Santiago v. Meyer Tool Incorporated, 1:19-cv-00032

Case Information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

REBECA SANTIAGO, Plaintiff,

LEACH

vs.

MEYER TOOL, INC., Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before Court on plaintiff's request to take the deposition of Doug Lang, the President of Meyer Tool, Inc., and defendant Meyer Tool's request to limit the scope of Mr. Lang's deposition. The Court previously ordered plaintiff to state her basis for wanting to depose Mr. Lang, including why she believes his testimony is relevant the claims in this case. (Doc. 57). The Court also ordered defendant to respond to plaintiff's submission by December 18, 2019. ^[1] (Doc. 57).

The scope of discovery extends to nonprivileged information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense, regardless of whether the information sought is admissible, that is "proportional to the needs of the case." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, claims of gender and disability discrimination, gender pay discrimination, and violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601. The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and finds that the testimony of Mr. Lang is relevant to plaintiff's claims. Previous deposition testimony in this matter indicates that Mr. Lang was the final decision-maker on plaintiff's termination. He was required to approve or disapprove the action recommended by plaintiff's supervisor, and plaintiff may inquire as to Mr. Lang's reasons for approving the termination. In addition, there is testimony that Mr. Lang was responsible for approving Meyer

Tool's Performance and Training Policy in place at the time plaintiff was terminated from her employment with Meyer Tool and for approving any proposed pay raises of Meyer Tool employees. Plaintiff has identified several areas in which Mr. Lang may have direct knowledge concerning the claims in this lawsuit, and there is no intimation that plaintiff's request for Mr. Lang's testimony is for an improper purpose or harassment. In addition, it does not appear that the deposition of Mr. Lang would impose an undue burden on defendant. Plaintiff has shown that Mr. Lang's testimony is relevant to the claims in this case, and the discovery sought by plaintiff appears to be proportional to the needs of the case. The Court declines to set limits on the scope of Mr. Lang's deposition given plaintiff's showing of relevancy to the gender and disability harassment claims pled in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: $12/20/2019$

| Natalie F. Grubb | Grubb & Associates, LPA | | :--: | :--: | | Mark E. Owens | Attorneys and Counselors at Law
437 W. Lafayette Road, Suite 260-A
Medina, Ohio 44256 | | PH: (330) 725-7252 | www.grubbandassoc.com |

SENT VIA E-MAIL TO: $$ litkovitz chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov; JGreiner@Gravdon.law; NZiepfel@Gravdon.law

December 13, 2019 Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse, Room 716 100 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Re: Santiago v. Meyer Tool Incorporated, Case No. 1:19-cv-00032-SJD-KLL Dear Magistrate Litkovitz: Pursuant to your Order of December 11, 2019, Plaintiff respectfully submits this statement of explanation for the need for Plaintiff to take the deposition of the President of Defendant, Meyer Tool Incorporated ("Meyer Tool"), Doug Lang. The deposition testimony of Meyer witnesses to date consistently establishes that Doug Lang was directly involved in the setting of employee raises and employee discipline and terminations, including the termination of Plaintiff.

On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff began, but was unable to finish, the deposition of Deanna Adams, HR Director for Meyer Tool. Ms. Adams reports directly to Mr. Lang. Ms. Adams testified that Mr. Lang discusses all employee terminations with her or she discusses them with him. She discussed the termination of Plaintiff with Mr. Lang. Beau Easton, Vice President of Meyer, does not have any involvement with employee terminations unless he is a committee member and /or approves the committee recommendation as one of the three members of an investigative committee relative to an employee complaint of harassment.

On November 13, 2019, Plaintiff took the deposition of Meyer Tools' former V.P. of Operations, Gordon ("Gordy") McGuire, who retired on December 31, 2018. Mr. McGuire, consistent with the testimony of Ms. Adams, testified that Mr. Lang had the final say as to all employee disciplinary / corrective actions. Mr. McGuire sat on two, three person investigative committees that interviewed witnesses and made recommendations to the President (Mr. Lang) regarding specific employee complaints of sexual harassment. Mr. Lang decided who would be appointed to serve on an investigative committee. Mr. McGuire further testified that Mr. Lang approved Meyer Tool's Performance and Training Policy, which was in place at the time of Plaintiff's termination on the purported basis of poor work performance and attendance.

