spoke to him. That would have 

24 been Ms. Austin. She's also African-American. 

25 So I don't -- I don't know what those 

186

1 conversations were, if any.

2 Q So let me ask it this way. Did she 

3 contact -- did Ms. Gray contact anyone, to your 

4 knowledge, at the Detroit location to inquire 

5 into Mr. Rodriques's situation -- 

6 A Not -- 

7 Q -- other than you?

8 A Not to my knowledge, no.

9 Q Other than you? I mean, I'm sure 

10 she was e-mailing back and forth with you; 

11 correct?

12 A No. I mean, we wouldn't have 

13 exchanged e-mails, I don't believe.

14 Q Oh. So she -- 

15 A Other than the one that had the 

16 phone call in it from Ms. Austin, but.

17 Q So any information Ms. Gray had 

18 would have only been the information you 

19 provided; correct?

20 A To my knowledge.

21 Q And the same thing with Ms. Austin. 

22 Did Ms. Austin conduct a separate investigation 

23 into any of Mr. Rodriques's allegations?

24 A Not to my knowledge.

25 Q I understand that she's 

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1006 Filed 03/04/15 Page 52 of 71
Electronically signed by Joel Moyer (501-161-376-4513) 0d7dd3ea-0852-412c-bc02-57d1c002befc

Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

52 (Pages 187 to 190)

187

1 African-American. So any information that she 

2 would have had would have been, to the best of 

3 your knowledge, the information you gave her; 

4 correct?

5 A Or the information that she received 

6 from Mr. Rodriques in that call.

7 Q And outside of that, she had no 

8 additional information, to the best of your 

9 knowledge?

10 A To the best of my knowledge.

11 Q Yeah. And we talked about Ms. Gray, 

12 Ms. Austin, and Ms. Clark. Same thing with 

13 Ms. Clark. Did Ms. Clark conduct any sort of 

14 independent investigation into Mr. Rodriques's 

15 complaints, to the best of your knowledge?

16 A Not to the best of my knowledge, no.

17 Q Did she ever contact you or have the 

18 individual who, I'm blanking on it right now, 

19 who's in Cincinnati call you and say, hey, I 

20 was looking into this, and I found some 

21 additional information?

22 A No. The only conversation we would 

23 have had was that January conversation. And I 

24 don't recall the specifics, but Ms. Clark 

25 certainly would have asked me some questions 

188

1 regarding, you know, where we were with the 

2 investigation, but.

3 Q And so any information Ms. Clark, 

4 who I understand is an African-American, would 

5 have received was the information you gave her 

6 as far as you know?

7 A Correct, or the compliance calls.

8 Q So it was what was in the complaints 

9 themselves, the six complaints, or what you 

10 told her in response to those complaints?

11 A Correct.

12 MS. BROCK: I have no other 

13 questions. 

14 MR. TUYN: I don't have anything 

15 further.

16 THE COURT REPORTER: Is she going to 

17 reserve signature?

18 MR. TUYN: She doesn't have to sign. 

19 THE COURT REPORTER: She does not 

20 have to sign.

21 MS. BROCK: No, no, she doesn't.

22 THE COURT REPORTER: All right. 

23 (Proceedings adjourned, 1:44 p.m.)

24 

25

189

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

2 STATE OF GEORGIA

3 COUNTY OF COBB

4 I hereby certify that the foregoing 

5 deposition was reported as stated in the 

6 caption, and the questions and answers thereto 

7 were reduced to writing by me; 

8 That the witness's right to read and 

9 sign the deposition was waived;

10 That the foregoing pages 1 through 190 

11 represent a true, correct, and complete 

12 transcript of the evidence given on the 

13 above-referenced date by the witness, BARBARA 

14 A. FRANZ, who was first duly sworn by me;

15 That I am not of kin or counsel to any 

16 of the attorneys or parties in this case. 

17 I do hereby disclose pursuant to 

18 Article 10.B. of the Rules and Regulations of 

19 the Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial 

20 Council of Georgia that I am a Georgia 

21 Certified Court Reporter; that I am an employee 

22 of Donovan Reporting PC; that Donovan 

23 Reporting PC was contacted by the attorney 

24 taking the deposition to provide court 

25 reporting services for this deposition; that I 

190

1 am not taking this deposition under any 

2 contract that is prohibited by OCGA 15-14-37(a) 

3 and (b) or Article 7.C. of the Rules and 

4 Regulations of the Board; and I am not 

5 disqualified for a relationship of interest 

6 under OCGA 9-11-28(c).

7 There is no contract to provide 

8 reporting services between myself or any person 

9 with whom I have a principal and agency 

10 relationship nor any attorney at law in this 

11 action, party to this action, party having a 

12 financial interest in this action, or agent for 

13 an attorney at law in this action, party to 

14 this action, or party having a financial 

15 interest in this action. Any and all financial 

16 arrangements beyond my usual and customary 

17 rates have been disclosed and offered to all 

18 parties.

19 This 29th day of December, 2014.

20

21 __________________________

 JOEL P. MOYER, CCR 2745

22 Certified Court Reporter

23

24

25

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1007 Filed 03/04/15 Page 53 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 191

A

able 9:12,23 76:2

80:13 81:25 87:17

93:13 108:11 132:3

137:12 145:3,8

152:3,10

above-referenced

189:13

above-the-wing

25:22

above-wing 25:20

absence 15:8

absolutely 24:23

35:25 40:9 63:13

144:11 154:21

accept 75:14,22

118:9

access 108:13

accomplished 25:16

account 21:12

accurate 9:11 40:11

accused 49:3 53:2

162:11,13

achieving 25:11

acronym 13:5

ACS 124:4,6 161:19

ACS/CGO 4:11 6:1,8

6:15,19,24 164:5

action 3:10,12 7:16

19:9,23 36:6 38:9

43:22 52:13 63:22

65:10 69:1 87:5,6

87:11,15,16 89:2,4

141:7 190:11,11,12

190:13,14,15

activity 29:25 183:25

184:5

actual 8:21 46:4

106:8 111:19 123:8

127:17 138:7

161:21

add 38:20

addition 73:1 147:5

147:24

additional 19:11

67:18 74:18,19

96:6,10 187:8,21

adjourned 188:23

administer 30:11

33:9

administered 37:16

37:17

administration 26:11

30:15

admitted 130:13

advise 35:16

advises 36:9

affectionately 22:4

affirmative 79:12

87:5,6,11,15,16

113:23 116:1

122:11 133:17

affirmatively 106:15

African-American

184:12,18 185:18

185:24 187:1 188:4

African-Americans

89:16,23

agency 190:9

agent 4:1,1 93:7

190:12

agents 23:14 25:21

ago 13:18 60:13

agree 38:8

agreed 103:13

agreement 38:23

ahead 61:3 134:14

159:3

Air 1:5,12 2:12 5:22

6:5,10,12,17,21

aircraft 34:25

airplane 91:8

airport 23:12 27:18

27:20 28:21 31:9

107:18 124:7

ALA 48:5,6 65:22,23

66:9,17 67:16

alert 28:20

alerted 28:15

Ali 5:5,10 123:25

124:3,17 125:18

161:6,7,8,17

allegations 186:23

alleged 20:9

allowable 7:21

allowed 55:24

amount 69:12

Andrew 105:10,12

and/or 17:14

anonymous 153:2

163:20

answer 8:7,21 9:21

11:3 32:5 40:14,23

61:1 147:11 159:6

159:7 174:14,18

answered 32:4,7 59:5

60:25

answers 189:6

anybody 168:24

anymore 90:15

127:16 155:10

anytime 40:2

anyways 40:25

apologies 100:4

appeal 118:25 124:20

124:24 126:15

139:5 141:18 152:2

157:23

appeals 126:20

Appearance 3:19

82:17

APPEARANCES 2:1

appears 29:12 79:2

82:15,20 90:7

91:21 104:3 109:22

120:8

applicable 86:11

apply 32:19,25

appreciate 73:13

appreciated 150:8,11

appropriate 19:9

34:24 38:9 40:6

approval 102:14

105:4,22,24 106:1,5

112:1

approved 106:2,9,19

107:9,13 132:21,24

approximately

139:16

April 14:20 21:6,8

22:14 126:24

128:24 140:4 151:4

152:15

area 11:23 53:8,11

54:10 56:5,13 65:2

155:11

argue 150:10

argument 134:15

argument's 134:5

arrangements 190:16

Article 7:5 189:18

190:3

asked 24:21 37:2

49:18 60:25 65:3

72:13,18 73:20

74:20 80:8 98:22

123:18 127:7 134:8

134:11 136:5

147:19 160:18,20

172:20 176:8,10

187:25

asking 11:4 23:19

24:1 27:21 40:13

46:6 48:12 58:21

60:18,22 77:7

92:10 116:12

134:20 140:22

144:19 149:8,14,18

152:7 165:13,14

168:12 180:13

asleep 50:5 54:5,10

assistance 99:5

assume 21:11 23:25

77:25 140:25

assumption 141:23

ATL 152:6

Atlanta 1:12 2:13

33:5 81:6 124:8,12

148:2 155:2,8

attach 174:22 175:1

attached 109:19

166:1

attachment 123:8

attachments 98:18

174:23

attend 11:14,20

16:10

attendance 34:22

64:14 92:9,13

108:13 145:4

attendants 31:5

attended 12:10

attention 35:22 36:12

110:19 118:23

119:4

attest 125:1

attorney 7:16 8:3,10

10:7 38:15 47:2

137:8 166:13

184:14 189:23

190:10,13

attorneys 2:3 18:4

166:12 189:16

auditing 168:19

Austin 185:24 186:16

186:21,22 187:12

authority 36:14,23

36:25 37:16 41:8

43:6,7 65:23 67:16

67:20 145:7

authorization 53:7

53:22 56:5,10 59:9

66:15 67:7 136:12

137:4 143:4 174:1

automated 161:5

automatic 161:2

auto-populated

95:10,11

available 16:21

Avenue 2:9

average 110:16

aware 17:15 27:5

28:9,20 35:24 36:1

36:4 37:4 39:13

40:2 42:3,7,15 47:2

47:24 48:1,1,9,13

48:17,22 49:13,15

49:18,22 50:2,9,10

50:18 51:2 55:10

56:17,19,21 57:2

58:14 59:17 61:11

61:17,20 62:2,4,8

68:6 70:2,8 80:16

86:25 98:4 100:6,9

102:12 114:14,18

131:8,13,16 132:25

153:16,21 160:11

163:1,15 174:5

179:21 181:6

182:17 183:18,22

a.m 1:14 7:2 73:15,16

B

b 190:3

bachelor 11:25

back 12:4 25:15 37:3

37:14 39:17,19

40:24 47:25 48:10

50:13 55:12 68:15

68:22 69:16 70:25

73:19,20 97:22

100:11 117:4

133:10 137:6 148:3

149:19 153:7

159:10,21 171:12

173:2,7,14 186:10

bad 50:24

badly 41:5

Barb 40:12 151:5

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1008 Filed 03/04/15 Page 54 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 192

