Tag: employees

Supercuts Parent Regis Close Company Salons

-Hair salon operator Regis Corp. RGS, -5.64% said Tuesday it has temporarily closed all of its company-owned sales for at least two weeks, citing continuing uncertainties around the COVID-19 pandemic. The company, which salon brands include Supercuts, Cost Cutters and SmartStyle, also said it was furloughing a “substantial majority” of its workforce, representing about 485 employees across its corporate office, field support and distribution centers, starting on April 5 and lasting at least 30 days. Regis said it will pay a portion of benefits premiums during thie period. In addition, the company said it was cutting the chief executive’s wage by 60%, and wages of vice presidents and above by 30% and the wages of all other employees who will be working full time by 20%. “Given the still uncertain duration and severity associated with the COVID-19 pandemic we have taken additional, aggressive steps to preserve the financial integrity of our company and to protect the safety of our employees and customers,” said CEO Hugh Sawyer. The stock, which was still inactive in pre-market trading, has lost 64.6% over the past three months, while the S&P 500 SPX, -1.59% has declined 18.7%. Payback is a coming REGIS.

John Paul DeJoria Sued for $5 Million By Employees For Failure To Pay Minimum Wages!

The Real Hair Truth

The Real Hair Truth has exclusively learned that the reality TV star and entrepreneur has been slapped with a $5 million class action lawsuit by students in his beauty schools, who claim he worked them like dogs and paid them nothing in return.  According to court documents obtained by Real Hair Truth , DeJoria, the founder of the hair products company Paul Mitchell and Paul Mitchell cosmetology schools, is not giving his students any compensation for their services, and they are suing for “failure to pay minimum wages and/or overtime wages.”

The schools charges the general public a lower rate for hair services than local salons, but the lawsuit claims that the students are required to provide the services to those customers without receiving wages in return.

The Paul Mitchell schools — allegedly numbering “over 50 and possibly over 100″ in 35 states — are able to operate at a lower cost because the students are providing them with free labor, according to the court documents. If the students weren’t there, they claim, the school would have to hire regular cosmetologists, and pay them minimum wage at least.

“The class members are paid no compensation by the defendants for the labor they provide in the Paul Mitchell Schools’ personal service business, meaning they receive no payments in United States currency,” the documents claim.The class action lawsuit against Paul Mitchell Schools also says that due to the policy of making students work for free, the schools are able to operate at low cost and high profit, making competitors are unable to pay their workers more than minimum wage.

The members of the lawsuit state they were employees, not students, and since they weren’t paid, DeJoria broke federal law. They are asking for a jury trial and a $5 million payment from DeJoria.

Real Hair Truth will keep you posted on this Lawsuit.

Real Hair Truth Cosmetic/Beauty Product Injury Lawsuits

the real hair truth

Injuries from cosmetic products can come in a wide variety of forms — from allergic reactions to infections and other complications. There are two main legal theories that a person injured by a cosmetic product (the plaintiff) could sue under: product liability and breach of warranty. This article discusses what a plaintiff in a cosmetic injury suit must prove under either theory, cases specifically related to allergic reactions, and the possibility of class action lawsuits.

Product Liability: The Basics

The most likely theory to be used in a lawsuit involving cosmetic product injuries is product liability. An injured plaintiff can sue both the manufacturer and/or the seller (the defendant) of the cosmetic product if his or her injury was caused by a defect, a defective design or improper labeling. Most states follow what is called the “strict product liability” rule, although a few still use traditional negligence rules.

A plaintiff suing under a strict liability theory simply needs to prove:

  • that he or she was the kind of consumer that the defendant intended to use the product
  • that the defect did not occur after the product was sold, and
  • that the plaintiff was injured.

This kind of theory is called “strict liability” because many of the requirements in a standard negligence case, like proof of a specific duty of care owed to the plaintiff, are not included. Most states adopted strict liability for mass-marketed consumer products because, among other things, the manufacturers needed to be financially responsible for their products, and not be allowed to escape liability simply because of the difficulty plaintiffs faced trying to prove negligence claims.

In a negligence case (in those few states that still use this theory for consumer products), the plaintiff will need to prove:

  • that he or she bought the product from the defendant
  • that the defendant should have known that the product could be dangerous if unaccompanied by proper warnings, or that the product had a defect
  • that the failure to warn the plaintiff, or the defect or defective design, injured the plaintiff, and
  • that the plaintiff didn’t do anything to cause the injury.

Breach of Warranty

A cosmetic product injury case based on a breach of warranty theory will be the same as other standard breach of warranty cases.

An injured plaintiff could sue for breach of an express warranty if the seller or manufacturer made specific guarantees that a product would have specific effects that the product did not have (note that this theory might not fit with most cases involving an actual injury).

The plaintiff could also sue for breach of an implied warranty that the cosmetic product was fit for normal use, i.e. the implied guarantee that no normal cosmetic product would cause an injury if used properly.

Finally, the plaintiff could sue for breach of an implied warranty that the product was fit for a specific purpose, i.e. that the defendant knew the plaintiff wanted to use the product for a specific purpose, but the product caused an injury when the plaintiff tried use it.