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. December 13, 2019 Page 2

Mr. McGuire testified that Mr. Lang approves the annual cost of living adjustment ("COLA") percentage increase in employee compensation and approves all employee pay raises. Each supervisor would annually be given a stack of folders, one folder for each employee reporting to him, which would include the COLA rate for that year. Mr. McGuire testified that the supervisor would then have discretion to give a higher raise based on merit. Mr. McGuire would sign off and pass the folders to Payroll and Accounting, which would then obtain ultimate approval for the pay raises from Mr. Lang.

The ability to take an unlimited discovery deposition of Mr. Lang is critical to Plaintiff's case, as her claims against Meyer Tool include gender based pay discrimination, as well as gender and disability harassment, including hostile work environment discrimination. See counts set forth in First Amended Complaint.

Attached hereto for your reference is a pay approval form for employee Huck Finn (Bates No. MEO1244) (Exhibit A). Also attached is an email from Christine Stecle in HR to Mr. Lang on October 9, 2015, referencing an investigative committee's recommendations to Mr. Lang regarding an employee sexual harassment claim (Bates No. MEO1918) (Exhibit B), and an investigative committee's recommendations to Mr. Lang regarding another employee complaint of sexual harassment by supervisor Huck Finn (Bates No. MEO1465) (Exhibit C). From the case of William Cannon-El v. Meyer Tool Incorporated, S.D. Ohio Case No. 1:16cv956, also in this Court, Plaintiff attaches portions of the transcript of Nicole Fugate, confirming Mr. Lang's involvement with and ultimate approval of committee recommendations for employee discipline arising from harassment complaints (Exhibit D). Deposition Exhibits 60 and 62 from Ms. Fugate's deposition are also attached (Exhibits E and F). Relevant portions of the Transcript of the February 17, 2017 deposition of Paul Rowland, Plant Manager, in the Cannon-El case are attached (Exhibit G), as well as a page from the January 20, 2017, deposition of Ms. Adams in the Cannon-El case, confirming that Ms. Adams reports directly to Mr. Lang (Exhibit H).

Very Truly Yours,

GRUBB & ASSOCIATES, LPA

/s/ Mark E. Owens

Mark E. Owens, Esq. cc: John C. Greiner, Esq. Nicholas J. Ziepfel, Esq. File Copy Client Copy

Christine Steele

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Kristy Swart Smith Friday, October 09, 2015 2:03 PM Christine Steele; Doug Lang; Gordy McGuire; Beau Easton RE: Committee Recommendations - Sims vs Frasier Simms v Fraiser, 10-6-15.docx

Exhibit A may be difficult to see. Please see attached for the original copy minus signatures. Thanks, Kristy

Kristy Swart Smith CPM, MSIO Project Facilitator and Analyst Meyer Tool, Inc. Cell Number: 513-258-6106 Desk Number: 513-591-5236 Email: kristy.swartsmith@meyertool.com Address: 3055 Colerain Ave., 2nd Floor South, Cincinnati, OH 45225 Information contained herein is the property of Meyer Tool, Inc. Reproduction, disclosure, or use thereof is permissible only as intended or as provided by contract or as expressly authorized in writing by Meyer Tool, Inc.

If this document contains information which is designated subject to EAR and/or ITAR export control by the U.S. Government, it should not be transferred within the U.S. to any foreign national, or abroad without a valid export license from the U.S. Government, or license exemption is obtained/available from the United States Department of State.

If you receive this e-mail in error, please so notify the sender and delete or destroy the material from any media. ----Original Message----- From: Christine Steele Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 1:57 PM To: Doug Lang doug. lang@meyertool.com ; Gordy McGuire gordy.mcguire@meyertool.com ; Beau Easton beau.easton@meyertool.com Cc: Kristy Swart Smith kristy.swart@meyertool.com Subject: FW: Commitee Recommendations - Sims vs Fraiser

Please the conclusion of the Harassment claim of Sims and Frasier. We have included our recommendations. Thank you, Christine

Information contained herein is the property of Meyer Tool, Inc. Reproduction, disclosure, or use thereof is permissible only as intended or as provided by contract or as expressly authorized in writing by Meyer Tool, Inc. If this document

The investigation committee's recommendations for corrective actions are contained herein to the President, Mr. Doug Lang, regarding the complaint of harassment by Huck Finn (EMP #47) in regard to Teresa Hopkin's (EMP #2146) email correspondence. These recommendations are a direct result of the investigation conducted by Paul Rowland (EMP #154), Nicole (Nikki) Fugate (EMP #2526), and Sarah Sweltzer (EMP #2910) between the dates of October 20, 2016 and October 25, 2016. All three committee members were unrelated to the incident.