Barbara 1:8 3:3 4:6

4:10,14,16 5:1,3,7

5:10,12,15,20 7:7

7:14 189:13

based 19:7 33:23

34:11 35:17 42:23

61:14 65:1 66:7

70:18 74:15 89:2,8

101:21 120:7 129:9

133:4 143:14,19

152:14 157:10

158:4,5 163:16,19

169:18 174:7,19

183:20,23 184:4

basically 15:10 29:12

36:9 37:5 96:7

basis 16:10

Bates 150:23

becoming 21:1 22:7

29:13

before-awareness

61:25

began 14:20 25:18

99:24

Beginning 1:14

believe 12:13 14:1

20:6 23:6 30:4

36:16 44:23 88:13

91:15 97:16 100:7

104:8 144:10,15

159:1 168:2 169:23

175:24 186:13

believed 137:25

Bell 127:8,10,25

128:2 140:23

below-the-wing

23:16 25:19 43:24

below-wing 31:3,11

107:19

belt 35:3 40:1

benefit 30:12,14

benefits 15:8 25:9

26:1,10 29:18,24

31:25 32:12

best 8:6 73:5 80:19

85:7 89:15 97:10

111:1 124:15 126:8

155:12,21 176:19

177:11 185:20

187:2,8,10,15,16

better 18:5 136:18,24

136:24

Beydoun 76:6 159:12

175:24 178:12

beyond 40:16 190:16

bid 27:17,23

bidding 29:5

big 91:7

big-picture 15:10

Birmingham 2:9

bit 8:4 20:16 21:19

38:10 45:9 49:15

79:19 90:10 91:22

112:23 117:5

118:24 119:12

140:3 141:3 169:19

black 83:1

blank 123:8,9,10

blanking 187:18

blindside 119:2

block 5:18 139:3

Board 7:6 189:19

190:4

body 122:19

book 18:6,8

boss 102:11 122:6,6

184:8

bottom 83:25 84:11

90:12 102:13

150:24,25 153:8

165:23

Boulevard 2:12

box 104:9

brand 17:25

break 9:17,22 21:19

71:24 73:13,17

138:20

breaking 24:23

bring 16:22 20:12

27:20 35:21 110:19

brings 20:8

Brock 1:9 2:3 3:4,5

7:11,15 17:18 18:3

21:14,18,23 23:18

23:24 24:6,20 47:1

54:20 55:5 59:2

60:11,17,21 63:13

64:21 71:25 73:12

78:3,6,9 117:17,19

118:1,4,8 134:2,8

134:11,22 135:21

138:21 140:16

147:24 148:7,22

149:2,13,18 150:8

150:11,16,19

151:21 173:2

176:24 177:2 183:8

184:20,23 188:12

188:21

brought 7:17 96:11

96:20 97:25 118:23

bullet 84:12 85:13

86:3,4,7,10,12,16

86:20 117:7

bunch 65:3

bus 110:12,17 114:1

114:4

business 11:25 12:22

86:5

B27556 95:8

C

C 4:3

cabinet 46:2

call 6:1,8,15,20 27:8

28:22 31:9 32:3,6

38:23 77:1,10,18

81:10,17,18,19,23

93:15,20 107:1

124:25 153:2,11

156:9 158:9 163:20

164:5,21,24 165:3,5

165:12 168:4

169:23 171:14

175:16,17 177:23

185:22 186:16

187:6,19

called 91:17 93:18

132:4

caller 162:15 163:16

178:19

calling 81:24,25

calls 76:19 77:2,7,13

77:22 164:19 166:2

166:8 167:9,23

168:1 169:14,18,20

169:22 170:3,13

176:3 177:19

184:25 185:14,15

188:7

capacity 65:23

caption 189:6

card 35:9,20 48:24

48:24 49:2 53:2,3

53:18 54:9 55:23

56:7,8 58:16,23

59:1,6,11 60:10,19

61:16 62:6,12,18

63:2,4,5,18 65:14

65:20 66:11 67:2,6

67:10,14 69:6

100:1 117:9,13

121:6 122:21,24

133:8,15,23 134:10

135:1,3,8,12 136:4

136:8,17,20 137:2,3

card.doc 122:10,17

care 29:16,21

career 76:12,16,22

careful 40:13

cargo 26:22 27:1,4,7

27:18,19,23 28:2,3

28:10,11,17,21 29:4

31:6

Carla 127:8,10

140:22

carried 97:18

carrying 30:21

carts 35:2

case 1:4 34:1 39:25

71:17 104:16 117:9

134:1 169:21

189:16

cases 51:25

Cassandra 5:20

152:25 154:19,22

categories 88:12

Caucasian 178:16

Caucasians 89:17

cause 36:14 42:6

caused 64:18,25

causes 42:12

cc 112:25 124:19

CCR 190:21

cc'd 95:22 97:11

124:1 153:10

cc'ing 165:19

center 32:3,4

certain 43:19

certainly 54:24

154:15 187:25

Certificate 3:6 189:1

certification 13:10

14:7

certified 1:10 12:23

189:21 190:22

certify 189:4

chain 75:24 76:2

120:21 145:11

151:14

change 36:14,19,23

58:17 121:9,12,13

121:17

changed 21:7,20 23:4

24:9,12,13,17 68:25

69:14 92:6 113:2,3

120:24

changes 31:13,18,22

31:22 42:23 120:23

check 151:24

checklist 4:11 104:3

104:4

Chicago 13:17,24

chose 27:23

Chris 142:12 143:1

148:9 158:24

Christmas 163:13

Christopher 3:13,15

44:14 65:11 68:11

Cincinnati 167:1,19

187:19

circumstance 51:9

57:25 75:20

circumstances 20:6

33:14,16,24 34:15

35:25 42:11,21

51:7,11,15 70:19

75:2,4,17 87:10

141:8 142:21,24

172:15 173:12,16

Civil 7:22

claim 119:10 132:9

claiming 158:25

claims 155:16 159:16

183:25

clarification 25:13

59:15

clarify 10:22 37:22

41:1,6 77:23

Clark 6:3 165:18

166:11 168:22,25

169:3,5 170:16,20

170:23 171:9

184:14 187:12,13

187:13,24 188:3

clear 31:17 35:10

clock 53:7 54:4 56:12

57:21 66:25 110:13

112:10 133:13

158:25

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1009 Filed 03/04/15 Page 55 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 193

clocks 145:20

close 170:16,18 171:3

171:8,10

closure 167:11 175:8

coaching 3:15 50:21

68:10 69:3,21

COBB 189:3

Code 94:21

collect 18:23

collected 19:6,14

collecting 153:3

come 22:4 27:7,10,11

27:17 38:16 40:24

67:13,13 68:15

87:11 92:14 117:8

118:24,25 119:3

131:3 159:10 166:9

171:12

comes 10:25 40:9

95:1 160:21,24

comfortable 9:19

61:1 85:19 150:25

coming 25:1 28:11,18

28:23 29:6 119:8

123:20 159:21

168:4

comment 140:20

152:4

commit 54:8 58:23

62:11 78:17

committed 58:16

78:21 79:9,16

121:5

committee 169:8

communicating

163:7

communication

144:15 149:3

160:13 165:7

communications

148:3

companies 25:8

company 35:19 92:17

153:16,21

company's 86:21

87:5,6,9

comparables 39:5

compare 68:23

comparing 145:19

complainant 19:11

complaint 18:13,18

20:9 157:7 163:25

175:20 177:3,4,8

178:6,10 179:7,16

179:22 180:3 181:7

181:24 182:18

complaints 78:1

148:18 157:3

176:17 183:17

184:1,6 185:2,3

187:15 188:8,9,10

complete 167:9

168:14 189:11

completed 104:10

107:2 166:1

completely 154:4

compliance 5:22 6:1

6:6,8,10,13,15,17

6:19,22,24 76:7

77:1,1,7,10,13,22

81:23 82:4 86:11

153:2 156:19 164:5

164:19,24 165:3

166:2,8,15 167:8,23

175:12 179:12

180:20 181:1,16

182:5,25 184:15

188:7

components 157:9

158:15,18

computer 18:25

19:16

concern 18:19 82:8

concerning 77:24

concerns 82:6

concluded 173:15

conclusion 117:9

120:9

conduct 3:19 12:7

13:25 16:7,15 17:6

17:8 19:18 33:21

64:16 74:9 82:16

86:5 155:15 157:2

157:18 158:2 176:8

176:11,20 179:17

186:22 187:13

conducted 31:14 76:8

76:12 80:7 100:2

143:15,17 157:6,11

159:15 160:9

176:23

conducting 15:9

18:10,11,15 26:17

confer 128:2

conference 169:15

170:10,11

conferenced 169:13

Confidential 3:18,21

3:23 4:3,5,13,16,18

4:20,22 5:1,3,7,9,12

5:14,19,22 6:1,3,5,8

6:10,12,15,17,19,21

6:24

confirm 132:15 152:3

152:10 181:17

confirmation 149:21

Conover 3:11 44:14

44:22 45:6,18,22

47:4 48:2 49:14,18

49:22 52:13 53:1,2

53:10 54:16,16

55:3,10,14 57:14

58:16 60:7 61:15

62:5,9,24 63:1,9,17

64:20 66:2 71:3,6,9

72:18 73:21 133:12

133:14 135:15

142:1,12 143:2,4,8

144:17 145:16

146:2,5 147:16

148:9,14 154:2,9

172:5,9 174:1

Conover's 47:10 50:2

56:16 58:14 59:18

61:11 64:17,24

143:25 144:22

146:7

Conover-Culpepper

47:6 73:18 151:23

175:21

consider 32:11 62:5

138:2,6 146:13,16

consideration 96:25

137:8

considered 53:3,18

53:20 56:7 67:2,6

119:21 120:6

133:23 167:25

considering 58:13

59:17,24 157:25

considers 63:21

consist 44:21

consistent 75:9

consists 85:2

contact 17:17 81:8

186:3,3 187:17

contacted 156:10

159:17,17,20,24

189:23

contain 13:24

content 123:7,9,13

context 131:25

continue 38:22 56:6

Continued 4:25 5:25

continues 81:22

contract 190:2,7

contractor 86:22,23

87:1

conversation 93:25

101:22 103:3

113:15 119:25

121:12 129:6,17

131:15,19,21,22

132:18,20 137:17

140:14 142:22

150:15 170:13

187:22,23

conversations 150:21

186:1

coordinating 84:14

coordinator 108:14

124:5 145:5 161:12

copied 97:17,19

copy 87:13 123:18

180:1 181:12

corporate 16:24

34:21 81:11,13

112:1 114:19,24

115:1 120:15

125:22 127:19

155:13 158:9 160:4

160:8,12

corporately 30:12,16

corporation 30:22

38:17

correct 12:11 17:10

19:24 21:3,10 22:7

22:8,18 23:3,17

25:23 26:3 27:9

29:17 30:7,19

31:25 34:6 35:6

36:7 37:9,13 39:14

39:15 41:10,23

42:3,4 48:3,7,8

49:20 50:17 51:13

52:22 54:2,7 55:16

55:21 60:1 61:13

61:16 62:6,7 65:24

65:25 66:4 68:17

68:20 69:18,22,25

71:22 72:15 73:3

78:22,23 79:3

82:19 83:3 89:20

90:8 92:2,21 95:22

96:21 97:1,9 98:2

101:16 102:3

104:20 106:4

107:15 108:2,7

109:12 110:23

111:16,20 112:1,10

112:14,25 113:4

114:5,8 115:14

118:14,15 121:6

122:5,17,21 124:21

125:19,23 126:11

127:5,8 128:10,17

129:3,10,11 130:15

130:16,19 133:23

137:24 138:1,8,9,11

139:13 140:23

141:21 142:2

143:17,18,23 145:2

145:9,24 146:3

147:4 153:13,23

154:9,14,16 155:22

155:24 162:11,13

162:20 163:25

167:19 168:6,23

173:17 175:5,6,8,18

175:21 176:1,6,9,18

177:20,24 178:13

178:23 179:1,22

180:2,8,11 181:21

181:25 182:10,13

182:19 183:6,7

184:16 185:7,9

186:11,19 187:4

188:7,11 189:11

corrected 82:9

111:22

correction 114:22

corrective 3:10,12

43:22 50:21 52:13

65:9 69:1

correctly 143:6

169:24

Council 189:20

counsel 2:1 7:4 9:8

10:4 22:3 35:17

117:20 147:24

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1010 Filed 03/04/15 Page 56 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 194

149:19 150:22

151:21 176:24

189:15

counsels 36:9

count 128:9

County 45:14 72:22

109:5,5 110:2,7

112:4 113:6,21

143:9 144:4 145:1

145:9,13 189:3

couple 8:20 69:9

183:10

course 12:5 36:6

103:11

courses 13:13

court 1:1,10 7:6 8:8

9:3 173:7 188:16

188:19,22 189:1,19

189:21,24 190:22

cover 83:21 87:22,22

149:16

covered 72:6

crazy 126:8

create 8:11 89:4

created 165:4 166:7

creating 8:12

Culpepper 3:13,15

44:15,23 45:6,19,22

47:25 48:2,13,18,23

49:19 52:21 53:25

54:3,8,15,17,18,25

55:2,9,11,20,24

62:22 65:11,18

66:2,23 67:4,10

68:2,12 69:17 71:5

71:9 72:18,20,23

73:2,21 100:5

133:5,12 135:14,22

136:3 142:2,12

143:1,3 144:17

145:17 146:2,5,11

146:11,13 147:16

148:9,13 154:2,8,12

156:4 158:25 172:5

172:9,21 173:20

Culpepper's 47:9

49:8 50:19 57:18

70:3,9 72:1 73:4

143:8,25 144:23

culture 39:20

curious 18:4

current 20:16 127:14

customary 190:16

customer 23:12,14

25:21 31:10 107:19

124:7

cut 129:21

D

D 2:11

Danielle 46:23

data 88:16 108:8

151:24 153:3

date 69:17 84:21 95:1

95:2,10 96:11,12,14

104:9,18 106:6,10

110:21 111:6,19,20

112:3 113:2,3,25

114:22 118:13,19

118:20 119:6,13,15

119:21,23 120:6,17

127:3,5 128:4,8

137:18,19 138:11

139:20,21 189:13

dated 3:11,13,16,19

3:22 4:4,6,8,9,14,17

4:19,21 5:1,3,5,8,10

5:13,15,18,20,23

6:4,6,11,13,18,22

68:16 98:17 99:16

102:1 107:24

109:17 111:10

112:18 121:25

123:3,24 125:8,18

128:24 139:3

165:22 182:5

dates 93:24 96:17,20

96:24 97:2,9

101:12 103:16,18

110:22 111:15

113:22 120:8

daughter's 11:16

day 49:25 50:7 57:20

58:11 61:7 62:11

68:5 101:9 106:10

106:13,19 119:17

120:19 130:1,22,24

130:24 131:5,18

132:10,13,17,22

133:8,14 146:21

148:23 172:17,18

173:17 174:3

190:19

days 26:20 168:3,4

day-to-day 84:14,24

86:2,15

De 4:19,21 5:5 44:4,7

64:5 96:5 97:19

98:17 99:2,6

100:21 101:5,19

102:19 103:8,18

109:17 110:25

111:5,11,14 112:19

112:24 117:6,11

119:5 120:14,22

121:8,17 123:25

124:18 127:4,8

128:6,14 129:1,7,22

130:13 137:9,25

140:5,23 157:16

158:6 159:11

162:20 171:16

172:4 178:11

183:15

Deakins 2:7

dealing 185:19

Deb 166:18 167:7

171:5

Deborah 6:4 165:18

166:17 171:7

December 1:13 7:1

95:17 98:17 99:16

101:12 102:2

104:20 107:2,24

109:17 111:10

112:18 121:25

123:4 190:19

decide 32:25 43:7

decided 43:9,10

decides 41:20

deciding 43:11

decipher 9:12

decision 19:7 35:18

35:19 36:3,11,13,17

36:19,19,24 39:9,17

39:19 41:9,12,13,15

41:23 42:5,24 57:9

62:17 74:8,13 75:9

124:20,24 146:9

169:9

decisions 44:6

declined 162:16

Defendant 1:6 2:6

define 59:3,7 85:24

defined 58:25

defining 147:2

definition 82:25

83:16

DEF-000041 4:10

DEF-000042 4:21

DEF-000044 4:12

DEF-000054 4:2

DEF-000055 5:6

DEF-000057 4:8

DEF-000058 5:18

DEF-000062 5:18

DEF-000093 3:17

DEF-000095 5:23

DEF-000096 5:23

DEF-000097 6:1

DEF-000098 6:2

DEF-000099 6:7

DEF-000100 6:7

DEF-000101 6:8

DEF-000102 6:9

DEF-000103 6:14

DEF-000104 6:14

DEF-000105 6:15

DEF-000106 6:16

DEF-000107 6:18

DEF-000108 6:18

DEF-000109 6:20

DEF-000110 6:20

DEF-000111 6:23

DEF-000112 6:23

DEF-000113 6:24

DEF-000121 3:22

DEF-000123 3:22

DEF-000124 3:24

DEF-000129 3:24

DEF-000132 3:20

DEF-000136 3:20

DEF-000166 3:13

DEF-000167 3:14

DEF-000174 3:11

DEF-000175 3:11

DEF-000176 5:2

DEF-000181 5:4

DEF-000193 4:17

DEF-000196 5:21

DEF-000197 5:21

DEF-000210 4:15

DEF-000211 4:15

DEF-000222 5:16

DEF-000224 5:16

DEF-000226 5:13

DEF-000227 5:13

DEF-000231 5:8

DEF-000232 5:8

DEF-000234 4:4 5:11

DEF-000236 4:4

DEF-000238 5:11

DEF-000324 4:6

DEF-000335 4:19

DEF-000337 4:23

DEF-000364 6:11

DEF-000365 6:11

DEF-000368 6:4

DEF-164 3:16

DEF-165 3:16

degree 12:19,22

DeLaTorre 4:6,17

Delta 1:5,12 2:12,12

3:17,23 5:22 6:5,10

6:12,17,21 7:17

14:14,16,17,22 15:4

15:6,23 20:21

21:17 22:7 23:22

23:23 24:5,13

26:22 27:1 29:13

32:2,8,23 33:5,7

34:2 35:16 50:24

51:2 56:23 63:21

64:5 70:13 74:22

76:12 78:16,20

79:8,15,21 82:6

86:22 89:11,17

94:5 113:19 124:14

127:12 145:15

151:24 152:16

155:5 184:14

Delta's 79:3 81:23

82:3 84:15,25

Delta-issued 90:8

Delta/Northwest

27:9

demographic 88:3,4

demographically

167:15

demoted 65:24 100:5

100:8

denied 74:23

deny 152:3

department 15:16,17

17:21 39:2,3 42:2

45:3 47:5,15 71:8

72:14 81:4,5,8,17

81:18,19 88:6

126:18,20 161:18

depend 33:13

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1011 Filed 03/04/15 Page 57 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 195

