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

11 Dec 2014 ~ Joseph Kellner

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.

8 chemical ingredients that are among the most dangerous to you in the shower!

29 Nov 201429 Nov 2014 ~ Joseph Kellner

Think about this: Nary a day goes by when we don’t use beauty products – toothpaste, shampoo, conditioner, lotion, moisturizer, deodorant, soap, shaving cream and perfume, among others. The list could go on and on. We use them so often, we cast them off as harmless and simple, everyday necessities. The truth is, they are anything but harmless and can be replaced easily with safer alternatives. You see, over time, these supposed “harmless” products’ hazardous ingredients compound and grow in the body, ultimately allowing a bunch of little doses to add up to a much bigger problem. The following 8 ingredients are among the most dangerous found in common beauty products. Most of them are skin irritants that have cancer-causing effects.

My rule of thumb is to never put a product on my skin or hair that has ingredients in it I cannot pronounce. This has meant getting used to DIY beauty products as well as all-natural options found at my local health store. But if you enjoy the convenience and the price of mainstream products, at least avoid these 8 offenders.

1. Triclosan
Triclosan is an antimicrobial agent that is one of the most common additives found in everyday consumer products, such as shampoo, toothpaste and soap. A study conducted by the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine linked triclosan to cancer. Triclosan also creates resistant bacteria, which can represent a potentially severe public health risk.
Synonyms: 2,4,4′-Trichloro-2′-Hydroxy Diphenyl Ether; 5-Chloro-2- (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) – Phenol; 5-Chloro-2- (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) Phenol; Phenol, 5-Chloro-2- (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) -; Phenol, 5chloro2 (2,4dichlorophenoxy) ; 2,4,4′-Trichloro-2′-Hydroxydiphenyl Ether; 5-Chloro-2- (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) Phenol; Ch 3565; Irgasan; Irgasan Dp300; Phenol, 5-Chloro-2- (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)

2. Methylisothiazolinone (MIT or MI)
Used as a preservative in baby wipes and lotions, MI is a skin irritant that has long been associated with allergic reactions. It has also exhibited neurotoxic effects.
Synonyms: 2-Methyl- 3 (2h) -Isothiazolone; 2-Methyl-2h-Isothiazol-3-One; 2-Methyl-3 (2h) -Isothiazolone; 2-Methyl-4-Isothiazolin-3-One; 3 (2h) -Isothiazolone, 2-Methyl-; 3 (2h) Isothiazolone, 2methyl; Methylchloroisothiazolinone225methylisothiazolinone Solution; 2-Methyl-3 (2h) -Isothiazolone; 2-Methyl-4-Isothiazolin-3-One

3. Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) and Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES)
Both of these chemicals are toxic to the body and the environment, with SLES slightly more hazardous since it is often contaminated with 1,4 Dioxane (see #4). SLS and SLES work to make beauty products more easily absorbed by the skin. They are linked to skin, eye and lung irritation as well as organ system toxicity.
SLS synonyms: Monododecyl Ester Sodium Salt Sulfuric Acid; Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate; Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate; Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Sodium Lauryl Sulfate; Sodium Salt Sulfuric Acid, Monododecyl Ester; Sulfuric Acid Monododecyl Ester Sodium Salt; Sulfuric Acid, Monododecyl Ester, Sodium Salt; Ai3-00356; Akyposal Sds; Aquarex Me; Aquarex Methyl
SLES Synonyms: Ethanol, 2 [2 (Dodecyloxy) Ethoxy], Hydrogen Sulfate, Sodiumsal; Sodium 2- (2-Dodecyloxyethoxy) Ethyl Sulphate; Sodium Lauryl Di (Oxyethyl) Sulfate

4. 1,4 Dioxane
This chemical is a known carcinogen. It can fall under the umbrella of SLES (see #3) or a slew of other ingredients listed below as a contaminant, or it may not even be listed at all. It contaminates up to 46 percent of personal care products. The chemical is a byproduct of an ingredient processing method called ethoxylation used to reduce the risk of skin irritation for petroleum-based ingredients. Even though 1,4 dioxane can be easily removed from products before sale, it often is not.
Possible impurity in: Polysorbate-20, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, Peg-100 Stearate, Polysorbate-60, Ceteareth-20, Cetyl Peg/ Ppg-10/ 1 Dimethicone, Laureth-7, Peg/ Ppg-18/ 18 Dimethicone, Peg-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Polysorbate-80, etc.
Synonyms: 1,4-Diethylene Dioxide; 1,4-Dioxacyclohexane; Di (Ethylene Oxide); Diethylene Dioxide; Diethylene Dioxide (Osha); Diethylene Ether; Diokan; Dioksan (Polish); Diossano-1,4 (Italian); Dioxaan-1,4 (Dutch); Dioxan