Recommendations for corrective actions:

• The committee recommends that Teresa Hopkins complete individualized training from Be Employee Assistance Program (BEAP). This training is recommended to assist Teresa in understanding that there are different forms of bullying and inappropriate behavior, including text-based such as email. Teresa is expected to complete the training prior to December 15, 2016.
• The committee recommends issuing a verbal warning to Teresa Hopkins based on misuse of company property per Meyer Tool's Employee Handbook section 9:1 Use of Meyer Tool Property. This training is to occur prior to November 15, 2016.
• The committee recommends that Teresa Hopkins return to work October 25, 2016 and be paid for her time off. Key notes pertaining to recommendations:
• The question was asked: How would you like to see this resolved? Both Huck and Teresa stated that they would have no issue working together following this investigation.
• The committee finds that Teresa did not engage in discrimination or harassment. The committee finds that Teresa did engage in bullying behavior through the misuse of Meyer Tool property. The committee finds that Teresa's behavior was not intentional bullying and was not malicious in nature. As such, the committee recommends a low level of disciplinary action. Our recommendations are based off of interviews conducted with the following employees:
• Interviews conducted with:
• Teresa Hopkins (EMP #2146) - Interview on 10/20/16 and 10/21/16
• Deanna Adams (EMP #2800) - Interview on 10/21/16
• Huck Finn (EMP #47) - Interview on 10/21/16

The following provides the timeline of events for the Harassment Committee Investigation regarding email correspondence between Teresa Hopkins and Huck Finn:

• October 20, 2016:
• 1:00pm-Committee formed. Committee members:
• Paul Rowland
• Sarah Sweltzer
• Nikki Fugate

In The Matter Of:

William H. Cannon-El v. Meyer Tool Incorporated

Nicole Fugate January 20, 2017

On-Time Reporting

Steno and Video Services - Ohio and Kentucky Notaries 8739 Landen Dr. - Mainoville, OH 45039 schedule@antimereporting.com $513.290\mathrm{.3233}$

Nicole Fugate

40

that or anyone else to call 911, correct? A. No. Q. Now, in the past, it was your understanding that Ms. Steel handled all the complaints from the employees? A. Yes. Q. And is it your understanding then that she kept those in her file in her office? A. I'm not sure how she handled them. (Deposition Exhibit No. 49 was marked.) Q. Now, as far as -- when you first -- you were advised by Gordy McGuier that you would be sitting on the committee? A. No. I was informed by Deanna. Q. So she initially told you? A. She told me, and she told me that Doug Lang had chosen me for that committee. Q. Okay. Was there any discussion between you and Deanna about pulling Rick's file to see if there's been any complaints made against him? A. Yes, based on Will Cannon's statement and John Poff's statement that they had previously complained about him. Q. Okay. And was that done?

Nicole Fugate

90 Q. Did another person stop by? Did someone send you an email, a text, anything of that nature? A. No. We kept that between the three of us. Q. Okay. A. And I would say just in regard to saying that these -- that this is the (indicating) end all, be all, that it couldn't be altered after that, it hadn't been sent along to the president for approval. Just with Becky and I sending it back and forth and reviewing it with Paul, that was the point that we determined... Q. So the president, I understand,

Mr. Lang, could have looked at it all and basically said, yes, no, part of it I agree with, part of it I don't, whatever? A. Yes. Q. Now, so at that point, basically, though, you had collected information, there was no new information, and that was the end of it? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And is there any reason that you basically waited to advise Mr. Cannon for five

Nicole Fugate

111 1 789 . (Deposition Exhibit No. 60 was marked.) A. Yes, this appears to be the final draft. Q. (By Ms. Grubb) And then there was some emails going back and forth about back pay, that Mr. Cannon should receive back pay for the duration of the suspension. Beau and Julie were both consulted on this decision and concur. This went up the chain, then, regarding his back pay? A. Yes. Q. And you don't know whether or not he ever received back pay? A. I don't. I know that it was approved that he would receive back pay, but I wasn't informed as to whether -- when he received it. Q. And you just dropped it. You never saw whether or not he received back pay or whether any of the other recommendations were put in place? A. For the back pay, I think that that would have been outside of my realm. I don't think that I would have been able to ask accounting that type of information.