depending 30:10

deposed 7:25

deposition 1:8 7:18

7:19 10:4 13:4

189:5,9,24,25 190:1

depositions 18:6

Dept 2:12

describe 35:13

description 120:24

desk 40:10

detail 18:19 19:11

103:20

detailed 170:13

details 169:16

determinations

176:25

determine 19:13,19

19:21,23

determined 51:23

113:12 120:25

Detroit 22:1 23:10,13

23:15 25:1 31:1

34:2 35:23 36:21

51:2 52:4,5 74:23

76:19 87:8,11,15

88:17 89:12,17,22

148:2 152:5 158:10

163:23 167:18

186:4

Detroit's 87:14

development 15:22

40:7 93:18

difference 25:4 82:24

141:5 147:19

148:15

differences 24:24

25:16 29:9 31:16

69:10

different 16:14,18,19

16:20 24:1 25:11

26:4,15,19 27:2

28:4 31:23 37:9

39:17,19 41:2 49:7

51:24 60:16 65:4

78:1 90:10 91:22

108:16 112:23

141:8 142:20,25

146:1,14,17 147:1

147:15,18,21,23

154:4 155:11 162:6

163:11 172:15

173:12 183:4

differentiate 24:4

differentiated 148:19

differentiating 85:20

143:2

differently 83:10

153:18,20,23 172:6

172:10 178:16

difficult 151:22

direct 41:22 81:16

122:5

directly 85:6 101:14

153:16

director 84:13,16

directory 81:11,12,13

disagree 37:23 38:4

disciplinary 44:5

63:22 71:2

discipline 26:2,14

33:9 34:4,8,13 35:9

37:3,15,17 41:9,21

41:25 42:7,24 43:8

43:10,12,20 44:10

44:19 45:25 48:10

49:1 50:20 51:4,5

51:16 52:6,7,16,19

60:8 61:10 63:8,17

64:10,12,18 66:25

67:15,19 69:13

70:3,9 102:20,24

177:1

disciplined 48:14,23

51:3 54:19 63:5,10

63:17,19 64:25

65:19,21,22 67:10

67:23 80:3

disciplines 34:3 44:14

64:8

disciplining 33:8,11

disclose 189:17

disclosed 190:17

disclosure 7:4

discovery 150:6

discrepancies 137:11

discrepancy 20:13

95:25 96:7,15,18

discriminate 184:3

discriminated 171:17

171:22 172:1

183:19

discriminating 79:25

discrimination 18:13

34:21 76:20 77:5

77:10,18 78:17,21

79:10,17,20,22 80:3

80:6,12,17,22 81:1

157:4 163:25 177:4

178:20 179:22

181:7 182:18 184:1

185:11,14

discriminatory

163:20,22

discuss 102:19,23

156:9 165:8

discussed 4:1 66:24

93:6

discussion 103:6,7,10

discussions 173:5

disqualified 190:5

distinction 23:21

29:22,23 176:13

DISTRICT 1:1,1

Diversity 79:11

division 167:16,17,21

DM 42:7,14,15,16,17

42:22,23,23 43:13

43:15,16,17,18,21

44:10 100:6

dock 146:6

docked 48:18 49:9

50:3,11 56:16,22

57:19 58:15,22

59:18,25 61:12

62:3,9,16 65:5 68:2

68:4 144:9 146:23

156:3,5 172:22

docking 156:2

document 3:23 4:1

5:17 52:9 62:19

68:7 78:24 82:12

83:23 84:22 85:11

90:1,4,8,25,25

91:12,13,18 93:3

94:2,21,21 95:15

98:14,20 99:14,21

101:24 104:1

107:20 109:14

111:8 112:16

113:16 117:22

118:3 121:20 123:1

123:21 125:5,15

126:12 128:19

138:24 139:3,7,12

140:13 149:4

152:22 156:13,24

164:2,8,11 165:15

175:10 177:12

178:1 179:9,24

180:17 181:1,9

182:2,21

documentation 74:8

74:19 93:25 150:18

documented 75:11

documents 45:25

46:3,4 49:17 71:4

98:19,23 99:2

148:2,4 149:20

164:14 175:4

Document.pdf 4:22

dogs 152:7

doing 18:7 39:24

53:3 77:17 126:8

133:14 141:14

142:17 152:8

Domingo 4:5,17,19

4:21 5:5 64:4 96:5

100:3,20 101:23

107:6 120:10

139:19 162:10,12

162:16,19,19

175:18

Donovan 189:22,22

door 115:6 116:4

117:1

doors 115:11

dot 100:1,2,2

Dowdell 151:6,11

152:1,6,12,16,20

draft 139:12

draw 120:9

drive 126:8

driving 35:2

duly 7:8 189:14

Duncan 1:9 2:3

duties 23:9,25 24:1,7

24:9,10,19,21 25:3

25:5,6,9,11,15,17

25:18 126:21

E

earlier 126:24 129:23

140:4

easier 52:4 62:23

Eastern 1:1 11:18

12:10,12,16

education 11:12

effective 104:24

106:10,20 152:15

either 12:18 35:14

40:11 91:9 135:19

145:6 183:24

elaborate 14:10

election 31:20 130:24

137:21

electronic 93:17

151:24

emphasis 12:1

employed 20:20

89:11,16,24 152:20

employee 5:17 22:6,7

29:13 32:2 34:3

35:1 36:21 41:10

41:21 50:24 51:2,3

51:20 54:9 55:24

56:23 57:10,21

59:7 65:5 66:6,10

66:18 95:7,9

105:20 112:4 113:7

114:3 124:14

127:12 155:5

159:14 189:21

employees 18:20

20:14 23:13,15

27:17,19 28:10,16

29:5 30:17 31:3,11

32:3,6 33:8,11 56:4

70:14 89:24 104:13

104:15 110:18

141:5,6 142:5,9,10

153:12,18,22 154:3

178:16

employee's 51:16

56:21

employee-relations

32:9

employment 4:12

20:15 22:12 38:15

99:23

encouragement

156:17

ended 98:6,10

ends 182:9

engage 60:10

engagement 183:24

184:5

enrollment 15:9

ensued 173:6

ensure 167:8

ensuring 86:10

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1012 Filed 03/04/15 Page 58 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 196

entering 114:4

enters 13:3

entire 50:3 56:24,25

57:11 61:12 85:10

entitled 3:24 82:16

90:4 164:5

entry 114:1,4 115:5

EO 140:14 161:17

EPD 93:19

equal 15:16 39:3 81:3

81:7 84:13,15,16,18

84:25 85:7,24 86:1

126:17,19

equivalent 93:16,19

era 27:23

essence 141:20

essentially 78:1

established 174:4

estimate 76:11

estimated 112:12

ethics 5:22 6:6,10,13

6:17,22 76:7,10

81:23 82:4 156:18

157:2 166:14

175:12 180:20,25

182:4 184:15

events 120:21

eventually 27:7

everybody 18:2

Everybody's 94:14

evidence 7:23 18:23

19:14 54:14,15

75:11 118:5 133:25

134:3 135:19

183:18,22 189:12

exactly 20:11 91:16

149:13

Examination 3:2,4,5

7:10 183:11

examined 7:8

example 16:23 35:1

excerpt 3:17,18,21

exchanged 186:13

exercise 75:23

Exhibit 3:8,9 52:10

52:12 62:20,25

63:1 65:9 68:8,10

68:23 69:1,2,17,20

78:25 79:2 80:25

82:13,15 90:2,3,22

91:19,20,21 92:2

93:4,6 94:2,6 95:16

95:19 98:15,16

99:15,16 100:11

101:25 102:1 104:2

104:3 107:21,22

109:15,16 111:9,10

112:17,18 113:17

113:18 115:23

117:6,16,16 118:11

120:23,23 121:4,21

121:23 123:2,3,22

123:23 125:6,7,16

125:17 126:13,14

128:20,22 137:7,9

138:25 139:2

152:23,24,24

156:14,18 164:3,4,4

164:12,13,16,16,18

164:22 165:8,16,17

166:4,7 169:12

171:13 175:11,12

177:13,14,18 178:2

178:3 179:10,11,25

180:1,18,19,20

181:10,11,20 182:3

182:4,22,23

exhibits 165:9

exist 94:11,15

existed 80:22

experience 44:7

expired 13:11

explain 20:5 34:18

42:10 94:10 137:12

137:15,19 169:19

explained 148:15

explains 141:4

explanation 52:3

137:24 138:1,3,6,8

138:10,17 154:7

extend 53:12

extra 17:18

e-mail 4:3,3,5,13,14

4:16,16 5:1,3,5,7,7

5:9,10,12,12,14,15

5:19,20 6:3,3 28:22

95:17,21,24 96:5,21

97:12,17 98:16

107:22,23 108:4

109:16,25 111:1

121:25 122:4,19

123:3,7,9,13,19,23

125:7,17,21 126:14

126:24 128:7,11,21

128:22 129:5,22,24

129:25 140:3,21

144:15 145:8

149:17 152:11,25

160:21,24,25 161:4

161:25 165:18,24

166:4

e-mailing 186:10

e-mails 126:24

144:16 148:1 153:7

186:13

F

facilitated 15:15 16:2

facility 27:18

fact 66:24,25 71:3

99:1 111:4 114:7

116:25 117:1,11

119:12,22 122:23

128:16 134:13

137:15 143:5

148:10 176:16

178:25 179:19

181:4 182:15

factor 147:2 172:19

factors 143:3 147:6,7

facts 54:14

Fadi 159:12 178:12

fair 49:1 84:4 141:22

fairly 23:6

fairness 133:2

falsified 116:19

familiar 90:9 151:20

far 15:1 57:15 67:22

74:13 75:10 89:4

89:10 96:23 135:13

138:9 146:10

148:15 150:13

158:8,11 160:8

170:2 185:17 188:6

fashion 31:21 167:9

fax 149:20

faxed 149:16

faxing 149:20

February 165:22,24

167:3

federal 7:21,22 86:21

86:22 87:1

feed 94:14

feeding 117:23,24

feel 61:1 156:8

feels 178:19

Felicia 1:9 2:3 7:15

Felicia's 40:12

felt 98:3 153:17,22

163:21

figure 47:23

file 4:7 46:2,9,10

70:22 71:2 72:20

72:23 73:5,11 74:2

74:3,15,19 75:8

98:24 99:3,7,11,21

99:22,23 101:13,13

101:22 108:20,22

109:2,6,9 111:5

120:13 129:15

147:8 170:16 171:3

174:24 175:5

filed 177:22 181:24

182:24

files 46:14 74:10

filter 171:5

filtered 167:10

168:21

final 3:10 43:22

52:12 112:1

financial 190:12,14

190:15

find 39:16 49:8 78:20

88:21 159:21

findings 174:19

fine 18:7 118:8

138:21

finish 72:1

finished 161:14

firms 86:5

first 5:17 7:8 14:16

18:17 52:25 57:14

58:25 65:15 68:22

76:7 79:10 83:21

84:10,12,22 86:3,7

95:1 99:20 113:24

139:3 140:8 189:14

five 13:21 110:18

112:13 170:5,7

fix 37:1

fixed 82:9

flight 31:4

flights 9:16

flip 151:1

fluid 37:24 38:21

focus 32:8 137:8

focused 12:19 32:9

32:10 103:22

folks 28:20 31:7

43:25

follow 34:23 37:20

83:4,6,12,14 85:14

127:7 128:13

140:20

following 15:12

18:22 19:2 85:2

follows 7:9 173:8

follow-up 184:21

foregoing 189:4,10

forget 48:11,12

forgot 10:20

form 149:21 156:19

176:6,9

formal 15:14

format 92:5

formats 92:3

formatting 90:9

former 73:5 161:8

forth 20:8,11 71:1

148:3 186:10

forward 14:24 15:3

162:4

forwarded 161:20

162:7

forwarding 161:23

found 47:24 48:12

49:23 50:15 78:16

79:15,21 80:22

92:16 131:23,25

187:20

foundation 54:13

118:7,9 135:19

foundational 133:24

four 48:18 49:9 57:19

57:22 58:10 68:2,5

86:16 96:17,20,24

97:2,3,9 110:21

111:15 115:18

fourth 86:19

frame 12:5 49:11

50:10,19

Francis 4:14 107:23

109:11,21

Franz 1:8 3:3 4:6,10

4:14,16 5:1,3,7,10

5:12,15,20 7:7,12

7:14,24 10:1,3,14

52:11 65:8 68:9

79:1 82:14 90:4

95:17 121:22

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1013 Filed 03/04/15 Page 59 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 197