There are many state and federal laws controlling breach of warranty claims. Some breach of warranty claims may not be appropriate when the plaintiff is suing for physical injuries, if the law only allows compensation for the money lost on the product (what is called “economic damages”).

Some warranty laws, however, do allow a plaintiff to sue for physical injuries. Perhaps more importantly, proving a breach of warranty can help prove a strict liability or negligence claim. A plaintiff is not limited to suing under one theory, so including a breach of warranty claim in a cosmetic injury lawsuit will generally help a plaintiff’s case overall.

Injuries Caused by Allergies

If a manufacturer knows, or should know, that a product might cause an allergic reaction in some people, injured plaintiffs could potentially sue the manufacturer for failing to warn about the allergic reaction under a strict liability or negligence theory. A breach of warranty theory might also be possible if the allergic reaction is not extremely rare, i.e. the product was not fit for cosmetic use because some percentage of the population was allergic.

Class Actions for Cosmetic Product Injuries

If a cosmetic product causes many or all of its users the same kind of injury, then a class action may be possible. In a class action case, multiple plaintiffs with the same kind of injury from the same source sue the defendant in one lawsuit.

If someone is injured by a cosmetic product, they or their attorney should research whether there is already a class action case or a settlement fund for people injured by the product. Often, even though the case has settled, there will be a fund to pay those who were not a part of the original case.

Real Hair Truth what makes a cosmetic misbranded?

The Beautiful Lies

The film “Beautiful Lies” release date will be in 2014

In our beautiful world cosmetics hold a strong life in the world of personnel beauty. According to the U.S Government this is a definition of what is “Misbranded”.  Realize my friends that in this day and age government is in everything you do, and with the past and current behavior of the U.S Government would you even take there word on just about anything. Politicians cannot even agree on anything anymore, there life span as a senator, congressman, house representative is for life. Your freedom of speech is going down the drain. So why would you take the word of the FDA. According to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), its responsibilities include “protecting the public health by assuring that foods, cosmetics are safe, wholesome, sanitary and properly labeled.” This responsibility entails regulating a large number of companies producing this nation’s food, making appointments to the high-level positions within the agency very important.  Most high-level FDA employees have a background in either medicine or law, but one of the largest private-sector sources is the Monsanto Company. Over the past decades, at least seven high-ranking employees in the FDA have an employment history with the Monsanto Company.

Well aware of its accused ‘revolving door’ connection with the FDA and other government agencies, Monsanto has issued several press releases denying collusion with the government. In fact, it posted on its official website that collusion theories relating to these agencies, including the FDA, “ignore the simple truth that people regularly change jobs to find positions that match their experience, skills and interests.  ”

Monsanto’s statements help shed light on the balancing act regularly occurring on Capitol Hill when appointments to these top agency positions arise. The importance of the food, cosmetic industrys cannot be overstated and, therefore, the pending question remains: Do Americans want industry insiders regulating it, or those from the academic realm?

What makes a cosmetic misbranded?

Section 602 of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. 362] describes what causes a cosmetic to be considered misbranded:

“A cosmetic shall be deemed to be misbranded–

  • (a) If its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.
  • (b) If in package form unless it bears a label containing (1) the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and (2) an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count: Provided, That under clause (2) of this paragraph reasonable variations shall be permitted, and exemptions as to small packages shall be established, by regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
  • (c) If any word, statement, or other information required by or under authority of this Act to appear on the label or labeling is not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared with other words, statements, designs, or devices in the labeling) and in such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.
  • (d) If its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.
  • (e) If it is a color additive, unless its packaging and labeling are in conformity with such packaging and labeling requirements, applicable to such color additive, as may be contained in regulations issued under section 721. This paragraph shall not apply to packages of color additives which, with respect to their use for cosmetics, are marketed and intended for use only in or on hair dyes (as defined in the last sentence of section 601(a)).
  • (f) If its packaging or labeling is in violation of an applicable regulation issued pursuant to section 3 or 4 of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970.

Note that under the FD&C Act, the term “misbranding” applies to–

  • False or misleading information,*
  • Lack of required information,
  • Conspicuousness and readability of required information,
  • Misleading packaging,
  • Improper packaging and labeling of color additives, and
  • Deficiencies where the Poison Prevention Packaging Act requires special packaging.

*Note: According to the FD&C Act, a determination that labeling is “misleading” includes considering both what the label says and what it fails to reveal:

“If an article is alleged to be misbranded because the labeling or advertising is misleading, then in determining whether the labeling or advertising is misleading there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the labeling or advertising fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the article to which the labeling or advertising relates under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or advertising thereof or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual” (FD&C Act, sec. 201(n); 21 U.S.C. 321(n)].