As far as the other recommendations, it

Nicole Fugate

1 is the job of the committee to make sure that 2 these are issued to the president, but it's not 3 our job to enforce them in this case, the only 4 exception being that I took on that I would train 5 them on the complaint procedure. Q. Okay. A. So I knew that was an action item that was mine and had to be completed by a certain date. Q. Do you remember getting an email from

Doug Lang saying, Okay. Has this been sent to Arlyn yet? I would like to talk to him first, and then the chain just dies. Do you recall anything regarding that? A. I do remember him saying that, yes. Q. And do you remember any follow-up or anything to that? A. No. Q. Now, on June 7th, 11:50 a.m., there's one from you: I finished my additions to the notes you started. So we're back on interview with Mark Metcalf, interview with Rick Ackerson, interview with Steve Korb, Tina, Deanna, Glen Young, Gordy

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Nikki Fugate nikki.fugate@meyertool.com Tuesday, June 07, 2016 8:36 AM Doug Lang: Beau Easton (beau.easton@meyertool.com) Becky Schwarz; Paul Rowland Harassment Committee Recommendations Recommendations for events on 5-25-16 and 5-26-16.docx

Good morning, Attached please find our recommendations pertaining to the harassment committee's investigation of the incidents which occurred Wednesday, May 25 in the NPI area and Thursday, May 26 in the HR department.

Thank you, Nikki Fugate Training Instructor Department of Continual Improvement Meyer Tool Inc. Cell: 513-615-5318 Desk: 513-591-5243

Information contained herein is the property of Meyer Tool, Inc. Reproduction, disclosure, or use thereof is permissible only as intended or as provided by contract or as expressly authorized in writing by Meyer Tool, Inc.

If this document contains information which is designated subject to EAR and/or ITAR export control by the U.S. Government, it should not be transferred within the U.S. to any foreign national, or abroad without a valid export license from the U.S. Government, or license exemption is obtained/available from the United States Department of State.

If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete or destroy the material from any media.

From:

| Sent: | Nikki Fugate nikki.fugate@meyertool.com | | :-- | :-- | | To: | Tuesday, June 07, 2016 3:32 PM | | Cc: | Doug Lang; Beau Easton (beau.easton@meyertool.com) | | Subject: | Becky Schwarz; Paul Rowland | | Attachments: | Interview notes and written statements | | | Written Statements Harassment Committee 5-25-16 & 5-26-16.pdf; Interview with Mark | | | Metcalf on June 2, 2016.doc.docx; Interview with Rick Ackerson on June 2, 2016.docx; | | | Interview with Shireen Flick on June 3, 2016.doc; Interview with Steve Korb on June 3, | | | 2016.doc.docx; Interview with Tina Loveless on June 2, 2016.doc.docx; Interview with | | | Will Cannon on June 1, 2016.doc; Interview with Chris Bauer on June 1, 2016.doc; | | | Interview with Deanna Adams on May 31, 2016 and June 2, 2016.doc; Interview with | | | Glenn Young on June 2, 2016.doc.docx; Interview with Gordy McGuire on June 2, | | | 2016.doc.docx; Interview with John Poff on June 1, 2016.doc; Interview with Maria | | | Jackson on June 2, 2016.doc; Wednesday 6-1-2016 Phone Call with William Cannon.doc |

Good afternoon, Attached are the written statements from those who observed the events on Wednesday and/or Thursday as well as the committee's interview notes.

Thank you, Nikki Fugate Training instructor Department of Continual Improvement Meyer Tool Inc. Cell: 513-615-5318 Desk: 513-591-5243 information contained herein is the property of Meyer Tool, inc. Reproduction, disclosure, or use thereof is permissible only as intended or as provided by contract or as expressly authorized in writing by Meyer Tool, Inc.

If this document contains information which is designated subject to EAK and/or ITAR export control by the U.S. Government, it should not be transferred within the U.S. to any foreign national, or abroad without a valid export license from the U.S. Government, or license exemption is obtained/available from the United States Department of State.