128:22 139:1

141:21 148:11

150:4 152:24

177:17 182:4,23

183:13 184:24

189:14

fraud 35:9 48:24,25

49:2 53:2,3,19 54:9

55:23 56:7,8 58:16

58:23 59:1,6,12

60:10,20 61:16

62:6,12,18 63:2,4,5

63:18 65:14,20

66:12 67:2,6,11,14

69:6 117:10,13

121:6 122:21,24

133:9,15,23 135:3

135:12 136:4,8

137:3 159:1

fraudulently 121:1,9

free 79:9,16 156:8

frequently 121:12

front 36:25 37:14,18

91:8 164:12

fully 41:3

further 30:2 71:24

117:8 141:3 152:14

156:9 188:15

F-R-A-N-Z 7:14

G

GA 2:13

Gail 165:19

gain 105:20

general 1:12 12:21

42:24 44:6 64:5

77:2,8 100:9

154:24 155:9 161:9

161:13

generalist 22:11,17

22:19,25

generalist/HR 23:10

23:19

generalist/manager

33:7 51:1 70:13

73:22 166:23

generally 29:2 80:9

geographically

167:15

Georgia 1:12 21:2

32:16 189:2,20,20

getting 21:15,18

54:10 126:7

Giustina 2:11 10:8

17:20,24

give 8:13,25 9:2 29:1

29:2 40:8 51:8 64:8

66:9 75:19 80:13

100:12 105:11

128:12

given 17:6 53:6,10,22

56:4 61:1 119:6

127:5 138:8,11

160:22 189:12

giving 54:9 66:6

128:9,17 181:13

glad 90:11

GM 43:17,18,21,24

44:11

go 8:3 13:6 20:11

25:11 28:15 30:10

36:16 37:6 38:6,8

39:19 40:19 43:18

43:21 45:23 59:4

61:3 69:16 71:23

98:23 99:2,6

115:22 117:4

127:18 133:13

134:14 135:13,16

135:23,24,25 145:7

149:2,19 156:15

159:3 164:14,17

171:8,8

goals 88:10

goes 114:17

going 8:3,5 11:3

18:22 21:23 24:3

24:14 27:8 37:23

38:4,5,6,7 39:14

40:16,24 41:25

42:14 45:8 49:16

64:12,14,15 68:15

70:18 72:14 95:2

97:6 99:11 103:17

107:1,13 113:18

117:5,22 118:23,25

125:13 126:23

132:11,13,17

134:14 135:16

137:20 151:1

159:14 162:1

165:23 169:25

188:16

good 8:2 25:13 35:24

39:8,20 40:4,12

47:12 52:3 90:11

134:22 169:11

176:13

gosh 18:25

gotten 29:11 41:1

43:3 73:18 118:19

government 86:21,22

gradual 31:24

graduate 10:15,17

11:7 12:2,17

Grand 11:15,20 12:2

12:6

gray 4:10 5:1 83:2

102:2,6,10,23

103:16,19 122:2,5

124:1,19 153:1,9

155:14 156:8

184:10 185:17,18

186:3,17 187:11

greater 26:10

green 101:1

grievance 26:18 30:9

32:13

group 80:20 88:7

grouped 24:8

grouping 77:25

guess 13:21 28:14

76:17 88:20 168:12

180:13

guideline 82:22,24

83:1,4,7,8,12 85:11

168:2

Guidelines 3:19

82:17

H

hand 179:3

handed 52:11 68:9

79:1 82:14 90:3

91:20 93:5 121:22

139:1 165:17

177:14 179:11

180:19 181:11

handle 35:7

handled 30:1,3,6,9

30:16,18

handles 15:6

handling 171:22

172:1

happen 33:23 36:14

36:25 37:9 52:6

58:6 103:12 169:2

happened 21:21

31:18,20,22 36:5

37:8 46:13 51:13

66:8 133:4 146:12

146:17 153:13

154:1 170:4 172:21

happening 98:4,7,11

163:22 170:10

happens 30:12 41:24

42:18 46:3 169:4,6

happy 11:17

harassment 81:1

hard 48:11

head 8:15 10:24 41:7

84:18 106:15

headers 92:23

headings 94:22

hear 11:17 110:17

heard 23:20 27:3

150:20

hearing 116:22

held 167:2

hell 152:8

help 9:9 35:18 36:10

41:5 45:8 61:9

81:23 82:4 158:20

165:2

hey 37:7 88:23

119:20 151:4

160:13 187:19

high 10:14,17 11:6,8

76:18

higher 17:2 37:6

hired 22:15,16

hiring 26:1,8,9 89:4

history 20:16 28:24

hold 20:23 103:2

166:21

holidays 163:6

honest 14:18

hope 18:1

hot 76:8,10,19 77:18

78:1 81:24 82:1,3,5

148:18 157:2

166:15 177:5,19

178:3 181:16

183:16 184:1,6,15

184:25 185:1,3,14

hours 10:11 48:19

49:9 57:19,22 58:2

58:10,10 68:2,5

95:18 159:10

housekeeping 7:19

Howell 11:8

HR 12:1 14:11 15:4,6

15:11 16:24 17:4

20:21 21:1,5,25

22:16,19,22,25 23:2

23:5,10,12,19 24:17

25:7,8,25 26:24

27:2 28:4,6,8 29:21

30:6,20,20,24 31:7

32:11 34:21 35:16

36:9,20 38:23

39:21 40:5 41:3

44:11 50:25 52:4,5

54:21 68:19 74:23

76:12 81:3 83:17

86:2 98:4 107:12

122:10 140:21

141:4,20 142:14

148:8,10 150:4

154:25 166:22

167:8

HR-related 14:12

HR-wise 28:3

Hughes 46:23

huh-uh 8:18 97:20

160:1 161:10

human 3:18 12:5,20

12:23 14:8 15:2

20:18,25 22:11

29:14,16 33:6

38:13 70:12 73:22

hundred 42:19 43:14

hung 26:23

hurry 63:14

I

IAB 2:3

icky 58:19

idea 8:21 34:4

identified 52:9 62:19

68:7 78:24 82:12

90:1 91:18 93:3

95:15 98:14 99:14

101:24 104:1

107:20 109:14

111:8 112:16

113:16 121:20

123:1,21 125:5,15

126:12 128:19

138:24 152:22

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1014 Filed 03/04/15 Page 60 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 198

156:13 164:2

165:15 175:10

177:12 178:1 179:9

179:24 180:17

181:9 182:2,21

implementation

84:14,25 87:4

important 8:13 9:11

impression 39:24

40:9

improve 64:9,11

inappropriate 51:22

51:24

incident 18:24 19:3

26:21 27:4 28:9

29:4 47:6 96:6

143:5,13 145:21,22

151:6,10 175:21

incidents 147:3

173:21 174:13

include 12:6 103:19

103:21 167:19

included 15:7 23:14

119:6,14 122:9

127:3 152:1 167:18

including 183:25

184:5

inconsistencies 115:2

incorrect 111:6,19

increased 33:3

indefinitely 42:13

independent 74:9

155:15 187:14

INDEX 3:1,2,8

indicate 101:6,7

115:9 122:4 129:6

132:21 153:1

174:21

indicated 31:12

33:25 102:13 112:7

113:20 117:6

120:14 121:5

125:25 126:2 137:9

184:13

indicates 52:24 63:1

65:13 79:8 84:10

85:11 87:4 96:5

104:18 113:6

162:10,12 169:12

175:17 178:15,18

indicating 101:1

indication 29:1,2

individual 19:13

71:21 101:18

187:18

individualized 16:13

individually 29:1

individuals 22:4

27:10 142:13

155:20

influence 37:11,12

39:9,17

inform 124:19

information 17:17

19:7 45:17,21,23

67:18 72:12 88:3,5

88:5,9,17 100:12,13

100:17,22 139:24

148:17 149:25

150:22 151:23

155:19,20,24

157:22 158:5,18

180:7,11 185:4

186:17,18 187:1,3,5

187:8,21 188:3,5

informed 124:23

125:2 140:7

informing 142:19

infraction 35:4 51:19

69:21 74:6 75:10

infractions 114:23

initially 24:6

inquire 186:4

inquiry 151:25 153:9

instance 113:12

147:15,16

instances 20:2 33:14

33:20 35:20 75:21

147:20

instruct 121:8

instructed 124:17

intending 103:25

intention 25:7

interest 190:5,12,15

internal 4:9 32:22

102:1

interpretation 134:3

interpreted 85:25

interrupted 29:8

interview 19:2 20:12

129:21 158:11

171:14

interviewing 20:1,2,7

interviews 19:18

intranet 92:17,18,18

investigate 36:2

126:20 177:10

185:19

investigated 53:1

63:2,4,18 65:14,20

69:6 80:6,12,16

investigating 148:18

investigation 15:14

15:19,24 16:14,22

17:12 18:10,11

19:9 26:14 33:17

33:21 40:4 44:18

44:20,25 45:5,24

46:4,9 70:20 73:10

74:10,21 76:8

78:15,16 99:25

100:2 117:8 137:10

141:4,13,18 142:1

142:14,16 143:14

143:16 147:25

148:8,13,14 149:23

149:23 150:14

155:16 157:3,6,14

157:16,19 158:1,3,5

158:16 159:2,15

160:9 162:5 168:14

168:19 174:20

176:2,9,12,16,20

177:8 186:22

187:14 188:2

investigations 12:7

13:25 15:9 16:8,16

17:7 18:16 25:9

26:17 46:2 76:11

78:18 80:7,10

157:10,13,22

158:19,21,22

176:23 185:6,10

investigatory 45:12

45:15,21,25 72:20

72:23 73:4

invited 18:1

involve 16:23 39:2,3

involved 17:15 28:17

34:16 39:21 44:11

44:13,17 70:15,21

86:20 98:7 101:14

101:18 157:4 159:2

166:9 170:1 178:20

involvement 26:3,6,8

26:10 33:7,12,15

70:13 183:14

involving 77:11,19

in-depth 17:5,11

in-house 26:9,11,12

29:15 30:1 184:14

issue 28:17 38:2

111:15 116:13,14

116:16 153:3 154:4

178:19

issued 42:18 61:11

issues 15:6 29:17

35:21

italics 141:3

J

J 1:3 98:19

James 4:3 5:8

January 50:18 68:16

69:21 106:21

123:24 125:8,18

139:4 153:8 169:13

175:16 178:7

179:13 180:22

182:5 187:23

Jason 3:10 44:14

52:13 142:12 143:1

148:9

jazzy 43:25

Jerrick 1:3 4:1,7 5:17

7:16 77:11 80:8

93:7 99:21 126:16

139:18,21 140:15

157:4 159:8 183:16

job 23:9 25:3,4,6

50:7 63:20 64:13

Joel 1:10 190:21

Johnny's 28:23

join 17:19

journal 69:13 93:10

93:12,13,14,14,16

93:17,19,20,22,23

98:19 129:8,12,14

129:17

Judicial 189:19

jumping 100:4

K

K 2:11

keep 9:18 139:21

181:13

keeping 152:5

Kelley 5:13,15

126:15,16,17

Kelly 2:11 10:8

kept 46:1,8,10

keyed 104:25

kin 189:15

kind 14:19 30:4

32:10 37:24 40:24

58:6 61:24 80:25

84:1,4 91:22

104:14 133:21

168:15

kinds 29:20 34:12

Kircher 6:4 165:19

165:25 166:17,18

167:6,21 168:8

169:12 170:15,19

Kircher's 167:12

knew 54:15,24 55:3,6

55:7,11 81:20

130:9 163:24

172:17,18 173:17

174:7

know 8:2 9:18 11:2

18:25 21:20 23:18

24:24 25:8,8 26:16

28:5 29:23 30:11

31:19,20 33:3 35:6

35:12 37:24,25,25

38:21,25 39:1,4

40:1,3 41:22 42:22

42:23 43:1,9,9,21

46:17,20 47:2,9,21

48:25 49:6,15,16,17

51:12,25 56:15

57:15 58:5,15,22

59:24 60:4,4,7 65:3

66:24 67:17,22

71:19,20,21 72:9,18

73:7,9 76:14,17

80:2,8 83:23 84:16

88:25 89:1 91:16

92:5 93:21,22

94:17 95:1,6 96:18

96:23 97:11 102:9

103:16 104:7

106:21,25 107:12

109:9 110:18

111:18 116:9,11,15

117:3,19 119:16

123:9 125:2 127:15

127:19,20,23

130:12,21 131:1,4

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1015 Filed 03/04/15 Page 61 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 199

132:1,10,24 135:7

137:17 138:5,14,16

140:1,2,7,17 142:5

142:6 143:12,24

144:6,21 145:14,15

146:15,15 148:5,16

148:21,24 149:1,10

149:11 150:2,3,13

152:13,14 154:11

156:1,2,3,6 158:8

158:12 160:8,14

162:1,2,5,7 163:12

166:14 168:18

169:2,4,9,22 170:2

172:23 173:19

174:12 184:11,17

185:21,22,25 188:1

188:6

knowledge 53:11

73:6 80:19 85:7

88:18,20 97:10

108:18,19 110:15

124:15 140:9,11,17

155:12,18,21

176:19,21 177:11

185:20 186:4,8,20

186:24 187:3,9,10

187:15,16

known 22:5 54:23

57:20 65:5 79:24

80:5,11 154:15

knows 123:20

Kotula 96:6,11

100:23 101:7 158:6

171:21

Kotula's 157:14

Kriksciun 4:3 5:8

97:12,14,15 105:16

125:8

Kronos 45:11 72:19

108:10,12,13,21,25

143:8,9 144:3

145:20

L

La 4:19,21 5:5 44:4,7

64:5 96:5 97:19

98:17 99:2,6

100:21 101:5,19

102:19 103:8,18

109:17 110:25

111:5,11,14 112:19

112:24 117:6,11

119:5 120:14,22

121:8,17 123:25

124:18 127:4,8

128:6,14 129:1,7,22

130:13 137:9,25

140:5,23 157:16

158:6 159:11

162:20 171:16

172:4 178:11

183:15

labor 38:15

lack 54:13 118:7,9

135:19

Lance 151:6,10 152:6

152:12,16

Langel 2:11 13:3

17:20,23 18:7

language 121:18

late 131:18 132:6,11

132:13,17,22

law 2:3 15:15 17:21

190:10,13

laws 86:11

lawyer 17:25

law-focused 14:2

lead 20:6 51:16 58:6

leader 33:15,18,21

35:17 36:16,18

37:23 38:3,4,5,7,8

41:13,16 44:24

45:1 81:2 97:21,23

97:24,25 105:4,7

127:11,16 143:15

170:1

leaders 16:2,8,15

17:1,6 104:12

leadership 33:22

51:21

leadership-develop...