5. Oxybenzone
Often found in spray-on sunscreens, oxybenzone is a major hormone disruptor. It causes biochemical and cellular level changes. It is easily absorbed by the skin and has been determined to contaminate the bodies of 97 percent of Americans.
Synonyms: Benzophenone-3, (2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxyphenyl) Phenyl- Methanone; (2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxyphenyl) Phenylmethanone; 2-Benzoyl-5-Methoxyphenol; 2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxybenzophenone; 4-08-00-02442 (Beilstein Handbook Reference) ; 4-Methoxy-2-Hydroxybenzophenone; Advastab 45; Ai3-23644; Anuvex; B3; Benzophenone, 2-Hydroxy-4-Methoxy

6. Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)
Already banned in the EU, BHA and BHT are used as stabilizers and preservatives in beauty products. BHA is considered a human carcinogen. BHT is a toluene-based ingredient that is a moderate irritant and has tumor-promotion effects.
BHA Synonyms: Antioxyne B; Antrancine 12; Eec No. E320; Embanox; Nipantiox 1-F; Protex; Sustane 1-F; Tenox Bha
BHT Synonyms: Dbpc; Advastab 401; Agidol; Agidol 1; Alkofen Bp; Antioxidant 29; Antioxidant 30; Antioxidant 4; Antioxidant 4k; Antioxidant Kb; Antrancine 8

Your beauty products may boost your outer beauty, but do they support your inner health? Most beauty products contain ingredients that harm your body more than they help it and in an alarmingly dangerous way. Take the time to read the back of your beauty products and see what really is going into your skin with every lather, rub and scrub.

What Quality King Distributors Does is Perfectly Legal!

2 Aug 2014 ~ Joseph Kellner

What quality King does is legal they sell beauty products to the consumer, although I will meet individuals in my industry who work and represent large manufacturers and they will say, “Quality King is one of the biggest diverters in the United States”. That comment I quote directly from Bill Peplow who in my first film, The Real Hair Truth describes how these company’s will “So-Call Divert” there professional products. Which in all reality what Quality King does is totally legal. If I buy a jar of your “Jam or Jelly” I can legally resale the product anywhere and for any price. But the major manufacturers in my so called professional industry will get upset because they are not getting there “EXTRA” bit of the resale. They will claim it is copyright infringement, or they will call it “Gray, black market, reproduced product. Why? To keep the consumer from purchasing the product from the retail outlets i.e., Target, Costco, etc. They want you the consumer to buy it at , the salons, or beauty outlets. Also in reality they are selling the product to these chain outlets and saying it is diverted from the beauty industry salons. Basically they cannot blame ‘Quality King for the sales because it is legal. So they will blame the so called professional beauty industry salons for the diverted product they sell to the chains. If Quality King can make a killing off of selling and reselling these professionals bottles of soap, well the manufacturers will also get into the deal and sell it on there own. Its all about money, money, money. They claim to have loyalty to you as a professional but that is a ploy to camouflage there endeavors and get you to believe they are for you. In the whole circle of it, they will blame you to cover there greed and lack of loyalty to you!. Follow the money everyone, that’s THE REAL HAIR TRUTH. Read the law below on first-sale doctrine this will enlighten you! Also I would like to mention the interview with BILL PEPLOW was recorded with his permission and several phone calls were made to me from PEPLOW asking and informing me not to keep it in the first documentary, The Real Hair Truth. I was informed Paul Mitchell’s attorneys would be giving me legal problems. But in regard to honesty and truth we have placed it in my next film The Beautiful Lies!

Quality King Distributors has grown from a small shop in Queens, New York to a large distributor of pharmaceuticals and health and beauty care products. The company re-imports exported U.S.-branded over-the-counter pharmaceuticals and personal care products and sells them at deep discounts. Clients include drugstore and supermarket chains, grocery distributors, wholesale clubs and mass-merchant discounters. Glenn Nussdorf and his wife started Quality King in 1961, and the Nussdorf family still owns the company.

Industry: Health Care Equipment & Svcs
Founded: 1961
Country: United States
CEO: Glenn Nussdorf
CFO: Michael Katz
Website: www.qkd.com
Employees: 900 ^e
Fiscal Year End: Oct 31, 2013
Sales: $3.2 B ^e
Headquarters: Ronkonkoma, NY

The first-sale doctrine plays an important role in U.S. copyright and trademark law by limiting certain rights of a copyright or trademark owner. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others). In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder put the products on the market. The doctrine is also referred to as the “right of first sale,” “first sale rule,” or “exhaustion rule.”

Copyright law grants a copyright owner an exclusive right “to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.” 17 U.S.C. 106(3). This is called “distribution right” and differs from the copyright owner’s “reproduction right” which involves making copies of the copyrighted works. Rather than the right to copy, the distribution right involves the right to transfer physical copies or phonorecords (i.e., recorded music) of the copyrighted work. For example, the distribution right could be infringed when a retailer acquires and sells to public unlawfully made audio or video tapes. Although the retailer may not have copied the work in any way and may not have known that the tapes were made unlawfully, he nevertheless infringes the distribution right by the sale. The distribution right allows the copyright owner to seek redress from any member in the chain of distribution.