If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete or destroy the material from any media.

In The Matter Of:

William H. Cannon-El v. Meyer Tool Incorporated

Paul Rowland

February 17, 2017

On-Time Reporting

Steno and Video Services - Ohio and Kentucky Notaries 8739 Landen Dr. - Maineville, OH 45039 schedule@ontimereporting.com $513.290\mathrm{.3233}$

1 then Beau Easton.

2 Q. Now, as -- let me ask -- as plant 3 manager, what were your responsibilities? 4 A. Making sure that parts were manufactured 5 properly on time, also managing. Started out with 6 three people. When I passed it over three or four 7 years ago and I quit being a plant manager, there 8 were 140 there. 9 Q. Now, were you also as plant manager in 10 charge of the Affirmative Action Program? 11 A. No, everything but. Human resources 12 took care of... 13 Q. And how many employees directly reported 14 to you as plant manager? 15 A. All 140. 16 Q. Okay. Let's do this. Who were your 17 direct reports; in other words -- 18 A. Rephrase. 19 Q. Obviously you wouldn't have 140 people 20 knocking at your door. So who reported directly 21 to you, what supervisors or managers? 22 A. All of the different areas. Over 25 23 years, there's been various ones. 24 Q. In 2013, who was reporting directly to

1 you?

2 A. It would be Rick Stevens, Kerry June, 3 Craig Moore, Ron Hendershot. Those were all the 4 different area leaders. 5 Q. Now, in 2013, you said you then moved to 6 manufacturing director. How does that vary from 7 plant manager? 8 A. Now I assist in manufacturing processes 9 and training and working continually improving the 10 process or manufacturing techniques. 11 Q. Now, who reports to you as manufacturing 12 director? 13 A. Nobody. 14 Q. Okay. So if... you assist in training. 15 There appears to be individuals that their key 16 responsibility is training. Who would those 17 people be? 18 A. That would be Nikki. 19 Q. Nikki Fugate? 20 A. I'll elaborate on training. As I am 21 passing on my knowledge to each and every 22 department that needs my help, I am more of a 23 resource now doing training and improvement to any 24 place in the company based on my past experiences.

Page 13 Page 15 1 Q. All right. So Nikki Fugate, even though 2 she does training, she doesn't report directly to 3 you? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Who does she report to? 6 A. I'm not sure who she reports to exactly. 7 Okay? 8 Q. How about Becky Schwarz? 9 A. Beau Easton. 10 Q. And as far as yourself, you also report 11 to Beau Easton? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. And now, how long have you been sitting 14 on the investigative committee? 15 A. Well, it isn't just one committee. 16 Q. Who selects the committee members? 17 A. Management. 18 Q. When you say management, who is 19 management? 20 A. Doug Lang. He's the - he's the 21 president of the company now. So, I mean, I get 22 my direction - I got my direction from him asking 23 me to be on this committee. 24 Q. So depending perhaps on the situation or

1 scenario, you may sit on one committee or you may 2 not be asked? 3 A. A committee is formed after an incident. 4 Q. And the selection of those three 5 committee members would be controlled by Doug 6 Lang, to the best of your knowledge? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Now, when did he first contact you about 9 the committee regarding Mr. Cannon? 10 A. I'm not sure the date, but approximately 11 a week before we started having interviews, I 12 believe. Within a week. 13 Q. Now, did he contact you by phone, email, 14 text? 15 A. He phoned me and asked me. 16 Q. And did he tell you anything at that 17 time? 18 A. Nope. 19 Q. So he just told you that you'd be 20 sitting on the committee? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. At that time, did he tell you who else 23 would be sitting on the committee? 24 A. I don't think so.

| | | Page 25 | | | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 1 | and find out what is the real truth. | 1 | action taken or no action taken. | | | | | | Q. Now, as far as -- did you know that -- | Q. | Okay. To your knowledge, was she, | | | | | | you knew about the two individuals. Were the -- | 3 | Theresa, on suspension -- | | | | | | you said there were two other individuals. Were | 4 | A. I'd like to answer one - | | | | | | they noted somewhere in the record that they may | 5 | Q. I'm sorry. | | | | | | have information relevant to the facts? | 6 | A. Based on our recommendation, okay, to | | | | | | A. I believe during the interviews, their | 7 | upper management, but they make the final | | | | | | names came up, so we wanted to talk to them. And | 8 | decision. | | | | | 9 | I believe we did get statements from them also. | 9 | Q. Do you know whether Theresa had been | | | | | 10 | Q. And do you -- before you speak to them, | 10 | suspended when they initially discovered this | | | | | 11 | do you ask them or do their supervisors ask them | 11 | problem until the time that she appeared before | | | | | 12 | to write statements? | 12 | the committee? | | | | | 13 | A. No. The human resources takes care of | 13 | A. Yes, she was. | | | | | 14 | having all the employees write the statements, or | 14 | Q. And do you know how long? | | | | | 15 | they submit their statements to human resources. | 15 | A. No. | | | | | 16 | Q. And so you wouldn't see how the | 16 | Q. Do you know who suspended her? | | | | | 17 | statements are written or under what conditions or | 17 | A. No. | | | | | 18 | when; they're just provided to you? | 18 | Q. Do you know whether or not in this | | | | | 19 | A. No, I was never present or knew the | 19 | recommendation she was reinstated? | | | | | 20 | conditions unless it came up during the | 20 | A. Yes. She was reinstated back to work. | | | | | 21 | interviews. | 21 | Q. And was she paid for the suspension | | | | | 22 | Q. Okay. Now, did you interview anyone | 22 | time, to your knowledge? | | | | | 23 | more than once? | 23 | A. I believe she was. | | | | | 24 | A. On which committee? | 24 | Q. Okay. Was it your committee's | | | | | | | Page 26 | | | | Page 28 | | 1 | Q. On this one that we're talking about, | 1 | recommendation to do so? | | | | | 2 | Theresa and Huck Finn. | 2 | A. It was our recommendation to reinstate | | | | | 3 | A. Yes. Theresa. | 3 | her back to work, and I believe - I believe we | | | | | 4 | Q. Theresa you interviewed twice? | 4 | did recommend her also. | | | | | 5 | A. I believe twice. | 5 | Q. For pay? | | | | | 6 | Q. And did you permit anyone to accompany | 6 | A. For pay, I believe. | | | | | 7 | her in her interview? | 7 | Q. Okay. Your recommendations in Theresa's | | | | | 8 | A. No. We - that's not standard. | 8 | case would then have to be all approved by upper | | | | | 9 | Q. Okay. Now, did you inform her that | 9 | management? | | | | | 10 | there's a possibility that discipline may result? | 10 | A. Yes. | | | | | 11 | A. Yes. | 11 | Q. Who specifically in upper management? | | | | | 12 | Q. When did you inform her? | 12 | A. I would say Beau Easton, Gordy McGuier, | | | | | 13 | A. During the first initial meeting, we are | 13 | and Doug Lang. I'm going to say VPs. That's my | | | | | 14 | going through, like I said before, the discovery | 14 | belief. | | | | | 15 | process. And based on what is discovered, some | 15 | Q. Now, as far as the comments or the | | | | | 16 | action will be taken or no action will be taken | 16 | emails that Theresa was sending, were they sexual | | | | | 17 | based on the information that comes out. | 17 | in nature? | | | | | 18 | Q. Now, as far as Nikki's role in this | 18 | A. No. | | | | | 19 | investigation, does she -- is she the one that | 19 | Q. So basically, without a lot of detail, | | | | | 20 | informs the individuals that the -- there may be | 20 | what were they regarding? | | | | | 21 | some action taken? | 21 | A. A lot of religious content. | | | | | 22 | A. Any time there is an incident, as we go | 22 | Q. Okay. As far as religious content, what | | | | | 23 | through collecting the information, then the | 23 | do you mean? | | | | | 24 | decision is made as to whether there will be | 24 | A. Pictures, posters, statements. I | | | |

In The Matter Of:

William H. Cannon-El $v$ . Meyer Tool Incorporated

Deanna Adams

January 20, 2017

Around-the-Clock Reporting Services
PO Box 11008
Cincinnati, OH 45211

Deanna Adams

A. He was the president of the company. He is now the chairman of the board. Q. When did he become the chairman of the board? A. Last year, maybe beginning of December. Q. December 2016? A. Yes. Q. Currently, who do you report to? A. Doug Lang. Q. And his title is president? A. Yes. Q. What was his prior position? A. Executive vice president. Q. Now, to your knowledge, have you discussed anything with Mr. Easton regarding Mr. Cannon-El? A. No. Q. Have you discussed anything regarding Mr. Cannon-El with Mr. Lang? A. Just that the -- the cases. Q. What do you mean the cases? A. The EEOC, the labor board. And those were the only two ones that I -- I let him be aware that that was going on.