32:10

leading 45:24

leap 130:4

learn 15:5

leaves 15:8

led 30:4

LeeAustin 5:20

152:25 153:9,17

154:23 155:15

161:15

Leela 76:7

left 25:1 46:13 73:8

89:22 114:23

legal 39:2

letter 42:17,18 43:12

43:18 51:24,25

52:1

letting 130:12 132:10

let's 14:15,23 16:9

18:9 20:15 25:1,17

49:14 62:2 69:16

115:5 136:19

level 17:1,2 30:10

34:7,10 37:17 38:3

40:6 43:16 51:21

107:1

levels 17:12,13 43:19

43:20

lie 172:24,25

limiting 21:16

line 48:3,7 49:19

54:25 55:4,10

72:17 76:8,10,19

77:18 78:1 81:24

81:24 82:1,3,4,5

101:1 105:3 112:25

148:18 154:9 157:2

166:15 177:5,19

178:3 181:16

183:16 184:1,6,15

184:25 185:1,3,14

lines 1:5,12 2:12 5:22

6:5,10,12,17,21

94:23

link 91:17

Lisa 5:5,10 123:24

124:3 125:18 161:6

161:6

list 38:20 103:16

110:21 114:23

listed 85:5 96:21

listen 40:22

listing 111:15

little 8:4 20:16 21:19

35:2 38:10 45:9

49:15 58:19 79:19

90:10 91:22 112:23

117:5 118:24

119:11 140:3 141:3

163:11 169:19

local 29:21 30:20,24

locally 29:16 30:3,6

30:10,18 32:5

located 21:2 22:1

81:5 124:8,12

127:24 166:25

location 27:16 30:13

89:22 152:5 166:24

186:4

long 10:9 13:18 20:20

56:11 76:16 106:25

148:23 159:25

162:24 163:2

longer 152:16,20

look 18:22 19:4 65:8

68:22 107:5 113:21

115:5 147:8 149:19

150:7,23 151:22

156:16 160:18,20

160:22 161:25

162:23,25 165:21

165:22 176:10

178:23,25 179:17

179:19 181:2,4

182:13,15

looked 100:24 143:16

143:24 144:13,22

145:16 176:16

177:9

looking 63:7 74:3,4,5

74:7 75:8 90:12

184:24 185:13

187:20

looks 79:4 90:9,10

92:2 99:17 112:23

129:9 161:1,3

lot 28:6 38:14 112:4,9

113:7,13,21 114:1,3

114:5,15 115:16,19

116:21,24,25

159:14

lots 33:4 41:2 142:8

low 76:19

lower 51:4

M

M 2:7 5:1

maintained 13:10

majority 49:24 50:12

53:13,18 54:5

62:10

making 9:16 35:24

102:12 167:22

168:9

management 12:20

36:10,12 37:6

39:12 56:24 58:1,9

74:16 75:24 76:1

manager 20:19,21,25

21:1,5,25 22:22

23:2,5,10,19 24:17

36:4 41:22 42:2,25

44:6 45:3 47:5,15

68:20 71:8 72:14

81:3 83:17 86:2

94:11,11,14,16,21

100:9 104:11

154:24 155:9 161:9

161:13

manager/generalist

36:21

manager/HR 76:13

manner 70:4,10

manual 3:18,21 15:7

90:13,14,17 91:7

marathon 9:16

March 15:21,25 94:7

94:17,25 95:2,14

152:15

mark 165:9

marked 46:2 52:12

65:9 79:2 93:5

95:18 121:23 139:2

164:13

marks 130:5

matter 171:23 172:2

MBA 12:16,19

mean 8:19 14:10

27:14 30:8,13

34:18 43:1 45:24

46:3 49:2 59:14

60:4,14 63:7 64:3

82:3 85:13 95:12

96:13 104:10 105:5

105:23 110:16

114:25 115:9

125:10 137:25

138:4 144:3,4

147:5 150:13

155:14,25 159:18

164:21 169:6 186:9

186:12

meaning 91:23

131:21

means 51:1 92:10,13

95:6 105:6 106:1

meant 175:3

medical 128:1,3

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1016 Filed 03/04/15 Page 62 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 200

meet 10:3,6,9,12 99:1

169:7

Melissa 84:19

memo 4:18,20 99:17

101:13 102:1,5

103:15,19 111:10

112:19,22

Memorandum 4:9

memory 100:16

mention 78:4 154:8

mentioned 19:15

22:3 31:6 39:16

120:18 126:25

153:11 183:17

mentions 154:4

175:23

merged 15:22

merger 14:20,23

21:20 22:10,20,21

22:23 23:1 24:15

25:4 31:13,18

Merriman 26:22

met 107:6

method 81:8

metro 27:8,10,16,24

28:11,18 29:6 31:1

31:4 107:1 160:10

MI 2:4,9

Michigan 1:1 11:9,18

12:10

middle 139:16

military 95:1

million 58:5

mind 59:12 61:6,7,25

89:19 100:4 162:18

mine 13:12 136:24,25

166:19

minorities 89:11

minute 49:17 110:11

112:9 116:6

minutes 110:14,18

112:13 115:15,18

missing 75:12 174:2

mistake 131:6

misuse 67:16,19

Mohammad 4:4,18

4:20 5:3,5 44:1

103:3

moment 98:23

100:15

months 69:25

morning 8:6 9:24

mouth 10:25 136:1

move 28:6 32:16

moving 44:10 79:19

Moyer 1:10 190:21

MSS 104:9

multiple 125:11

137:11

N

Nabors 5:13,15

126:15,16,17,25

128:25 130:12

139:25 140:4

141:17 148:10

149:3,4,5 151:13,25

155:14

name 7:13 81:20,21

91:3,6 104:7

105:11 151:12,19

162:15 175:24

Nash 2:7

nature 94:21

near 84:11

necessarily 16:25

35:4,11 36:22,23

41:22 42:3 43:9

80:10 87:9 90:18

97:3

necessary 20:3,7 38:6

need 9:17 24:9 34:12

60:23 62:21 63:8

84:1 88:23 99:6,7

150:6 164:10

174:15

needed 34:8 36:2

98:4 130:9

needs 37:9

negative 160:1

161:10

neither 54:22

never 27:3 38:16

110:17 150:20

159:17,20,24

new 17:25 22:23

32:17 38:20 163:14

Nhia 4:14 107:23

nod 8:15 9:4

nodding 9:3

Nods 106:15

nondiscrimination

84:7

nonverbal 8:25 9:10

non-minority 153:12

153:20

nooses 26:22

noose-hanging 27:4

normal 99:8,8

normally 110:14

Northwest 14:19

15:23 21:13 22:5,6

22:13,16 23:21,22

24:4 26:6,13,20,25

27:22 28:2,3,8 30:7

93:16 95:9

note 99:21,22 101:13

101:17

noted 74:1 149:7

notes 141:24

notice 3:10,12,15 4:7

7:20 9:3 52:13

65:10 68:10,24

69:1

notified 98:11 131:17

notify 34:8,13 35:5,8

35:11

notifying 125:21

November 48:11

49:10 50:13 59:19

62:10 69:17 96:19

100:14,18 101:11

101:11 109:12

110:2,21 111:6,19

112:3 113:3,4,22,25

114:22 115:2,6

118:13 119:5,13

120:17 127:3

133:22 137:18,18

138:10 139:20

145:22 173:21,22

173:24,25

Now's 138:21

number 5:23 6:6,11

6:13,18,22 32:6

38:16 86:16 89:10

95:5,7,7,9 147:3,20

156:21 159:10

163:18 169:18

175:13 178:22

179:4,7,12,16 180:4

180:14,15 182:9

numbers 83:25 88:22

89:3,6,9 178:4

180:21 182:10

O

object 54:12

objecting 117:25

objection 54:21 59:5

60:24 82:21 118:4

118:6,9 133:25

134:18

objective 86:8,17

objectives 85:3,12,16

85:18,22

obligations 86:21

obtain 19:1 175:4

obtained 180:10

obvious 163:20,22

obviously 167:18

occasion 75:13

120:15

occur 18:12 57:1,7,7

169:18

occurred 26:21 57:15

90:20 100:14

109:25 120:4,21

130:22 133:3

occurring 149:24

151:15 169:17

OCGA 190:2,6

odd 92:25

offense 11:2 174:8,10

offered 190:17

office 46:12,14,24

73:5,11

Offices 1:11,12

official 134:18

off-the-record 173:5

off-the-road 90:25

91:9

Ogletree 2:7

oh 12:8 18:25 25:22

28:23 63:13 71:5

107:25 116:10

126:4 130:6 141:2

142:11 144:18

154:21 159:3

162:17,18 177:17

186:14

okay 8:22,23 9:5,14

9:25 10:25 11:4

14:25 18:2,3 38:18

40:15,18,21 45:10

46:16 56:12,13

61:4,6,7,23 62:1,21

63:15 70:17 72:3

73:12,14 82:2,4

94:9 97:8,22 126:6

127:22 130:8,11

134:2,22 141:2

144:18 145:10

146:22,25 147:12

151:2 159:8 169:11

174:17,18 181:18

once 16:11 19:6

32:14 41:12 73:19

146:24

ones 17:16 51:18

85:17,18,22 92:25

one-sentence 139:17

one-time 143:5,12,22

online 81:14 91:16

on-the-road 90:25

91:9

open 15:8 176:1

operation 4:11 70:24

74:5 102:15

operational 34:17

93:2

operations 38:24

39:4,12 74:16

75:14,21 107:17

122:15

opportunities 64:7,8

opportunity 15:16

33:4 39:3 63:23

64:2 81:4,7 84:13

84:15,17,18,25 85:8

85:24 86:1 126:18

126:19

OPS 122:14

option 75:23

order 59:11

orderly 9:23 31:21

organizations 25:12

original 69:25 107:25

161:4

originally 109:10

Ortiz 131:17 132:4,8

132:14,15 133:1,6

133:21 134:25

135:7 136:7 137:1

138:10

outside 14:5 29:21

45:17 72:2 78:10

86:5 160:9 175:5

187:7

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1017 Filed 03/04/15 Page 63 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 201