In addition, a cosmetic marketed in violation of the FPLA or any regulations issued under its authority is considered misbranded within the meaning of the FD&C Act [15 U.S.C.1456(a)]. For cosmetics offered for sale as consumer commodities, the FPLA–

  • requires further label information, such as the product’s identity [15 U.S.C.1453], and
  • authorizes the implementation of regulations to specify the proper presentation of required label information, require an ingredient declaration, and prevent deceptive packaging [15 U.S.C.1454 (c)]

The FPLA defines a consumer commodity, as it applies to FDA-regulated products, as:

“any food, drug, device, or cosmetic (as those terms are defined by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act …, and any other article, product, or commodity of any kind or class which is customarily produced or distributed for sale through retail sales agencies or instrumentalities for consumption by individuals, or use by individuals for purposes of personal care or in the performance of services ordinarily rendered within the household, and which usually is consumed or expended in the course of such consumption or use.” [15 U.S.C.1459(a)]

Note that the FPLA defines a consumer commodity by the way it is marketed, not the way it is labeled. Labeling a product with words such as “For Professional Use Only” does not keep your product from being considered a consumer commodity under the FPLA.

Labeling regulations are very complex. Detailed information on cosmetic labeling is available in FDA’s Cosmetic Labeling Manual and the labeling regulations themselves [21 CFR 701].

Real Hair Truth Advice on the Cosmetic Industry

The Real Hair Truth

In my next Documentary “Beautiful LieS”, I have interviewed so many Beauty salon employees, booth renters etc to make sure they know there products they use are legitimate. So many company’s will use deceptive labeling/marketing on their products. And if you do not take the time to investigate what are the ingredients in the products you are responsible for any issues that may arise during a service to your client. Yes once you buy a product from a manufacturer and a distributor you own that product. If something happens during the application and process of the product “YOU BOUGHT IT, NOW YOU OWN IT”. You cannot sue the manufacturer, they are not liable legally to any problems due to application and processing of the product! Especially if you are an independent contractor, make sure you have at least 2-3 millions dollars in insurance to cover yourself in the salon.  Watch your back my friends. I had a sale person come to my studio las week. He was selling a Keratin Product called, Bionaza little did he know I new alot about the company. I have cameras in my salon so I went ahead and switch them on. I asked the gentleman some questions about the product, and of course he promised the stars to me. And the product will split the oceans and the heavens and make my clients hair ever so dreamy. He also told me he was selling the product from a friend and this Bionaza was not from his distributor. He didn’t even have any directions on the product. And when I confronted him on how easy it is to buy the so-called “SALON PRODUCT” on the internet he quickly turned heels. Watch out for “SNAKE OIL SALESMEN”, my friends! Especially the lone wolf types, they will sell you anything, but will hastily throw you under the bus if the product does not do what it says it will do. This should be a good filmed clip for my Documentary.

SCUM OF THE BEAUTY INDUSTRY! Be Aware My Friends

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration today announced four new OSHA Training Institute (OTI) Education Centers and the renewal of 24 existing OTI Education Centers. Current OTI Education Centers offer training courses on OSHA standards and occupational safety and health issues. The new OTI Education Centers, which are non-profit organizations, will provide additional outlets for safety and health training to workers and employers throughout the country.

“This year, we have seen record numbers of requests for occupational safety and health training from the private sector and federal agency personnel,” said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. “The renewal of OTI’s Education Centers and the addition of four new centers will help OSHA to meet this demand and deliver life-saving training to our country’s employers and workers.”

The OTI Education Centers program was created in 1992 to complement the OSHA Training Institute in Arlington Heights, Ill., which provides training and education to OSHA compliance officers. The OTI Education Centers provide training nationwide to private sector and federal personnel from agencies outside OSHA. The OTI Education Centers trained more than 40,000 people during the 2012 fiscal year, representing an all-time record for the program.

The OTI Education Centers also assist the agency in administering the OSHA Outreach Training Program and fulfilling the program’s monitoring requirements. OTI Education Centers are the principal distribution channel for Outreach Training Program trainer courses, including prerequisite and update courses. Trainer courses are offered by topic areas including construction, general industry, disaster site and maritime. Through these train-the-trainer programs, qualified individuals who complete a one-week OSHA trainer course are authorized to teach 10-hour or 30-hour courses focusing on safety and health hazards. Through the Outreach Training Program, more than two million people received training from fiscal 2010 through fiscal 2012. This is a voluntary program and does not meet training requirements for any OSHA standards.

The new OTI Education Centers were selected through a national competition announced on April 13, 2012, and published in the Federal register on April 15. Applicant organizations were evaluated based on organizational experience, staff experience, location and training facilities, marketing and recruitment, administrative capabilities, evaluation, and the ability to provide training throughout a given region. OSHA provides no funding to the OTI Education Centers. The OTI Education Centers support their OSHA training through their established tuition and fee structures and provide their own instructors and facilities. For more information on the OTI Education Centers Program, the Outreach Training Program, and the Directorate of Training and Education.

For information on the geographic areas served by OSHA’s Regional Offices, visit http://www.osha.gov/html/RAmap.html.

IMPORTANT NOTE! Make sure that when you are working in your salon that the owner or company adheres to the policy’s standards OSHA has mandated for your safety.

Your health is very important!

You may file a complaint to have OSHA inspect their workplace if they believe that your employer is not following OSHA standards or that there are serious hazards. Employees can file a complaint with OSHA by calling 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) or by printing the complaint form and mailing or faxing to your local OSHA area office. Complaints that are signed by an employee are more likely to result in an inspection.