Tag: lawsuit

Revlon CEO rips blacks, Jews, hates ‘dirty’ Americans!

the real hair truth

Revlon CEO rips blacks, Jews, hates ‘dirty’ Americans!

The CEO of Revlon is a bigoted bully who hates “dirty” Americans, thinks Jews “stick together” and believes he can “smell” black people when they walk into a room, according to a new lawsuit.

The beauty company’s boss, Lorenzo Delpani, made the ugly comments after taking over in 2013, according to a discrimination suit filed by Revlon’s former top scientist, Alan Meyers, who says he was ostracized because of his Jewish heritage.

Delpani, a native of Italy, told Meyers he was “shocked” there weren’t more Jews at the company because the biggest shareholder is Ron Perelman, a prominent Jewish American, according to the suit.

“Jews stick together,” Delpani quipped. He also allegedly added that “thankfully,” Perelman “is not like that anymore.”

Delpani also said that he hates living among Americans, whom he called “small-minded” and “dirty,” and that he can’t wait to get back to a “real” country, according to court papers filed this week.

He later allegedly went on an “anti-American tirade” in which he said the US is getting closer to being like ISIS.

Meyers also claims Delpani made a racist comment after a meeting in South Africa, when he said he “could smell a black person when he entered a room.”

Meyers says Delpani had it out for him for having red-flagged safety issues in the production and manufacturing process.

Meyers claims he was concerned that several labs were not equipped to adequately test raw materials to satisfy Revlon’s safety standards.

Meyers, 56, who joined Revlon in 2010, was fired last month after he complained about the issues and his treatment, the lawsuit says.

Revlon spokeswoman Kiki Rees on Wednesday said Meyers was a disgruntled employee who did not perform up to company standards.

“Mr. Meyers repeatedly demonstrated critical lapses in judgment and failed to perform at the high standard we demand of our employees,” Rees said.

In the suit, Meyers claims Delpani’s tirades and tormenting eventually became outright bullying.

Meyers described one incident in October, when he allegedly was forced by Delpani to act as a human easel during a high-level meeting.

Meyers says he was instructed to hold a whiteboard, which covered his entire upper torso and head, for approximately 30 minutes.

He saw this as a demeaning gesture, he says, especially since he was supposed to be part of the leadership team.

Stress from the ordeal forced Meyers into the hospital with chest pains, the lawsuit says. He said he was fired on Dec. 10.

In his suit, he is demanding unspecified punitive and compensatory damages.

Attorneys for Meyers were unavailable Wednesday for comment.

No More Cocamide DEA

Colgate-Palmolive-Lush-agree-to-pull-cocamide-DEA-following-lawsuit_strict_xxl

Colgate–Palmolive & Lush join two dozen cosmetics manufacturers and retailers to stop the use of the chemical cocamide DEA from shampoos and other personal care products. 

You can clean your hair with just about anything.   But if you want a rich creamy foam to make it an enjoyable experience, there is one ingredient that you really must have.  Any good formulator will tell you that for a decent shampoo you really need to have a fair slug of cocamide DEA in it.  Nothing quite matches the performance this surfactant gives.   Consequently it has been one of the major ingredients in mass market and specialist shampoos and washes for years.

It came under a cloud in the nineties following suggestions that some impurities in it could, under the right circumstances react with other chemicals to form nitrosamines, some of which are carcinogenic.  Given that nitrosamines are all over the place from plenty of other sources, worrying about them in cosmetics seemed a bit precious.  For example they are created by the lightning in thunderstorms.  They are also commonly found in  food such as cured meat and whole meal peanut butter.  But nonetheless the EU cosmetic regulations were duly amended to limit the impurities and to forbid the use of Cocamide DEA with the ingredients it might react with. So belt and braces there.

And that you would have thought was the end of it.  A highly theoretical risk was identified and responded to with a heavy handed and probably unnecessary regulation.

No such luck.  With an actual link, albeit a highly tenuous one, between a cosmetic ingredient and an actual carcinogen it was only a matter of time before scaremongers got hold of it.  Cocamide DEA has been added to the list of chemicals that should be avoided by all the usual organization’s, websites  and manufacturers of high margin green products who trade on this kind of thing.

The latest wheeze is to threaten companies using this completely safe and legal material with court action.  Given that a court hearing would be bad publicity for the companies involved whatever the outcome, you can see why they caved in.

It is a shame, especially as the groups behind this kind of campaign have negligible levels of public support.  They would have little chance of using consumer pressure to force mass market brands to switch to inferior ingredients directly.  This is presumably why they have switched to litigation.

Read More: A cosmetic scientist’s beauty science blog where he shares his news and views on beauty products and the science behind them

 

 

 

Judge Rejects ‘Unfair’ L’Oréal Hair Product Class Action Settlement! Greed to the Lawyers!!!!!

TheRealHairTruthLogo

 

A federal judge on Wednesday refused to grant final approval to a class action settlement over claims that L’Oréal USA Inc. included misleading labels on some of its hair products, finding that the proposed settlement was not fair to the majority of Class Members.

REAlhairtruth.com
Plaintiff Alexis Richardson initially filed the class action lawsuit in April, alleging that L’Oréal marketed some of its high-end hair products as “available only in salons,” even though they were sold in stores such as Target, Walgreens and other retail stores. Richardson argued that this labeling implies a superior quality product that allows L’Oréal to charge a premium price.

The L’Oréal hair product class action settlement was preliminarily approved on June 27, 2013. Under the terms of the proposed class action settlement, L’Oréal would be barred from marketing its products as “salon-only.” The proposed class action settlement did not offer Class Members any monetary award and precluded them from filing another class action lawsuit seeking monetary damages from L’Oréal in the future. Several Class Members filed objections to the class action settlement, arguing that the terms were unfair.

U.S. District Judge John Bates agreed with the objections, finding that the L’Oréal class action settlement would pay the attorneys for earning Class Members only a “limited” benefit. Judge Bates found that the class action settlement was unfair because the attorneys would be compensated while the majority of Class Members would not receive a monetary award, and consumers would be prohibited from seeking damages as a class, even if they had previously been unaware about this class action settlement.

“The settlement provides no monetary relief while rewarding counsel handsomely,” Judge Bates said in his Nov. 6 decision. “Moreover, the result achieved here could be characterized as worse than ‘settling’: Counsel seeks to release class members’ originally asserted classwide damages claims for precisely nothing. Regardless of the implications for calculating attorneys’ fees, the amount requested by plaintiffs and agreed to by L’Oréal creates the impression of unfairness.”

The L’Oréal hair product class action lawsuit initially sought monetary damages, but the claim was dropped during the settlement negotiations. While the class action settlement released L’Oréal from all future class action lawsuits related to the “salon-only” marketing issue, it did not release the company from individual actions.

Judge Bates found that the probability of a small monetary reward would prevent individuals from taking legal action against L’Oréal. Further, the class action settlement would essentially bar individuals who were unaware of the class action lawsuit from seeking monetary damages.

“It does not comport with due process to bind a plaintiff who is not before a court, and who is perhaps even unaware of a judgment, as to money damages claims, without notifying her of the suit and giving her a chance to opt out,” Judge Bates said. “Otherwise, that plaintiff might be surprised to learn that someone else has bargained away her damages claim without her knowing about it or having any say in it.”

L’Oréal Hair Product Class Action Lawsuit Settlement. Burn In Hell!!

TheRealHairTruthLogo

As usual in our industry, See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Speak no Evil. None of the So-called industry websites, comic books, or fan clubs will do no reporting against no major manufacturer in my industry. It is common knowledge for manufacturers to supply the latest and greatest to the industry sheep. For the purpose of increasing the financial pyramid for themselves. No longer is there a honest approach of informing the beauty industry of news about class action lawsuits for the betterment of the industry. WHY YOU SAY? Because industry giants sustain the beauty industry and give financial backing to the comic books, websites and fan clubs. If one of the three prior mentioned “bite” the hand that feeds them there would be no existence for that website, or magazine or organization.  So in general you will not know who, what, where in this industry. You will be led unless you do any investigative work by yourselves.

REALHAIRTRUTH

L’Oréal USA Inc. has reached a class action lawsuit settlement over claims it falsely marketed shampoo, condition and styling products under the Matrix, Kérastase, Redken and Pureology brand names.Under the proposed settlement agreement, L’Oréal will modify the labels of these products to remove certain misleading language.