overlook 9:9

overseeing 25:25

184:15

oversight 23:11

25:18 120:17

130:19,22 137:20

137:23 138:4

overview 15:10

P

P 1:10 190:21

PACE 115:24 116:7

package 45:15

114:19

packet 45:12

page 3:6 4:25 5:25

68:14,16,22 69:10

69:12 83:21,24

84:6 96:4 126:23

139:16,17 150:24

151:1

pages 189:10

paid 54:4,11 56:6

59:8 66:21 135:16

136:9,11,11,13

paper 63:9 119:7

128:4

papers 128:10

paragraph 52:25

65:15 69:11 79:11

80:24 84:11 86:19

96:4 117:7 129:20

139:17,18 142:11

154:2

parentheses 140:19

parking 114:5

part 45:5,11,14 48:15

48:20 49:4,10 67:1

67:5,24 70:19

87:25 88:2 102:7

126:17,21 138:4

146:12 163:4,5

174:2

participant 16:3

particular 19:15 34:7

34:10 36:5 39:13

41:20 46:11 51:12

73:10 74:1 88:20

89:6 103:15 104:16

112:22 169:21

176:6 178:10

182:12

parties 189:16

190:18

parts 30:8 159:19

party 161:2 190:11

190:11,13,14

paste 129:22

patient 38:11

pay 30:13 48:19 49:8

50:3,11 56:16,22,25

57:20,21 58:1,11,14

58:22 59:18,25

61:12 65:5 68:5

135:8 144:9 146:6

146:7,23 156:2

172:22

payroll 26:11 29:18

29:24 32:1,12

137:11

PC 2:8 189:22,23

peer 166:19,20

peers 153:20

people 23:16 27:6,7

34:16,19,22 41:2

80:20 91:17 92:20

92:24 158:11,11

160:14 185:8

perceived 114:23

percent 42:19 43:14

83:11,14

Perdue 165:19

performance 3:10,13

3:15 15:22 40:7

63:20,22 64:1,2,6,8

64:9,11,13,17,25

65:6,10 68:11 69:2

93:18 127:11,16

performed 23:9

80:10

period 21:4 44:2

108:12 136:11,13

145:17 162:24

163:2,8,9,10

permission 53:10,12

54:1,4,9 55:14,17

55:21 66:3,6,10

133:7,12,16,22

134:7 135:1,23

136:3,8,9,17 137:2

146:2,6 170:16

person 17:18 18:18

20:8,9 22:5 27:2

28:5,9 40:5 41:3

46:18 54:21 57:14

58:9 59:12 75:4

76:13 80:20 81:17

83:19 95:8 106:2

123:18 145:7

161:14 162:11

163:21 175:18

190:8

personal 140:9,11,17

personally 36:15

personnel 3:19,21

46:1 82:16 90:12

90:13,16

person's 58:1

perspective 15:11

phone 28:22 123:16

150:15 185:22

186:16

PHR 13:6,10,14 14:6

phrase 64:4 92:25

phrased 134:6

phrasing 121:9

physically 127:23

166:25

pick 27:19

picking 9:4

piece 61:21 119:7

pieces 61:20

pile 165:2

pilots 31:4

PL 41:8,12,20,23

42:5 43:4,11 44:10

45:2 47:5,15 71:7

72:14 131:17

132:12 133:16

136:7 137:4

place 9:12 14:20

32:15 34:3,5,9,14

39:10 42:8 46:19

49:23 52:1,7 60:8

74:25 75:6,12,15

94:1 140:8 144:19

158:19,21,23

placed 129:8 141:7

Plaintiff 1:3 2:2

Plaintiff's 3:9 52:10

62:20 68:8 78:25

82:13 90:2 91:19

93:4 95:16 98:15

99:15 101:25 104:2

107:21 109:15

111:9 112:17

113:17,18 121:21

123:2,22,23 125:6

125:16 126:13

128:20 138:25

152:23 156:14

164:3 165:16

175:11 177:13

178:2 179:10,25

180:18 181:10

182:3,22

plan 30:12,14 61:7

87:5,6,8,12,15,16

89:5

plans 30:15

play 33:11

please 7:13 9:18

35:14,15 109:18

117:21 135:5

181:12

PLLC 2:3

Plymouth 2:4

PL's 43:6

point 9:1,17 12:9

13:9 23:2 36:11

39:1,8 48:16,17

62:3 65:4 68:20

84:12 86:20 110:1

111:23 114:13

118:12,22 119:3

129:15,23 130:21

130:25 131:1,3

138:7,11,16,19

158:13 163:12

171:6

pointed 29:23,24,25

points 31:23 85:14

117:7

policies 30:21 34:21

34:23 35:17 85:2

85:12,15,17,22

91:17 92:20,24

93:1,2

policy 3:17 15:7 19:4

19:20 20:10 34:16

34:17,19 74:7 79:3

79:5 82:16,19,24,25

83:15 84:7 85:25

86:8,9,16,18 90:21

90:22,22,24 92:15

103:24

poor 65:5

portion 173:8

position 20:17,23

32:17,19,23 33:1,2

67:9,14 107:12

127:14,20 161:8

166:21 167:3

possible 18:19 35:22

possibly 116:20,24

posting 32:23

post-high 11:11

post-merger 29:10

potential 19:4

potentially 19:5

35:20 83:9

practice 39:6 163:7

practices 3:18,21

90:13,14,16 163:21

163:22

practicing 38:14

predictable 92:8,12

premises 130:18

preparation 13:14

present 16:1,6 19:18

26:17 42:17

presentation 16:7

presented 43:13,15

presenter 16:4

president 105:14

presume 11:3

pretty 31:14,21 50:3

156:16

previous 77:13,22

97:17 157:10,12

185:5,6,10

previously 174:23

175:2

pre-merger 29:10,11

primarily 85:1

principal 190:9

printed 108:17

prior 9:21 10:4 20:23

21:12 22:6,9 25:3

29:12 37:15 50:13

108:18 117:1

privy 26:23

probably 13:21 16:10

58:6 81:25 86:14

145:4 170:8

probe 21:19

problem 24:23 37:7

38:12 110:6,10,20

112:8 117:2 118:13

problematic 110:22

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1018 Filed 03/04/15 Page 64 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 202

procedure 7:22 34:24

procedures 30:22

proceed 9:23

Proceedings 3:1

73:15 138:22

188:23

process 9:19 14:4

15:22 16:17,20

17:9 18:9,11,15,17

26:4,7,15,18 29:10

30:9 31:14,16

32:13 37:24 38:22

39:10 44:9 73:23

102:8,9 106:22

163:5 170:17,25

processes 39:22

produced 148:23

164:11 165:1

181:14,15

professional 12:24

17:4 81:3

professionals 16:25

proffered 138:8

program 12:15 84:15

85:1,8

prohibited 190:2

promotion 32:18

33:4

prompt 9:1

pronounce 97:13

property 59:9,10,13

59:14,19 60:3

protected 183:25

184:5

protocol 99:9

provide 33:22 39:4

73:24 141:12

153:25 189:24

190:7

provided 7:3 45:18

55:20 73:1 87:13

100:18 109:1

138:17 139:24

143:3 148:17

155:21 157:22

158:6 179:5 180:3

186:19

providing 96:8 174:1

published 81:9

pull 45:17 72:25

129:12

pulled 95:8,13

115:16,19

punch 57:11 95:25

96:6 110:3,7 112:5

115:24

punched 48:14,19

49:3,9 50:4,11

53:12,16 55:7,17

56:1,22,23,24 58:2

58:9 66:3,10,18

67:4,23 101:2

133:13 135:15

146:22 154:12

159:9

punches 45:11 72:19

108:2,6,16,17,21,21

108:25 109:12,19

109:20 111:2 143:9

143:10,25 144:3,23

punching 159:13

purpose 82:5,7 99:10

purposes 7:19

pursuant 7:4,20

189:17

pursue 11:11

pursuing 11:24

purview 30:25

put 18:5 42:6,13 46:1

74:16 83:24 103:18

104:12,19 134:7,15

135:1,7 136:1,17,19

137:2

puts 140:19

putting 61:18,19

116:5

p.m 1:14 138:22,23

178:7 179:13

180:22 182:6

188:23

Q

quarterly 16:10

question 8:22 9:20,21

10:21 14:19 23:19

28:12 33:10 37:1,2

40:23,23 43:2 49:1

49:7 50:24 57:6

58:17,24 59:4,4,16

59:21 60:9,12,12,15

61:2 64:22 94:10

98:9 117:20 129:9

133:4,9,20 134:8,11

134:14,19,24

136:16,16,18,22,23

144:20 147:12

171:20 174:11

questioned 129:21

questions 8:5,7 26:12

30:17 32:1,4,5,7

40:13,14,17 60:13

62:22 74:18 149:9

171:13 172:13

173:4,10 183:9

185:1,15 187:25

188:13 189:6

question's 21:12

quick 156:15

quite 10:25 13:22

38:17 89:21

quotation 130:5

quoted 120:14

quote-unquote 85:8

R

R 6:3

race 9:17 10:1 76:20

77:9,17 78:17,21

80:12,16 88:11

152:12 157:3 172:6

172:19 177:4

179:22 181:7

182:18 183:20,24

184:1,4,11,17

185:11,14

races 172:10

racial 28:17 29:3,4

77:5

raising 183:25

ramp 23:15

ran 44:24

range 76:15

rare 39:7

rates 190:17

reach 30:25 31:2,8

reaching 40:4

reaction 57:25

read 63:12 87:21,23

87:25 88:22,24

89:1 100:15 106:6

149:7 168:17 173:2

173:7 189:8

reader 115:7

reading 63:20 109:24

120:12 173:14

ready 21:15,19 126:7

reality 130:17

really 22:23 33:23

35:24 38:19 43:8

60:6 118:19 137:7

150:22 151:1

168:19

reason 42:1 68:4 74:4

88:17 98:3 102:14

102:15 105:18

162:23 163:4

reasons 7:21 56:21

57:1 123:17,19

145:25

reassignment 94:17

Rec 105:24

recall 12:8 23:4 28:7

29:7 44:24 45:7,13

45:16 47:14,19

51:18,19 53:6

71:10,18 72:4,7,21

72:24 80:23 88:14

89:18 90:19 91:2

92:1,3 96:10

101:10 102:22

103:1 109:8 111:3

113:11,14 120:12

120:20 121:11,14

121:16 125:4,14

126:9 128:5 129:16

129:18 131:9,14

138:12 141:14

142:15,17,19 143:6

144:14,18 151:12

151:16,17,20 152:9

152:20 156:10,12

159:14,23 160:2

168:11 170:14

175:2 176:5 187:24

recalling 131:22

receive 14:13 15:18

47:3,4 64:18 74:11

87:19 148:1 149:1

160:17 161:5

164:15 170:3

178:22 179:16

180:25 182:12

received 12:16 14:6

14:16 15:3,14

28:19,22 105:4,22

105:24 106:1

107:25 108:2,23

109:7,20 129:25

139:4 141:3 149:1

149:24 150:2,3,20

153:10 158:13

161:6 162:9,22

187:5 188:5

receiving 147:25

150:21 176:5

recess 73:15 138:22

recognize 10:23 60:6

recollection 53:9

77:17,21 78:11

128:8 129:2

recollections 20:10

recommend 74:14,14

recommendation

4:12 33:18 44:19

70:23 75:15,18,22

76:3 102:7 104:4

105:25 106:2,9,18

114:18 118:17

120:13

recommendations

33:22 37:19,21

121:13 125:12

recommended 74:23

74:24 75:5,5 103:4

103:8 131:11

recommending 74:5

99:12 102:16

105:19 117:12

record 7:13 8:11,12

9:11,13 13:5 21:24

46:1 47:1

records 18:25 100:1

121:1,10 137:11

recruiting 29:19

Redford 2:4

redirect 117:21

reduced 50:20 51:4

51:17 70:3,9 189:7

reduction 52:6

reference 178:11,12

referenced 117:15

references 175:20

referencing 51:11

referred-to 173:8

referring 54:1 101:4

140:21 148:6,8,16

158:24 165:10,11

173:23,25 174:24

175:1

reformatted 90:19

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1019 Filed 03/04/15 Page 65 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 203

91:24

refresh 100:15

regard 73:25 100:13

111:2,6 136:5

142:11 148:3 154:1

regarding 3:10,12,15

4:7 5:17 65:10

68:11 69:2 95:25

99:21 102:3 126:15

144:16 148:9,13

160:5 188:1

regular 92:8,12

Regulations 7:5

189:18 190:4

related 16:23 18:24

19:3 22:24 23:12

29:18 30:6 157:7

relationship 190:5,10

relative 88:11

relatively 22:23

156:15

reliability 3:22,24

90:5 92:15

reliable 92:13

relocate 33:1

relying 118:2

remain 66:3 69:13

remained 22:19,25

remaining 53:12 56:1

remember 45:4

47:16,18 71:13,15

78:14 91:10 92:24

109:23 119:8,9

120:19,20 125:13

128:17 131:15

132:3 138:12 140:5

142:22 143:7

144:19 152:11

169:17,24 170:9,10

170:12

remembered 132:18

remembrance 71:16

89:8,16 111:1

remove 49:19 52:21

removed 48:2 52:1

54:25 55:9

removing 48:6 154:8

repeat 28:12 43:2

59:21 61:3 64:22

67:3 98:9

repeated 15:25

rephrase 61:19

119:18

replaced 46:21

report 5:23 6:1,6,8

6:11,13,15,18,20,22

6:24 81:2 82:6,10

88:8 89:9 107:25

108:1 122:5 156:21

160:5 161:21,24

162:9,22 164:5

165:2 177:7,7

178:3,22 179:4,12

181:18 182:6,9,13

182:25

reported 89:3 162:16

175:18 179:13

180:22 189:5

reporter 1:10 7:3 8:8

9:4 173:7 188:16

188:19,22 189:1,21

190:22

reporting 5:22 6:6,10

6:13,17,22 7:6

80:25 82:8 88:6

99:25 156:19

166:15 175:13

176:6 180:21 181:1

182:5 189:19,22,23

189:25 190:8

reports 165:3 181:15

181:16

represent 113:19

189:11

representation 32:14

representative 26:16

26:24

represented 23:22

68:1

representing 54:14

57:3 134:4,12

request 108:5,18

145:12 150:6

157:23 170:18

171:4 183:14

requested 52:20

109:1 140:20 145:1

169:23 170:15

171:3 175:7

require 33:1

requires 102:10

reserve 188:17

resolved 82:9

resource 12:20,23

14:8 15:2 20:18,25

22:11 29:14,16

33:6 70:12 73:22

resources 3:18 12:6

16:21 38:13

respect 183:13

respond 63:11

110:25 151:13

164:23

responded 151:18

160:4,4 167:23

183:6

responding 166:8

177:19

response 9:2,10 30:5

151:14,25 153:6,8

157:23 158:14

164:16,18 165:5

167:25 169:3 173:3

173:20 174:13

177:3,23 179:4,7

180:3 181:17,24

182:25 188:10

responses 8:14 9:1

responsibilities 26:1

29:14 31:15 73:25

168:16

responsibility 33:3

167:7,13,22 168:9

responsible 25:25

28:1,2 29:15 30:20

30:24 84:13 166:14

results 33:17

retaliate 184:3

retaliated 183:23

retention 89:5

retirement 32:1

returned 128:2

reversed 76:3,4

review 17:14 51:22

74:2,2 88:15 89:6

109:2 163:4 167:11

168:13 169:8

reviewed 44:18,21

45:6,22 88:2

reviewing 70:22

183:14

reviews 42:16

Re-Examination 3:5

184:22

re-quote 129:19

RFT 4:12 98:19,24

99:3 105:3,22

108:20 110:2 111:5

122:9,14 174:24

175:5

RICHARD 2:7

right 23:24 31:18

33:10 35:19 36:11

36:13,17 57:3 59:3

71:16 72:8 84:11

91:3,4,6 97:13

107:8 111:23 115:3

120:1 126:1 128:12

132:1 134:17

138:15 150:5

164:12 168:19

170:12 174:11

187:18 188:22

189:8

risk 39:1

Road 2:4 91:11

robust 94:13

Rod 98:20

rode 110:17

Rodriques 1:3 4:1,8

5:17 7:16 76:6

77:11,19,20,24 78:4

78:22 80:8 93:7

94:1 98:8,12 99:22

100:13 102:3,21,25

104:5,8,20 108:21

109:6 110:23

111:16 113:13,20

114:14 115:10

119:4,20 120:16,24

120:25 121:5

122:23 124:19,23

125:10,22 126:16

127:2 129:7 131:4

131:16 132:16,22

133:7,21 134:25

136:6 137:1,15

140:15 142:25

146:18 147:3,18

152:1 153:11,15

157:4 159:9,18,20

163:18 166:9

171:17,22 172:1

175:23 178:12

183:16,17,19 184:4

185:20 187:6

Rodriques's 93:9

95:25 96:25 100:1

100:25 101:8

106:10 117:12

119:10 122:9,14

129:8 132:9 137:10

155:16 162:23

186:5,23 187:14

role 21:7 33:6,11

34:1 35:16 70:12

70:16 73:21 105:13

168:20

role's 70:18

rolled 90:24 91:13

room 8:19 9:13 83:9

roughly 110:18

RTS 48:2,5 49:19

52:21 55:10 154:9

rules 7:5,22,22 30:21

91:11 118:5 189:18

190:3

run 41:13 42:14

running 41:16

131:18 132:6

Ryan 2:11 17:20

S

S 94:21 173:21

safe 17:3 77:16 85:21

safety 35:4 64:15

Saginaw 11:16

sake 134:5

Sarsour 4:4,19,21 5:3

5:5 44:1 97:15

103:3 111:12

112:20 123:4,13,25

124:18 159:2

171:25 172:8

satisfactory 89:10

saw 71:4 89:9 91:7

101:22

saying 28:22 40:5

43:17 49:12 53:24

63:9 66:8 77:24

131:4,23 132:1,4

135:14 141:21,25

144:9 145:14 150:4

153:10 160:13

says 8:11 48:25 63:25

65:1 67:21 69:1,5

79:20 81:2 82:21

84:12,21,24 85:1

86:20,24 90:12

91:8,17 94:9,10,11

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1020 Filed 03/04/15 Page 66 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 204

94:16,18,20 99:21

104:9 105:3 112:4

113:25 115:23

117:19 129:25

130:13 139:4,18

141:2,20 142:4,12

148:14 149:5 151:4

159:8,12 162:6,12

162:15 165:24

174:22 177:16

scale 30:14

school 10:14,18 11:6

11:8,11

scratched 119:7

127:4 139:20

scratching 128:3,9

140:6

se 80:11

search 81:20

seat 35:3 40:1

second 52:24 65:15

69:11,12 84:6 86:4

96:4 104:9 126:23

128:12 139:15

seconds 113:8,25

115:6,16 116:5

secret 132:11

section 16:5

sections 84:2,3

security 16:24

see 8:20 9:13 16:9

17:25 18:23 19:4

41:24 52:14 63:8

65:9,11,16 68:12,16

68:25 69:3,6,11,14

72:19,22 74:6

82:17 83:21,25

84:7 85:3 87:11

88:22 90:5 93:7,22

93:24 95:19 96:1,8

98:20,24 99:18

100:25 104:5

109:18 110:3

111:12 112:5,20

113:8,24 114:1

115:7,25 121:2

122:2,10 123:5

124:1 129:12

137:13 139:5,10,22

141:9 147:10

151:14,24 152:17

153:4 154:5 156:19

156:22 162:14,17

164:6,12,14 165:19

165:23 175:13

178:4,7 179:14

180:23 182:6

seeing 71:2 92:1,3

129:16 143:7

seeking 102:13

seemingly 151:7

seen 33:17 52:5,16

57:10 79:5 84:22

87:3,6,8 108:15

114:10 139:7

156:24 160:16

164:8

self-service 104:11

self-study 13:15

send 102:5 109:11,19

123:12,19 142:13

142:14 160:12

170:17

sending 102:14,17

125:11 142:15

167:5

sends 97:20

senior 20:18,21 21:1

83:19 105:4,7

107:9

sense 10:21 76:18

93:13 119:12,19

120:4,5,7,9 133:9

164:25

sent 74:17 97:22,23

102:10 109:9 111:5

111:25 114:19,24

140:22 141:25

148:2,10,21 149:4,5

149:11,11 174:23

175:2

sentence 52:25 65:15

85:6 87:4 99:20,24

separate 24:9 30:13

30:14 31:7 157:18

176:2 186:22

separated 167:15,16

Seppings 84:19

September 20:22,24

21:9

series 8:5

service 23:13,14

25:21 31:10 32:2,3

107:19 124:7

services 189:25 190:8

set 38:17 62:22 80:7

91:22

Sheandra 6:3 165:18

166:11 167:10

169:23 171:5

184:13

sheet 83:22 108:1

116:7

shift 48:15,20 49:4,10

49:24 50:3,13

53:14,18 54:6

56:24,25 57:11

61:12 62:10 67:1,5

67:24 116:8 119:17

146:12 174:3

short 102:20,24

103:4,9

shortly 96:19 103:17

165:9

show 99:12 103:17

165:14

showing 150:1

SHRM 13:1,5,17,24

side 8:16,16 38:24

39:12 74:16 75:14

75:22

sideways 127:21

sign 133:7 188:18,20

189:9

signature 69:16,25

112:24 188:17

signed 69:17,20

99:18

similar 25:7,10 49:7

62:21

sink 118:18

site 92:17

sitting 56:20 57:24

58:4,7,13 67:17

77:16 152:19

173:19 174:12

situation 18:12 39:14

57:19 58:7,8 146:1

146:10 152:6

158:10 172:15

173:12 186:5

situations 80:21

six 58:10 77:25 78:8

166:1 169:22 170:3

183:16 184:25

185:13 188:9

skills 39:12

skip 84:1

sleep 49:23,23 135:23

135:24

sleeping 53:13,17

54:16,24 55:3,6

slightly 49:7

slip 115:24 127:5

128:4 130:14

139:21

small 139:17

Smoak 2:7

somebody 144:21

145:14 172:21

somebody's 95:9

somewhat 29:8

153:25

sorry 39:23 61:5

70:25 77:6 147:13

159:3 170:21

173:24 177:16,17

177:18

sort 17:24 28:17 29:3

32:22 35:9 120:17

130:19 137:19

176:1 187:13

sound 16:19

sounds 8:18 37:24

38:1 71:17

speak 18:18 19:10

57:8 77:4,12 84:5

87:17 89:25 103:25

119:24 120:3 132:8

146:8 158:9 169:10

174:25

speaking 181:21

special 13:13

specialized 14:8,9

16:13

specific 15:18 51:8,19

60:21 75:3,19

78:14,15 113:14

121:11 171:19

185:1,15

specifically 15:14

73:9 76:25 109:24

142:17 144:14

148:7 160:23

165:13 168:13

176:11 177:2

185:23

specifics 77:12 80:13

80:15 87:18 132:19

151:20 187:24

speculate 134:21

148:22

SPHR 13:7

spite 114:21

spoke 129:1 185:23

spoken 8:4 104:22

105:6,15,18

staff 25:19

stage 98:8 111:4

stages 44:11,12

stamped 150:24

stand 124:6 151:7

standard 170:17,25

Standards 3:19 82:16

start 25:14 115:25

116:6,8,15 130:14

153:7

started 119:17

134:13 151:4

starts 129:20 150:24

154:3

State 11:15 189:2

stated 189:5

statement 18:21

19:12 47:3,9,11

149:22 154:1

statements 40:3

44:22 71:5 98:19

163:16 174:22

175:1

states 1:1 107:24

110:2

stating 7:13 135:6

138:5

station 55:15,18,25

66:4,11 105:7

154:13 156:5

statistical 88:16,16

stay 8:17 24:21 54:4

66:18 133:13

135:15

stayed 24:7,11,19

step 30:2

steps 101:15

Stewart 2:8

stick 136:19

stop 59:3 81:25 94:5

story 156:6

stuck 89:13,19

study 11:23 12:5

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1021 Filed 03/04/15 Page 67 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 205

stuff 75:12 137:21

151:15

subjects 14:12

submitted 115:25

121:1,9

subsequent 70:20

substance 170:11

substantiate 19:8

101:8

substantiated 19:21

Suite 2:8

summary 44:23 45:1

47:5,8,13,15,17,20

47:22 71:7,8,11,13

71:15,17,19 72:9,13

100:12 101:18,20

101:21 141:4,13

142:1,14,16 147:25

148:8,13,14,20

150:14,14

supervision 141:17

supervisor 56:11

supplement 150:6

support 4:22 33:19

74:8 98:20 102:18

105:21 149:22

supporting 102:16

supportive 74:6

sure 8:3 13:12 14:11

40:2 43:23 58:20

58:23 63:12 64:24

66:20 67:4,18

84:19 94:8 119:19

126:5 127:16

136:21 138:2

147:14 167:13,22

168:9,14,17 186:9

suspended 104:21

108:6,10 159:9,13

159:25

suspension 104:17,19

104:23,25 106:11

106:14,20 130:1

162:24 163:6

swipe 110:2,7,12

112:4 113:6 114:7

swiped 113:13

114:14 117:1

swipes 45:14 72:22

109:4,5,5 113:20

114:10 143:8,9

144:1,4,4,23 145:1

145:12,13,16,19

sworn 7:8 189:14

system 19:16 52:22

93:18 94:13 104:12

T

table 9:21

take 8:9 11:2 13:13

13:16 18:6 19:9

25:1 34:3 36:5

42:24 55:12 58:1

71:24 74:25 75:6

75:15 83:20 89:2,3

100:15 107:4,13

110:15 112:12

113:21 133:10

138:20 150:7 151:3

taken 1:9 7:20 19:23

21:12 29:21 34:13

43:4 57:12,22

75:18 96:24

takes 44:5 56:24

110:11 112:8

talk 14:15,23 18:9

20:15 25:15,17

31:21 41:4 49:14

96:18 97:6 132:14

140:22 150:21

158:11

talked 29:12 43:7,11

71:1,3,4 140:3

160:13 187:11

talking 38:1 52:20

64:19 76:25 77:3

78:8 80:9 130:4

137:20 138:9

140:14 145:22

157:13 161:14

166:5 170:12 177:3

177:6,6 179:6

talks 80:25

tardy 116:18

task 100:25

teacher 16:4

teaching 38:19

team 35:23 167:8,14

167:14

technically 14:21

tell 10:20 15:2 18:15

23:8 26:5 31:15

47:7,14,17 51:10,15

55:13 66:17 85:17

87:14 100:21,24

116:17 122:20

126:9 128:16,25

133:3 144:8 151:5

158:20 160:24

161:1,2 166:20

169:14,16

telling 29:9 128:8

132:12,16

tells 140:10

template 164:23

165:4,8,11,12 166:1

166:3,8 167:6

174:21 177:19,23

179:3,6 180:2,3,6

181:12,19,20,23

182:24,25 183:5

templates 180:7

183:4,6

ten 76:16,21

tend 8:25

tends 97:19

tension 29:3

term 64:6 74:5 91:5

91:15 102:8 105:24

terminable 174:9,20

terminate 76:3

terminated 79:25

122:24 141:6,8,9

142:5,7,9,11,20

173:20 174:8,13

terminating 70:14

termination 4:12

26:2 70:21,22,23

73:19,23 74:3,10,14

74:15,24,24 75:5,15

75:23 76:2,7 96:25

99:13 102:16,20,24

103:5,9 104:5

105:19,25 106:3,9

106:19 114:19

117:12 118:18

120:13 122:20

124:20,24 125:3,12

125:23 131:11

183:15

terminations 126:21

163:8

terminology 27:9

testified 7:9 24:7,19

44:5 55:1 61:14

68:3 133:11 135:21

testify 55:2 116:18

testimony 21:13

24:10 47:10 51:12

64:6 66:2 117:23

117:25 118:11

133:2,10 136:2

texting 132:10

thank 9:8,15 40:25

52:2 59:15 70:17

118:10 128:23

150:12 162:17

theft 16:23 18:12

thereto 189:6

thing 32:13 78:2

109:4 136:5 143:22

186:21 187:12

things 8:3,24 10:24

29:20 30:3,5 31:20

36:8 38:20 48:11

58:5 61:18 75:7

82:11 85:5,14

147:17,21 162:6

think 24:3,18 25:12

26:18 37:7 38:10

39:1,8 43:25 44:4

47:8,11 51:22

54:13 57:24 58:8

58:25 62:23 68:3

69:9 91:4,17 95:1

100:10 118:25

120:15 124:4 126:2

140:10 141:22

143:2 159:5 160:7

160:22 161:24

163:17,19 169:21

172:20

thinking 10:24 42:12

80:21 135:4

third 161:2

thought 14:3 41:5

62:17 71:1 77:6

84:3

thread 4:3,13,16 5:7

5:9,12,14,19 6:3

three 69:24 86:15

115:15

three-day 13:16,23

Thursday 1:13

time 9:9,9 12:4 13:22

21:4 22:1 24:25,25

25:1 26:24 28:6

34:22 35:9,20,25

42:9,11,19 43:14

44:1 48:9,24,24

49:2,11 50:10,19,23

50:25 52:3 53:1,3

53:18 54:8 55:23

56:7,8,18 58:16,23

58:25 59:6,8,11

60:7,10,19 61:10,16

62:6,11,18 63:2,4,5

63:18 65:14,20

66:11 67:2,6,10,14

69:6,12 74:22

75:25 89:22 96:8

100:1 105:9 106:25

107:13 108:22

110:12 116:6,8,15

116:19 117:9,13

118:16 119:15,16

119:17 121:1,5,10

122:7,10,17,21,24

128:1 130:14 133:8

133:15,23 134:9

135:1,3,8,9,12

136:4,8,17,19 137:2

137:3,11 145:17,20

146:15 155:4

158:25 159:25

160:18 162:24

163:3 166:18 168:2

168:10 174:8 184:9

185:3

timely 167:9,23,25

times 21:7 76:16

170:5

timing 131:9

title 21:6,20 22:9,22

23:2,4 24:12,13,16

68:25,25 84:20

124:4 127:17

titled 3:19,21 4:1

today 7:18 50:13

56:20 57:24 58:4,7

58:13,15 63:3,14

67:17 68:1 70:2,5

77:16 98:23 103:12

114:11 139:8

150:10 152:19

173:19 174:12

179:7 181:21

today's 7:19 10:4

told 62:4 64:5 84:4

115:1 119:12,20

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1022 Filed 03/04/15 Page 68 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 206

