Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JENNIFER FINLEY, v. Plaintiff, WESTERN PENN WAXING, LLC; EUROPEAN WAX CENTER FRANCHISE GROUP, INC., Civil Action No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION 1. In September 2012, Plaintiff Jennifer Finley ( Plaintiff or Finley accepted a job as a Wax Specialist at a newly opened spa, which was owned by Defendant Western Penn Waxing LLC ( European Wax Center or the Wexford Spa, a franchisee of Defendant EWC Franchise Group, Inc ( EWC Corporate or the Franchisor (collectively, the Employers. Because her pay was to be based partly on commission, Finley spent the next few weeks working from home to build a clientele prior to her first day of on-site training scheduled for October 1, 2012. 2. On October 1, 2012, Finley attended her first day of training, which was run by an EWC Corporate representative. The corporate trainer announced that, as part of this training program, Finley and her co-workers were required to perform Brazilian-style waxes on each other the following day. A Brazilian is a method and style of public hair removal, in
Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 2 of 13 which one applies a heated adhesive wax to the pubic hair on or near another s anus and genitalia, and then forcibly removes that wax and hair by tearing the adhesive from the person s skin. 3. Finley refused to comply with this training, because it was humiliating, painful, embarrassing, and discriminatory. Moreover, Finley was scheduled to begin menstruating on the same day she was expected to have the Brazilian wax, and expected to be extremely sensitive in the most private region of her body. 4. When Finley explained her opposition to the mandatory Brazilian waxing, and explained that receiving a Brazilian wax would be extremely painful and humiliating because of her menstruation, the corporate trainer responded that she should put in a fresh tampon and take and ibuprofen and you ll be fine. 5. Finley promptly approached the owner of the Wexford Spa, and explained to him that she refused to submit to a Brazilian wax performed on her by her co-workers, and that the Employers could not require her to do so. Finley was terminated immediately. 6. The Employers policy of requiring female Wax Specialists to submit to Brazilian waxes, and the termination of Finley in response to her opposing this policy and refusing to submit to such a procedure, give rise to claims of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ( Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. 951 et seq. ( PHRA. The same facts give rise to a claim for wrongful termination under Pennsylvania common law. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, and 1343 2
Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 3 of 13 with respect to Plaintiff s federal law claims, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 with respect to Plaintiff s related state law claims. 8. Because all violations of law giving rise to Plaintiff s claims occurred in Allegheny County, and because both Plaintiff and Defendant West Penn Waxing LLC reside in Allegheny County, venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391. PARTIES 9. Plaintiff Jennifer Finley is a 35 year-old female residing in Wexford, Pennsylvania. Finley was employed by Defendants (within the meaning of Title VII, the PHRA, and Pennsylvania common law for approximately three weeks before she was involuntarily terminated. 10. Defendant Western Penn Waxing LLC is a New Jersey-registered Limited Liability Company that owns and operates a spa in Wexford, Pennsylvania. At all relevant times, Western Penn Waxing LLC was Finley s employer within the meaning of Title VII, the PHRA, and Pennsylvania common law. 11. Defendant European Wax Center Franchise Group, Inc. is a Corporation registered and headquartered in Florida, with operations in Wexford, Pennsylvania. At all relevant times, European Wax Center Franchise Group, Inc. was Finley s employer within the meaning of Title VII, the PHRA, and Pennsylvania common law. FACTS 12. On or about August 15, 2012, Finley applied for a position with the Employers as 3
Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 4 of 13 a Wax Specialist. Shortly thereafter, she was interviewed by Ryan Glastein, the Owner and sole Member of Western Penn Waxing LLC (which LLC owns and operates the Spa under the name European Wax Center. 13. On or about September 15, 2012, Finley was hired by the Employers as a Wax Specialist, with a pay rate of $8.00/hour (plus a small commission. 14. During the first few weeks of her employment, Finley s job duties were limited to building her clientele base, e.g., contacting potential clients, passing out flyers for the Wexford Spa, and other various marketing tasks. 15. Defendants asked Finley to report to the Wexford Spa on October 1, 2012 for training with other newly hired Wax Specialists. 16. When Finley reported to the Spa for training, she was instructed to report to the EWC Corporate trainer, who was visiting the Wexford Spa to provide training services. EWC Corporate requires all franchisees, including the Wexford Spa, to undergo a Training Program that addresses, inter alia, the practical training, hiring and firing of employees. On information and belief, Finley alleges that the EWC Corporate trainer s name is Patty Oehm. 17. After displaying a EWC Corporate training video, Oehm reviewed what activities the training sessions would include. First, Oehm explained that the Wax Specialists would be practicing their waxing techniques by waxing each other s legs. Then, Oehm explained that, the next day, the Waxing Specialists would be practicing their Brazilian Wax techniques by performing Brazilian Waxes on each other. 18. Brazilian Wax is a term used to describe a range of waxing procedures. The term generally refers to the complete removal of all hair surrounding a person s anus and 4
Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 5 of 13 genitalia. There are multiple methods of completing a Brazilian wax. Most typically, the hair removal is achieved by instructing clients to either lie back and spread their legs, or get onto their hands and knees, exposing their anus and genitalia; applying warmed wax to the area surrounding the person s anus and genitalia; allowing the wax to dry and cool; and then tearing the wax away with a swift gesture, simultaneously removing most or all of the pubic hair. 19. EWC Corporate requires all franchise locations, including the Wexford Spa, to train female Wax Specialists on how to perform Brazilian waxes by requiring those Wax Specialists to perform such waxes on each other. 20. The Employers do not require male employees to perform Brazilian waxes on coworkers, nor do they require male employees to receive Brazilian waxes from co-workers. 21. Prior to Oehm s announcement, Finley was unaware that the Employers included mandatory mutual Brazilian waxing as a portion of the Wexford Spa s training program, or as part of EWC Corporate s corporate training policies. 22. Finley objected to the Brazilian wax portion of the training because it is often an extremely painful experience, because she did not want to expose her anus and genitalia to her co-workers, because she did not want her co-workers to touch her anus and genitalia, and because she simply did not want to have her anus and pubic hair removed. Moreover, Finley was expecting her menstruation period to begin that same morning (October 2, 2012, and a woman s genitalia become swollen and sensitive to pain during menstruation. 23. Finley immediately articulated her objection to Oehm, and explained that she was about to begin her menstruation period. 24. After Finley stated her objection to the mandatory Brazilian wax, several of her 5
Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 6 of 13 co-workers immediately stated that they also were menstruating or beginning their menstruation. 25. Oehm responded that the Brazilian wax portion of training was mandatory, and she instructed Finley, and anyone else who was menstruating, to pop a fresh tampon, take some ibuprofen, and you ll be fine. Finley was extremely offended by Oehm s response. 26. Finley then explained to Oehm that she would not participate in the Brazilian Wax portion of the training, and would not consent to any co-worker or representative of the Employers viewing or touching her anus and genitalia under any circumstances. 27. Oehm reiterated that the Brazilian wax portion of training was mandatory. 28. In response to Oehm s statement that the Brazilian waxing was mandatory, Finley explained to Oehm that she believed it was unlawful for the Employers to require her to do so; that she thought it was sexually harassing and discriminatory for the Employers to require her to expose her anus and genitalia to her co-workers; that she thought it was sexually harassing and discriminatory to require her to permit her co-workers to touch her anus and genitalia, apply wax to both areas, and then remove her pubic hair in front of a group of people; and that she found the idea of receiving a Brazilian wax in front of her co-workers to be a humiliating and embarrassing invasion of her privacy, particularly since she was to begin her menstruation period the same day. 29. Moreover, while Finley felt comfortable performing a Brazilian wax at the request of a voluntary paying customer, she did not know whether her co-workers actually consented to a Brazilian wax or if their consent to such a procedure was coerced by the Employers mandate. Finley s doubt as to the validity of her co-workers consent was amplified by the fact that several of them immediately claimed to be menstruating after Finley said the same. Finley suspected 6
Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 7 of 13 that her co-workers said this as an excuse to get out of the exercise. 30. After Finley explained why she refused to participate in the Brazilian wax portion of training, she asked Oehm if she could speak with Ryan Glastein, the owner. 31. Oehm then split up the Wax Specialists into several rooms for the leg-waxing portion of the training, and Finley was put in a treatment room with another wax specialist named Lisa. 32. Finley indicated to Oehm that she thought she should talk to Glastein before she participated in the leg waxing training because she wanted an opportunity to ask him whether the Brazilian wax portion of the training i.e., the requirement that she permit her co-workers to remove the pubic hair surrounding her anus and genitalia was indeed mandatory. 33. While Finley was waiting with Lisa, Oehm left to inform Glastein that Finley was refusing to receive a Brazilian wax and wanted to speak with him. 34. A few minutes later, Finley met with Glastein in another treatment room. Glastein explained that he had learned of Finley s refusal to have a Brazilian wax performed on her, and asked Finley if that was true. Finley replied that she was refusing to participate in that aspect of the training. Glastein asserted that, during her interview, Finley had agreed to receive a Brazilian wax from her co-workers. Finley denied that she had ever agreed to do so, and asserted again that she would not consent to that aspect of training. 7
Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 8 of 13 35. Glastein immediately notified Finley that she was terminated for violation of the EWC Corporate policy. 36. Finley timely filed two Charges of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC on December 14, 2012 against EWC Corporate and the European Wax Center, alleging claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Plaintiff s Charges were then dual-filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ( PHRC. Charges. 37. On May 6, 2013, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue with respect to both 38. This Complaint is filed within 90 days of Plaintiff s receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue in both Charges. Count I Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Against All Defendants 39. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 40. Plaintiff was terminated because she refused to consent to a Brazilian wax performed by and in front of her co-workers, and because she refused to perform a Brazilian wax on and in front of her co-workers. 41. Plaintiff has a right to bodily privacy, and against invasion of that privacy, under well-established, clearly articulated and important public policies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, most notably those policies that are articulated in the common law tort of invasion of privacy or intrusion upon seclusion. 42. Plaintiff has an unassailable right to refuse to consent to another person s contact with her sexual organs, including her anus and genitalia, under well-established, clearly 8
Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 9 of 13 articulated and important public policies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, most notably those policies that are articulated in the common law tort of battery (or sexual battery and the crime of sexual assault (18 Pa. C.S. 3123. 43. Plaintiff also has a duty never to initiate contact with another person s sexual organs, including their anus and genitalia, under well-established, clearly articulated and important public policies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, most notably those policies that are articulated in the common law tort of battery (or sexual battery and the crime of sexual assault (18 Pa. C.S. 3123. 44. Defendants termination of Plaintiff in response to her refusal to consent to a Brazilian wax, and in response to her reluctance to perform a Brazilian wax on her co-workers, violates the aforementioned public policies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 45. As a direct and proximate result of the Employers wrongful termination, Plaintiff has lost wages and other forms of remuneration, and has suffered from humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety and emotional distress. Count II Retaliation in Violation of Title VII and the PHRA (Against All Defendants 46. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 47. Plaintiff engaged in the protected activity of opposing the Employers mandatory Brazilian wax training requirement, which Plaintiff reasonably believed to be unlawful, harassing and discriminatory under Title VII and the PHRA. employment. 48. As a direct result of Plaintiff s protected activities, the Employers terminated her 9
Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 10 of 13 49. Defendants therefore retaliated against Plaintiff because she opposed conduct made unlawful by Title VII and the PHRA. 50. Defendants termination of Plaintiff evinces Defendants malice and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff s right, under Title VII and the PHRA, to oppose conduct made unlawful by those statutes. 51. As a direct and proximate result of the Employers retaliation, Plaintiff has lost wages and other forms of remuneration, and has suffered from humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety and emotional distress. Count III Sex/Gender Discrimination in Violation of Title VII and the PHRA (Against All Defendants 52. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 53. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class under Title VII and the PHRA, insofar as she is female. 54. As a licensed esthetician, Plaintiff is qualified for the position of Wax Specialist. 55. Plaintiff suffered the adverse employment action of termination. 56. Plaintiff s termination was motivated by her sex and gender. Plaintiff was terminated because she refused to consent, as part of her training, to having her female genitalia and her anus waxed by her co-workers. The Employers male employees are not subjected to this training requirement, and are not terminated if they refuse to comply with this training requirement. Accordingly, Plaintiff s termination evinces the Employers preferential treatment of males and bias against females. 10
Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 11 of 13 the PHRA. 57. The Employers actions comprise sex/gender discrimination under Title VII and 58. The Employers knew their actions against Plaintiff were in violation of Title VII and the PHRA. 59. As a direct and proximate result of the Employers discriminatory actions, Plaintiff has lost wages and other forms of remuneration, and has suffered from humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety and emotional distress. Count IV Sex Harassment in Violation of Title VII and the PHRA (Against All Defendants 60. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 61. Defendants mandatory training program, which requires certain female employees to perform Brazilian waxes on each other, intentionally exposes female employees to disadvantageous terms and conditions of employment when compared with male employees. 62. As set forth in detail above, Defendants mandatory Brazilian wax training made unwelcome and objectively offensive contact with Plaintiff s sexual organs a mandatory condition of her continued employment. 63. Defendants mandatory Brazilian wax training was so severe and extreme as to alter the conditions of Plaintiff s employment. 64. Defendants are liable for the sexual harassment of Plaintiff, under Title VII and the PHRA, because the individuals responsible for the harassing conduct are Defendants supervisors and/or owners. 11
Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 12 of 13 65. As a direct and proximate result of the Employers actions, Plaintiff has lost wages and other forms of remuneration, and has suffered from humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety and emotional distress. 66. Employer s actions would detrimentally affect a reasonable person of the same sex and position as Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jennifer Finley requests that this Court: a. Assume jurisdiction over this civil action; b. Declare that Defendants wrongfully discharged Plaintiff in violation of the public policies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; c. Declare that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff, in violation of Title VII and the PHRA, by terminating her in response to her protected activity; d. Declare that Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff, in violation of Title VII and the PHRA; e. Declare that Defendants sexually harassed Plaintiff, in violation of Title VII and the PHRA; f. Award Plaintiff such back pay, front pay, employment benefits, and all other remuneration to which she would have been entitled, had she not been unlawfully terminated; g. Award Plaintiff compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, both under Pennsylvania law and Title VII; h. Award Plaintiff such costs and expenses of suit, reasonable attorneys fees, and expert witness costs; i. Find for the Plaintiff and against Defendants on all counts of this Complaint; and j. Order such other relieve as may be deemed just and proper. 12
Case 2:13-cv-00909-JFC Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 13 of 13 Respectfully submitted, Date: June 27, 2013 /s/ Vincent J. Mersich Vincent James Mersich (PA I.D. No. 310971 Law Office of Vincent J. Mersich, LLC 400 Market Street Elizabeth, PA 15037 Phone: 412.384.8803 Fax: 412.384.8805 Email: vincent.mersich@outlook.com Janice Q. Russell (PA I.D. No. 66036 Law Office of Janice Q. Russell One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant St. Suite 4300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412.577.4007 Fax: 724.939.7012 Email: janiceqrussell@yahoo.com 13