The first-sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder’s distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner’s interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. Thus, one who buys a copy of a book is entitled to resell it, rent it, give it away, or destroy it. However, the owner of the copy of the book will not be able to make new copies of the book because the first-sale doctrine does not limit copyright owner’s reproduction right. The rationale of the doctrine is to prevent the copyright owner from restraining the free alienability of goods. Without the doctrine, a possessor of a copy of a copyrighted work would have to negotiate with the copyright owner every time he wished to dispose of his copy. After the initial transfer of ownership of a legal copy of a copyrighted work, the first-sale doctrine exhausts copyright holder’s right to control how ownership of that copy can be disposed of. For this reason, this doctrine is also referred to as “exhaustion rule.”

The doctrine was first recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. In the Bobbs-Merrill case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy’s department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill’s consent. The Supreme Court held that the exclusive statutory right to “vend” applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work.

Section 109(a) provides: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.” The elements of the first sale doctrine can be summarized as follows: (1) the copy was lawfully made with the authorization of the copyright owner; (2) ownership of the copy was initially transferred under the copyright owner’s authority; (3) the defendant is a lawful owner of the copy in question; and (4) the defendant’s use implicates the distribution right only; not the reproduction or some other right given to the copyright owner.

Application to public display right

17 U.S.C. §109(c) creates a limited exception to a copyright owner’s public display right. Owner of a lawful copy of a copyrighted work can, without permission from the copyright owner, display that copy to viewers present at the place where the copy is located. For example, an owner of copy of a computer program (and only a computer program under §109(c)) cannot display the copy publicly on a website under this provision.^{[citation needed]}

An amicus brief in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. argued that Section 109 was a key provision for US art museums:

Most U.S. art museums have permanent collections that were acquired through purchases, gifts, and bequests, and on which they draw for exhibitions to the public. Museums also present special exhibitions, largely made up of works not in their collections, through loans from private collectors, galleries, and other institutions. For all these activities museums depend on the protections afforded by Section 109. Section 109(c) provides that the owner of a particular copy “lawfully made under this title” is entitled to display that copy publicly without the copyright owner’s permission. Section 109(a) similarly allows museums to buy, borrow, loan, and sell such “lawfully made” artworks.^[1]

Thank You Brazil!

12 Jun 2014 ~ Joseph Kellner

We are delighted to hear that Brazil has taken a huge leap towards ending cosmetics tests on animals by voting to pass legislation last week which will end the use of animals for most cosmetics tests, omitting those that are for “ingredients with unknown effects” – as well as the sale of newly animal-tested products. The move follows the announcement by the state of Sao Paolo in January that it was to end animal cosmetics tests and is the result of efforts by a number of groups in the region. We hope that the loopholes in the proposed law can be closed to ensure that the suffering of animals for cosmetics can end. Cosmetics companies need to stop putting “crap” in their products that needs to be tested. Save the humans as well as the animals. And that’s the Real Hair Truth!

Mixed Chicks Product Line Wins Lawsuit Against Sally Beauty

15 Apr 201415 Apr 2014 ~ Joseph Kellner

Jurors awarded over 8,000,000 to the small company of the Mixed Chicks product line who claimed that the …

For the past two years well-known natural hair company Mixed Chicks has been in an ongoing legal battle with Sally Beauty company. Mixed Chicks had filed a lawsuit against the national beauty supply chain in March 2011, for selling a product called “Mixed Silk” at their over 2,000 locations. The plaintiffs felt that the overall appearance of the Mixed Silk product line infringed on their trademarked labeling due to similarities.

On November 2, the jury found that Sally Beauty had not only infringed on the Mixed Chicks trademark, but had acted “willfully with malice and oppression.” The jury verdict awarded Mixed Chicks LLC $8,114,535 ($839,535 in actual damages and $7,275,000 in punitive damages). In a press release to JET, co-founders Kim Etherege, Wendi Levy and Bradley Kaya spoke on their massive win, ” We invested our hearts and souls into this company and have built the reputation of the Mixed Chicks products as one of distinction and high quality. It was an expensive case, but we believe in our brand and will fight to protect it. We are pleased the jury has found Sally Beauty willfully infringed and awarded an amount that will make them think twice about doing so in the future. You can’t just bully little companies.”

Mixed Chicks Hair Care Products (Good Guys)

Sally Beauty Supply Mixed Version (Scum Guys)

The trio will also be seeking additional funds for attorney’s fees, a portion of Sally Beauty’s profits of Mixed Silk products and an order to ban the selling of Mixed Silk products. Sally’s beauty supply no longer has a link to there product and when we called they would not answer any questions about the Victory lawsuit Mixed Chicks had with them.

Mixed Silk’s packaging is strikingly similar to that of Mixed Chicks. The pump top on the shampoo & leave-in conditioner is quite convenient for shower use. Silk Elements should have adopted the same design for the deep conditioner; opening and closing it while in the shower is a little time consuming. All of the products have the same strong manufactured fragrant smell. So lady’s and gentlemen you have read it all. Another scum bag company playing and stealing off a entrepreneurs idea. And who needs manufacturers like that in our beauty industry. Of course you will see them at the hair shows and think twice of the hard work a entrepreneur within our industry has to go through to get there product out to the consumer.

The Real Hair Truth!

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Application to public display right

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Rate this:

Share this: