Case Document 1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

 

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA,
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No.
BLOWN AWAY DRY BAR AND SALON,

JENNIFER SINGER, and RAND SINGER,
DEMAND FOR JURY

Defendants.

 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor
(?Plaintiff?) brings this action to enjoin Blown Away Dry Bar and Salon (?Blown Away?) and
Jennifer and Rand Singer, individual managers and owners of Blown Away (collectively,
?Defendants?), from violating the provisions of Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651-678 for a judgment against Defendants for back
wage compensation, front pay, interest, punitive damages, and for all other apprOpriate relief for
former employee Kaleigh Szulkowski.

Parties

1. The Secretary is authorized to bring this action against Defendants pursuant to
Section 11(c)(2) ofthe Act. 29 U.S.C. 660(c)(2).

2. At all relevant times, Blown Away Dry Bar and Salon (?Blown Away?) was a
sole proprietorship or partnership with a place of business located at 110 South

Union Street, Kennett Square, 19348.

Case Document 1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 2 of 9

3. At all relevant times, Defendant Jennifer Singer was an owner and manager of
Blown Away and resided in 

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Rand Singer was an owner and manager of
Blown Away and resided in 

Jurisdiction and Venue

5. Venue with respect to this action lies in the Eastern District of 
because Defendants operated a beauty salon in Kennett Square, and all events
giving rise to this action occurred in Chester County, 28 U.S.C. 1391.

6. At all relevant times, Blown Away was a ?person? within the meaning of Sections
3(4) and 11(c)(1) ofthe Act, 29 U.S.C. 652(4) and 660(c)(1), because it was a business or
partnership.

7. At all relevant times, Blown Away was an ?employer? within the meaning of
Section 3(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 652(5), because it was a person engaged in a business
affecting trade, traf?c, commerce, transportation, or communication between the Commonwealth
of and states outside of who had employees.

8. At all relevant times, Jennifer Singer was a ?person? within the meaning of
Sections 3(4) and 11(c)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 652(4) and 660(c)(1), because she is an
individual.

9. At all relevant times, Jennifer Singer was an ?employer? within the meaning of
Section 3(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 652(5), because she was a person engaged in a business
affecting trade, traf?c, commerce, transportation, or communication between the Commonwealth

of and states outside of who had employees.

Case Document 1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 3 of 9

10. At all relevant times, Rand Singer was a ?person? within the meaning of Sections
3(4) and 11(c)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 652(4) and 660(c)(1), because he is an individual.

11. At all relevant times, Rand Singer was an ?employer? within the meaning of
Section 3(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 652(5), because he was a person engaged in a business
affecting trade, traf?c, commerce, transportation, or communication between the Commonwealth
of and states outside of who had employees.

12. At all relevant times prior to being terminated, Kaliegh Szulkowski was an
?employee? within the meaning of Sections 3(6) and 11(c)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 652(6)
and 660(c)(1), because she was employed by Blown Away, Jennifer Singer, and Rand Singer.

General Allegations

13. At all relevant times, Defendants operated a salon in Kennett Square (?salon?).
The salon provides haircuts, hair styling, and other beauty services.

14. At all relevant times, there were approximately six employees working at the
salon.

15. On or about August 17, 2015, Defendants hired Kaleigh Szulkowski
(?Complainant?) as a stylist at the salon. Szulkowski?s duties included cutting, coloring, and
styling hair for the salon?s clients.

16. On March 23, 2017, Complainant and other Blown Away employees were
concerned about their health and safety because the toilet in the salon backed up and over?owed
repeatedly, covering the bathroom ?oor with wastewater and used toilet paper. The salon
smelled of human waste. In the basement, pipes were spewing waste or water. Jennifer Singer,
who was on vacation, would not allow employees to close the salon despite receiving text

messages and photographs describing the conditions.

Case Document 1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 4 of 9

17. On March 24, 2017, Complainant and Blown Away employees grew more
concerned as a cleaning crew tracked soiled water through the salon and sprayed chemicals in
the bathroom. Employees experienced gagging and nausea as a result of the smell of waste in
the salon. After the cleaning crew sprayed chemicals in the bathroom, the staff experienced
burning eyes, headaches, and nausea. Employees went outside or into the color room to try to
escape the chemical and sewage smells.

18. Jennifer Singer, after yelling at the salon manager who described employees?
?nally closed the salon on March 24, 2017 after employees had been in the salon
approximately four hours.

19. Both before and after the salon closed on March 24, 2017 employees discussed
whether to call OSHA or another government agency to intervene. Complainant discussed the
conditions at the salon with her husband, Tony Kong. Complainant and Kong were concerned
that Complainant and her coworkers were being exposed to hazardous materials or chemicals.
Kong called the Kennett Square borough of?ces. The borough referred Kong to OSHA, and
Kong contacted OSHA on Complainant?s behalf. Complainant told her coworkers they did not
need to contact OSHA because Kong had already done so.

20. Blown Away opened for normal business hours March 25, 2017. The bathroom
remained closed, with the toilet sitting in the hallway. Jennifer and Rand Singer, back from
vacation, were at the salon at various times during the day. When staff members expressed
concern about the conditions in the salon, Rand Singer made jokes about animals eating their
own feces.

21. Blown Away was closed per its normal schedule on March 26 and 27, 2017.

Case Document 1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 5 of 9

22. Complainant, who worked a part time schedule, did not work on March 28 or 29,
2017.

23. On the afternoon of March 29, 2017, another stylist approached Jennifer Singer
and told her that Complainant?s husband had called OSHA.

24. Jennifer Singer texted the staff at 4:57 pm, falsely claiming that she received a
call from OSHA and asking whether any of the staff had called OSHA.

25. When each of the employees replied that they had not called OSHA, Jennifer
Singer asked whether any of them knew who called.

26. The staff had a separate group text conversation. Complainant told her coworkers
that they were not required to respond to Jennifer Singer?s requests to identify who called
OSHA, and explained that they had the right to complain to OSHA con?dentially.

27. When none of the employees gave a direct response to Jennifer Singer?s text
about whether they knew who called, Rand Singer texted the staff from ennifer?s phone at 6:56
pm, saying:

Hey all it?s rand!

My understanding is that someone from the Salon called the state
to report the sewage in the basement. I?m not upset that you
called, it is your right, but I am upset that ?whoever called? is lying
to us about it. I am going to give that person one more chance to
text me directly and fess up. I will give all until 9pm tonightwas after 9pm that person will be fired for lying to
me. One of you knows who called. I will also put ANYONE who
knows who it was on notice as well by 9pm. You will lose your
job if you hide info from me. Come clean to me and you will not
be fired. I think that sums it up. Pretty simple.

We will be having a meeting regarding this issue this week. I will
let you know when.

Please respond to me on my phone 

All information given to me will be con?dential.

Case Document 1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 6 of 9

28. Around the same time, a ?Now Hiring? posting appeared on Blown Away?s
Facebook page, and the same stylist who informed the Singers of Kong?s call to OSHA shared
that posting with her coworkers Via text. The timing of this post increased the level of fear

among the staff that the Singers would actually ?re someone.

29. Rand Singer separately texted the salon manager, asking her twice to identify who
called OSHA.
30. The staff texted about whether and how to respond to the Singers? ultimatum.

The staff believed they would be ?red if they did not comply with the Singers? demands to
identify who called OSHA.

31. Complainant believed she would be ?red if she told the Singers that her husband
had called OSHA. She asked her coworkers to say that they did not know who called.

32. Complainant provided information to the other staff members about their rights
under Section 11(c). She told the staff group several times that what the Singers were doing was
illegal.

33. Unbeknownst to Complainant and her other coworkers, the stylist who had
identi?ed Kong as the caller also forwarded the staff group text conversations to Jennifer Singer.

34. All of the staff, aside from Complainant and one other stylist, responded to the
Singers? texts and either directly or indirectly identi?ed Kong as the caller.

35. On March 30, 2017 at 7:55 am, Rand Singer ?red Complainant Via text message.

36. The Singers made the decision together to terminate Complainant.

37. The Singers terminated Complainant in retaliation for engaging in activities that

are protected under the Act, including but not limited to Complainant?s husband?s call to OSHA,

Case Document 1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 7 of 9

Complainant?s refusal to identify her husband as the person who called OSHA, or Complainant?s
communications with her coworkers regarding their rights under the Act.

38. On April 10, 2017, Szulkowski ?led a timely complaint with the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration alleging that Defendants discriminated against her in violation
of Section 11(c)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 660(c)(1), by terminating her for engaging in
protected activity by refusing to tell the Singers that Kong had called OSHA on her behalf.

39. On April 17, 2017, Defendants received notice that Szulkowski had ?led a
Section 11(0) complaint.

40. The Secretary thereafter investigated said complaint in accordance with Section
11(c)(2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 660(c)(2), and determined that Defendants had violated Section
11(0) of the Act by terminating Szulkowski.

Violations of the Act

41. The Secretary incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 40 of this
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

42. The activities described in paragraphs 16-19, 25-26, and 30-32 constitute the
?ling of a complaint under the Act and the exercise of rights afforded by the Act, and thus are
activities protected by the Act.

43. Defendants terminated Complainant because she exercised rights and engaged in
activities protected by the Act, in violation of Section 11(c)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 660(c)(1).

44. To date, Defendants have failed to compensate Complainant for wages lost as a
result of her improper termination, in continuing violation of Section 11(c)(1) of the Act, 29

U.S.C. 660(c)(1).

Case Document 1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 8 of 9

Relief Sought

WHEREFORE, cause having been shown, the Secretary requests a trial by jury, and
further prays for judgment:

a. Permanently enjoining and restraining Defendants, their of?cers, agents, servants,
employees and those persons in active concert or participation with them, from violating the
provisions of Section 11(0) of the Act;

b. Ordering Defendants to pay damages to Complainant for all past and future lost
wages that resulted from her termination, and prej udgment and post-j udgment interest thereon, as
authorized by Section 11(c) of the Act;

0. Ordering Defendants to post in a conspicuous place in the salon for a period of
not less than sixty days a copy of the decree entered in this case and a notice that Defendants will
not discriminate against any employee for engaging in activities protected by Section 11(c) of the
Act;

d. Ordering Defendants to compensate the Secretary for all costs incurred in this

litigation; and

Case Document 1 Filed 03/29/18 Page 9 of 9

e. Ordering all other appropriate relief including punitive damages, emotional
distress, pain and suffering, other expenses incurred by Complainant as a result of being

terminated by Defendants.

Respectfully submitted,

Kate S. O?Scannlain
Solicitor of Labor

Oscar L. Hampton 111
Regional Solicitor

Andrea J. Appel
Regional Counsel for Civil Rights

316F8le

 

PA ID #93836

Of?ce of the Solicitor, Region 
Suite 630 East, The Curtis Center
170 South Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3306

(215) 861?5129 (Phone)

(215) 861-5162 (Fax)

greenwald.j ordana@dol.gov

US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Attorneys for Plaintiff