GRAYDON

John C. Greiner Diner. (513) 629-2734 jrreiner@graydonlaw

312 Walnut Street Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Main 5136216464 Fax 5136513836

December 18, 2019

YIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz Litkovitz chanber@rohsalconconte.gov

Re: Rebeca Santiago v. Meyer Tool Inc., Case No. 1:19-CV-00032

Dear Magistrate Litkovitz: Meyer Tool, Inc. ("Meyer Tool") respectfully requests that this Court limit Plaintiff's scope of her deposition of Meyer Tool President, Doug Lang, to address Mr. Lang's direct involvement in Meyer Tool's decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment on July 21, 2017. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's demands to depose Mr. Lang on topics beyond his direct involvement in Meyer Tool's decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment is nothing more than a fishing expedition that this Court should not permit.

Plaintiff implies that Mr. Lang was intimately involved with Meyer Tool's decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment. This is not accurate. Meyer Tool's Human Resources Director, Deanna Adams, testified about Meyer Tool's procedures for employment terminations. ^[1] Generally, a Meyer Tool human resources representative contacts Meyer Tool's President, Doug Lang, among others, to notify them that Meyer Tool intends to terminate an employee. The human resources representative will briefly update Mr. Lang, often verbally, with Meyer Tool's reason(s) for the employment termination. Mr. Lang has the opportunity to agree or disagree with human resources' decision. Besides this brief, secondhand communication, Mr. Lang has no firsthand knowledge or involvement with Meyer Tool's decision to terminate an employee. ^[2] Ms. Adams testified that she followed this process when terminating Plaintiff. ^[3]

Meyer Tool's retired Vice President of Operations, Gordon McGuire, testified to a similar process Meyer Tool follows for annual cost of living raises. Generally, Meyer Tool supervisors would receive a target cost of living increase, with all requested increases ultimately approved by the finance department and Mr. Lang. Similar to the termination procedure outlined above, Mr. McGuire did not testify that Mr. Lang was intimately involved in approving each employee's cost of living increase - rather, Mr. McGuire testified that decision was left strictly to front line supervisors. ^[4]

Meyer Tool's procedures outlined above are far from unique. Most organizations maintain

an internal hierarchy that assigns final oversight of substantive employment decisions to its officers. This does not mean that these officers are directly involved in the day-to-day human resources functions, nor would these officers possess firsthand knowledge of the reasons for an employment termination.

Plaintiff stresses that Mr. Lang is intimately involved in Meyer Tool procedures for investigating harassment complaints and issuing corrective action related to them. But Mr. McGuire and Ms. Adams both testified that such investigations - identified in Meyer Tool Policy MT-21 occur only after a complaint of harassment. ^[5] And Plaintiff unequivocally testified that she never complained about harassment to Meyer Tool - not during her employment, not when Meyer Tool terminated her employment, nor even when she sent a letter to Meyer Tool's Human Resources department six weeks after Meyer Tool terminated her employment. ^[6]

Quite simply, Meyer Tool followed the appropriate procedure for terminating Plaintiff's employment. Mr. Lang's involvement in that procedure is limited to a brief telephone call with Ms. Adams to review, provide ultimate approval for the decision.

Mr. Lang's deposition, in a broad sense, falls outside Federal Rule 26's permitted scope of discovery as it is not proportional to the needs of this case. Plaintiff's reference to depositions from the Canon-El case - an unrelated case that involved an investigation under Meyer Tool's Policy MT21 - demonstrates how unnecessary Mr. Lang's testimony is to this case. Meyer Tool has and continues to make available for deposition the true decision makers relevant to this case; those with firsthand knowledge of Meyer Tool's termination of Plaintiff's employment.

Given Plaintiff's inability to justify the need to depose Mr. Lang beyond his direct involvement in Meyer Tool's decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment, it is reasonable to assume that Plaintiff's request to depose Mr. Lang is nothing more than a fishing expedition. The Court should not entertain Plaintiff's discovery request that is categorically beyond the proportional needs of this case - particularly when the Court has already extended Plaintiff's discovery cutoff twice.