121:17 125:22

126:1,4,5,10 127:1

127:2 132:5 135:14

139:19 140:4,11

143:19 144:7,10,12

144:22 145:15

154:16,17 156:8

160:23 172:22

188:10

tolerate 79:21

Tolerated 79:20

tomorrow 28:23

top 152:7

topic 34:11 169:22

170:3

topics 4:1 34:12

77:22 78:15 93:6

Torre 4:19,21 5:5

44:4,7 64:5 97:19

98:17 99:2,6

100:21 101:5,19

102:19 103:8,18

109:17 110:25

111:5,11,14 112:19

117:6,11 119:5

120:14,22 121:8,17

123:25 124:18

127:4,8 128:6,14

129:1,7 130:13

137:9,25 140:5,23

158:6 159:11

162:20 171:16

172:4 178:11

183:15

Torre's 96:5 112:24

129:22 157:16

touch 141:18

tough 58:5

track 167:8

traditional 32:11

train 17:1

trained 16:12,15,24

training 13:13,16,23

13:24 14:6,8,11,15

15:1,2,5,5,13,15,19

15:24 16:14 17:3,5

26:2

transaction 104:9,17

104:19

transactions 104:13

104:14

transcript 8:20

189:12

treated 153:18,19,23

172:5,9 178:16

treatment 155:17

171:18

tricky 14:19

true 36:20 63:21

179:5 189:11

try 9:1 35:14,15 37:1

47:23 61:8 64:7,9

82:8 101:8

trying 28:14 39:5

52:4 76:18 88:21

119:1 133:3

turn 68:14,15 69:10

96:3 137:6 139:15

turned 101:1

turning 130:14

Tuyn 2:7 3:5 8:3,10

10:7 21:11,16

23:18,25 24:3,18

40:12,16,19,22 47:2

54:12 55:1 58:24

60:9,14,19 63:11

64:19 71:23 72:3

73:14 77:23 78:4,7

82:21 117:15,18,24

118:2,7 133:24

134:6,9,17,20

135:18 136:15

138:19 140:13

148:5,12,25 149:10

149:15 150:5,9,13

150:17 159:5

176:22,25 183:10

183:12 184:19

188:14,18

Tuyn's 137:8

two 10:10 17:22,23

20:14 25:12 61:18

69:24 71:20 86:14

120:15 141:6,7

142:4,6,6,8,10,13

142:20 143:2,13

145:25 148:19

153:2,12,17,22

154:3 157:21

164:13 177:5

two-and-a-half 10:11

two-day 15:5

Tyesha 4:10 5:1

102:2 122:1,20

153:1 154:19

169:13,25 184:10

type 32:1,12 77:1,3,6

types 32:7 93:1

typical 123:12

typically 18:21 19:11

34:15 42:16 43:14

163:13 169:17

U

uh-huh 8:18 79:12

113:23 116:1

122:11 133:17

ultimately 36:18

109:11 111:18

unable 39:11

unclear 41:6

underneath 94:23

understand 8:19 9:7

11:1 28:25 38:10

47:16 50:9 54:20

58:20 62:15 65:19

73:12 77:14 86:14

106:24 127:25

136:21 153:19

174:6 181:13

185:18 186:25

188:4

understanding 30:19

41:1,2 53:25 61:15

63:3,6 66:1,7,9

67:25 85:10 116:16

135:22 166:16

understood 11:3

62:16 162:19

168:18

unfair 155:17

unfortunately 13:11

163:5

union 23:22 24:14

26:13,16 29:25

31:20 32:14

UNITED 1:1

University 11:19

Unknown 162:16

unsigned 118:3

unsure 85:22,23

118:12

unusual 170:2,4

updated 15:12

use 86:1,3,4,12,15

121:17

uses 64:5

usual 190:16

utilize 39:11

utilized 94:3

utilizing 94:5

V

Valley 11:15,16,21

12:2,6

Value 79:11

varies 33:23

variety 123:17,19

various 44:11,12

vary 70:18

vast 49:24 50:12

53:13,17 54:5 62:9

vein 78:5

verbal 8:13 9:2

verbalize 9:6

versa 180:15

versus 32:10 34:16

34:23 101:18,20

vice 105:14 180:15

view 17:2

violated 19:5,20

20:10 103:24 174:9

violation 34:20 40:1

74:7 103:23,23

violence 151:9

volume 76:18,19

vote 32:15

voting 120:18 130:23

130:23 131:5,23

132:5,6,23 135:9

136:10 138:9

VP 105:4 106:1 107:9

107:16,16,18

vs 1:4

W

waived 189:9

walk 61:8

walked 116:4

want 9:18 13:20

24:24 38:23 39:18

39:25 40:8 58:17

60:24 84:2 88:11

110:9 116:17

117:20,23 130:2,3

134:15 135:23,25

150:22 152:7 159:7

wanted 14:5 41:4

83:22 99:6 130:7

140:16 151:3 156:9

wants 40:19 153:18

warrant 58:8

wasn't 24:16 40:2

55:7 56:17,19

61:17,20 63:4

67:14 90:18 94:13

106:20 107:3

116:21,23 118:22

119:25 120:10

124:25 130:9,17

132:11 136:15

168:20 174:5,8,12

way 9:22 10:24 12:20

16:12 18:5 25:10

28:24 37:8 38:17

41:22 55:6 59:4

66:8 71:12 92:1

108:16 109:22

134:6 136:24

180:11 183:18

186:2

Wayne 145:8,13

ways 65:4

week 163:13

weeks 8:20

weigh 38:6

welcome 100:15

128:24 162:18

went 28:20 32:14

49:22 73:20 168:22

168:25

weren't 28:1 36:3

50:9 101:14 108:4

126:4 135:7

we'll 59:5 96:18

119:1 120:16 137:8

165:9

we're 9:12 16:24

17:16 18:22 37:23

38:1,4,6,7 40:3

49:16 58:10 64:19

68:14 87:13 97:6

105:19 117:4

145:22 151:1 177:2

177:6,6

we've 23:20 43:7,11

52:20 57:2 58:25

75:9 105:6 171:9

174:4 179:6 181:21

whereabouts 101:9

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1023 Filed 03/04/15 Page 69 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 207

white 10:2 83:1 89:24

153:17,22

wide 123:18

willing 83:20 103:2

135:13

wipe 62:3

witness 20:3,7 21:22

24:2 40:15,18,21

117:23 134:21

148:17 189:13

witnesses 8:25 19:3

19:17,19 20:1,12,13

23:20 158:10

witness's 189:8

Woodward 2:9

word 24:21 83:20

136:1 156:17

work 27:15 32:11

53:8,11 54:10

55:15,18,25 56:5,13

64:7 65:2 66:4,11

66:18 67:5 86:2

88:23 92:14 116:20

117:5 146:23

154:13 156:4

159:11,22 168:13

worked 38:13 89:21

155:1

working 9:15 10:23

14:17 27:24 28:18

29:5 34:24 48:15

48:20 49:3,10

50:12 55:8,25

56:13 59:15 67:1

67:24 118:17

145:13 146:11

154:13

workplace 79:9,16

151:9

works 88:7 152:16

world 73:18,20

worry 119:13 139:19

wouldn't 11:17 17:13

34:4 35:4 40:10

85:19 87:17 88:8

93:15 103:21

119:14,21 120:6

128:9 129:14 145:3

149:8 150:17

172:24 186:12

Wow 66:23

WPV 151:7,7

write 18:20 101:19

140:25

writing 42:6,13 189:7

written 3:15 7:3 8:11

8:12 18:20 19:12

47:3,11 50:20,21

68:10 69:3,20

113:8 116:23

wrong 60:15 115:21

116:5 159:10

161:11

wrote 101:17

Y

yeah 14:4 21:14 24:2

24:18,22 27:13

28:14 42:13 43:3,5

46:5,7,22 55:1 57:5

58:18 59:22 64:4

65:14 71:25 75:12

77:15 78:3,6,9,12

87:24 90:15 96:14

97:5 98:10 108:1

115:1 120:5 129:24

130:2,6 132:2

136:23 138:21

144:8 145:10 147:5

149:2 151:19

154:18,20,22 156:1

169:7 170:7 174:16

174:18 187:11

year 12:17 16:11

52:6 69:24 87:13

87:19,21,23 151:6

163:11

years 11:20 12:12

13:22 17:22,23

38:14,16

Year's 163:14

yesterday 10:13 49:5

70:8 139:10 156:25

160:17

you-all 29:15

Z

Zarras 105:10,12

106:2,12,13

Zarras's 105:13

Z-A-R-R-A-S 105:12

1

1 3:10 52:10,12 63:1

189:10

1st 126:24

1-10-2013 5:10

1-28-2013 5:18

1-3-2013 5:23 6:7

1-31-2013 6:23

1-8-2013 6:11

1-9-2013 5:6,8,20

6:14,18

1:14-cv-12707-BA...

1:4

1:44 1:14 188:23

10 1:13 4:5 98:15,16

10th 96:19 110:2,21

111:6,19 112:3

113:3 125:18

10.B 189:18

10:30 73:15

10:43 73:16

100 83:11,14

101 4:9

1030 2:12

104 4:11

107 4:13

109 4:16

11 4:7 7:1 99:15,16

100:11 113:25

114:8

11th 95:18 101:12

104:20,23 105:1

165:22

11-17 100:11,12

11-21-2012 3:11,13

3:16

111 4:18

112 4:20

113 4:22

12 4:9 94:17,17

100:12 101:25

102:1

12th 104:21,24

173:22

12-11-2012 4:4

12-13 106:7

12-15-2012 4:19,21

12-17-2012 4:6

12-18-2012 4:8,9,14

4:17 5:2

12-21-2012 5:4

12:22 138:22

12:37 138:23

12:44 109:18

121 5:1

123 5:3,5

125 5:7,9

126 5:12

128 5:14

13 4:11 104:2,3

13th 95:2,14 107:2

138 5:17

14 4:13 107:21,22

14:24 113:8,13,25

114:7,15

14:27 110:3,7 112:4

113:7 115:6,13

116:4

14:28 110:3,8 112:5

115:24 116:6,20

117:2 119:16

130:15 133:7 134:9

135:1,8 136:17,19

137:2

15 4:16 109:15,16

15th 68:16 69:21

111:11 112:19

151:4

15-14-37(a) 190:2

152 5:19

156 5:22

159 6:13 179:12,17

180:4,15

16 4:18 111:9,10

117:6,16 120:23

121:4 137:7

16:19 130:18 135:2

164 6:1

165 6:3

17 4:20 112:17,18

115:23 117:16

118:11 120:23

137:7,7,9

17th 98:17 100:14,18

101:11 107:6 108:1

109:12

175 6:5

177 6:8

178 6:10

179 6:12,15

18 4:22 113:17,18

18th 99:16 102:2

107:24 109:17

122:1

180 6:17

1800 95:18

181 6:19

182 6:21,24

183 3:5

184 3:5

19 5:1 121:21,23

190 3:6 189:10

1997 10:19

2

2 3:12 62:20,25 65:9

68:23 69:1,17

2-11-2013 6:4

2:29 182:6

20 5:3 76:24 123:2,3

20th 101:12

2001 11:22 12:13

2003 12:13,18

2004 12:14,18

2005 14:20 21:6,8,13

22:14

2009 14:21 15:3

2010 15:21,25 16:11

2012 44:1 48:11

49:11 50:10,13

59:19 62:10 69:18

95:3,14,18 98:18

99:17 100:19 102:2

107:2,24 109:17

111:11 122:1

139:20 145:23

173:21,24,25

2013 23:6 24:16

106:21 123:24

125:9,18 128:25

139:4 140:5 151:4

152:15,16 165:22

165:24 167:3

175:17 178:7

179:13 180:22

182:6

2014 1:13 7:1 20:22

20:24 21:9 50:19

68:17 69:22 190:19

21 5:5 123:22,23

21st 69:18 123:4

22 5:7 125:6,7 177:14

23 5:9 125:16,17

24 5:12 126:13,14

248.593.6400 2:10

25 5:14 128:20,22

25447 2:4

26 5:17 138:25 139:2

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1024 Filed 03/04/15 Page 70 of 71
Barbara A. Franz Rodriques v Delta Air Lines, Inc. December 11, 2014

Donovan Reporting, PC 770.499.7499

Page 208

27 5:19 152:23,24,24

2745 190:21

28 5:22 156:14,18

164:12,16

28th 139:4

29 6:1 164:3,4,4,13

164:16,18,22 165:8

166:4,7 171:13

29th 190:19

3

3 3:15 68:8,10 69:2

69:20

3rd 175:16

3-30-2005 3:22

30 6:3 165:16,17

169:12

300 2:8

30320 2:13

31 6:5 175:11,12

31st 182:5

311 5:23 156:22

160:5,10 162:10

177:7 180:14

313.318.3180 2:5

32 6:8 177:13,16,17

177:18

33 6:10 178:2,3

34 6:12 179:10,11

34977 2:9

35 6:15 179:25 180:1

36 6:17 180:18,19,20

37 6:19 181:10,11,20

38 6:21 182:3,4

39 6:24 182:22,23

4

4 3:17 78:25 79:2

80:25

4th 152:15 165:24

4-5-2013 5:13

4-8-2013 5:15

4:40 179:13

404.773.6520 2:13

42 115:15

421 6:18 180:21

181:1,25

45 168:3,4

48009 2:9

48239 2:4

5

5 3:18 82:13,15

5th 130:14

52 3:10

53 115:6 116:5

6

6 3:21 90:2,3,22

91:21 120:17

133:22 138:10

6th 137:18

6:08 178:7

61 150:24

62 3:12

660 6:6 175:13 177:7

177:24

68 3:15

7

7 3:4,23 91:19,20

92:2,4

7.C 190:3

716 6:11 178:4,23

179:4,7

78 3:17

8

8 4:1 93:4,6 94:2,6

8th 113:4,22,25

114:22 115:2,6

118:13 119:6,13

127:3 128:4,25

137:17,18 139:20

140:4 152:15 178:7

8-25-2011 3:20

8.B 7:5

8:53 1:14 7:2

82 3:18

9

9 4:3 95:16,19

9th 123:24 125:8

153:9 179:13

180:22

9-11-28(c) 190:6

9:47 180:22

90 3:21

91 3:23

93 4:1

95 4:3

97 11:7,22

97-to-2001 12:4

98 4:5

981 2:12

99 4:7

995 6:22 182:10

183:1

Case 2:14-cv-12707-BAF-DRG ECF No. 25-9, PageID.1025 Filed 03/04/15 Page 71 of 71