The L’Oréal settlement will resolve a class action lawsuit (Richardson v. L’Oréal USA Inc.) that alleges L’Oréal misled consumers into believing they could only purchase the Matrix, Kérastase, Redken and Pureology products exclusively in professional salons, when consumers can purchase the products in major retail outlets.

REAlhairtruth.com

L’Oréal denies any wrongdoing, but has agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the litigation.

Class Members of the L’Oréal class action settlement include all consumers nationwide who purchased the L’Oréal products for personal, family or household use on or after August 30, 2008. There is no monetary benefit for Class Members. Instead, L’Oréal has agreed to remove from the labeling of these hair products the following “claims”:

  • “for sale only in professional beauty salons”;
  • “exclusive salon distribution”;
  • “exclusive to Kérastase consultant salons”;
  • “only professional”;
  • “only in salon”;
  • “sold exclusively in salons”;
  • “available only at fine salons and spas”;
  • “available only at fine salons”; and
  • similar claims in English or other languages which may be read as suggesting availability for purchase exclusively in professional salons.

Since there is no monetary benefit for Class Members, there is no claim filing deadline. If you wish to object to the L’Oréal product class action settlement, you must do so by September 11, 2013.

Will the industry inform you about this?

NO THEY WONT, MY FRIENDS.

THEY WILL NOT!

Because the industry is L’oreal, And they do not want you to know any wrong about these companies. God Forbid they would reach out to you and explain the particulars of this lawsuit and tell you how to apply for claims.

Real Hair Truth L’Oreal to Shelve ‘Salon Only’ Tag for Products!

WASHINGTON (CN) – L’Oreal can settle false advertising claims over supposedly salon-only products that are sold in stores by changing its labels, a federal judge ruled.
Alexis Richardson had led a class against the cosmetics company on behalf of consumers who purchased L’Oreal’s Matrix Biolage, Redken, Kerastase and Pureology products after August 30, 2008.
The April 2013 complaint alleged that L’Oreal deceptively labeled the products as “available only in salons” while nevertheless stocking them in Target, Kmart and other non-salon retail establishments.
“Plaintiffs allege that the salon-only label implies a superior quality product and builds a cachet that allows L’Oréal to demand a premium price,” according to the settlement-approval ruling filed Thursday.
The plaintiffs had filed the suit in Washington, D.C., after resolving related claims from an earlier action in the Northern District of California.
“In the course of those negotiations, L’Oréal provided plaintiffs with extensive documents and information relating to its anti-diversion and labeling practices,” U.S. District Judge John Bates wrote.
“But plaintiffs allege that, despite L’Orèal’s efforts, the products are available in non-salon establishments, and argue that L’Orèal’s labeling and advertising for these products is hence deceptive and misleading.”
As part of the settlement, class representatives can petition for no more than $1,000 each, and L’Oréal will pay up to $950,000 in attorney fees, costs and expenses. The settlement otherwise provides only injunctive relief.
In his approval order, Bates explained the class’s reasons for not trying to certify a damages class.
“First, assessing the value of the salon-only claims to consumers would be difficult, and L’Oréal has never attempted to do so,” the ruling states. “Second, assessing damages on a class-wide basis would be even more difficult – the information provided during the negotiation process revealed substantial price variations among retailers and in different regions, and indicated that non-salon retailers often sell the products at a lower price than do salon retailers, making damages to those purchasing the product in non-salon establishments difficult to analyze.”
Bates said he would defer to counsel’s assessment.
“And class members will retain their right to seek damages in individual actions, dispelling many concerns about foregone payments,” he added. “In these circumstances, an equitable-relief-only settlement may be approved.”
If the settlement wins final approval, L’Oreal will remove the “salon only” label from all of its U.S. advertising and labeling on products distributed in the states.
It will also discontinue manufacturing the labels for its U.S. products, and it will remove the “salon-only” claims from its websites and from any promotion materials.
Both parties have agreed to publish legal notices in USA Today for one week, referring class members to a website that contains a copy of the proposed agreement. Any objections to the settlement must be filed before the Fairness Hearing on October 11, 2013, when the final settlement will be approved.  It seems L’Oreal will get off easy for all the damages they have done to the so-called professional beauty industry.  Their anti- diversion rhetoric is a bunch of bullshit. And always has been.  Too late, Too little the damage has already been done!