For these reasons, Meyer Tool respectfully requests that this Court limit Plaintiff's scope of her deposition of Meyer Tool President, Doug Lang, to address Mr. Lang's direct involvement in Meyer Tool's decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment on July 21, 2017.

Sincerely, GRAYDON HEAD & RITCHEY LLP

Tab 1

In The Matter Of:

Rebeca Santiago $v$ . Meyer Tool, Inc.

DEANNA ADAMS
November 15, 2019

Around-The-Clock Reporting Services Jean Long, RPR P.O. Box 11008

Cincinnati, Ohio 45211 513.481 .5200

Rebeca Santiago v. Meyer Tool, Inc. Page 57 1 if it's a list of all complaints, incident 2 reports filed by who they were and then who 3 the complaint was against? 4 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. 5 THE WITNESS: You are going to 6 have to ask that question again because it 7 was just too -- 8 BY MS. GRUBB: 9 Q. Sure. Can you tell me why your 10 complaints listed as against Mr. Cannon-El is 11 not on this list? 12 A. I just answered that. 13 Q. Because you believe it's legal and 14 anything that goes to a court of law, all 15 paperwork goes to that and it's not kept on 16 this list? 17 A. I didn't say that. I said that it 18 is not complete, that's why it's not there. 19 Q. Okay. How many outstanding cases 20 do you have that are not on this list then? 21 A. Threc. 22 Q. And who are the three? 23 A. Cannon-El, Santiago, and I'm not 24 sure who the other one is, sorry. 25 Q. Is it a matter that has gone to

Page 58 1 court? 2 A. The one I can't remember. 3 Q. The third one, right? 4 A. No, it has not. 5 Q. When you say it's not completed, is 6 it sitting in the EEOC? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Is it a Workers' Compensation case? 9 A. No. 10 Q. But you don't recall, is it filed 11 in public records anywhere? 12 A. No, it's in my office in my drawer 13 for me to complete it out, that I had to 14 compile stuff for this, so it had to be to 15 set aside. 16 Q. And what type of complaint or issue 17 was it? 18 A. I didn't really get to read it, so 19 I'm not going to speculate. I don't know. 20 Q. Okay. So it just started, in other 21 words, someone brought in a complaint and you 22 are now convening a committee? 23 A. No, it's not going to committee, 24 it's not that sort of complaint for a 25 committee.

1 Q. Has an internal investigation been 2 done on this complaint? 3 A. I have not started anything on this 4 complaint. 5 Q. And just so we are clear for the 6 record when I say internal investigation, I 7 don't want to misrepresent what that is. 8 What do you do, what does HR do in an 9 internal investigation? MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. 11 11 12 BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Right. A. I look into the facts. I interview people. I get statements. And then I consult the handbook and go by what the policies and procedures say. Q. And how do you determine whether you are going to convene a committee and whether you do an internal investigation? A. Harassment is what we make a committee for. Q. Only harassment? A. Yes.

Q. Any specific types of harassment?

1 A. Where it's against sexual or 2 inappropriate comments or that it's ongoing 3 after the person says stop and they 4 continuously do it. Q. And does that have to be a written 5 request? 6 A. No. 9 Q. So orally someone would come in and you will conduct a, you will convene a committee if someone complains orally? A. I will write it down and then say you will need to, I need to form an investigation team. Q. And for an internal investigation, it's all other complaints, issues or matters? A. What do you mean by internal because they are both internal with Meyer Tool? Q. Well, the other was I should say you have an internal committee and/or for grievances, and then you have an internal investigation, those are two separate processes, correct? A. But they are both internal, they 25 are both Meyer Tool processes.

| | | Page 61 | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 1 | Q. | That's fine, but the investigation | | 2 | does not involve | paneling a committee? | | 3 | A. | What? | | 4 | Q. | In other words, okay, let me try to | | 5 | make this | clear. It is my understanding you | | 6 | have a | committee, an internal investigative | | 7 | committee | tain is established for harassment | | 8 | and then I | don't want to have to spend the | | 9 | time | listing all those, but what you just | | 10 | test | fied to, okay, that's one type of | | 11 | investigation. | | | 12 | | For all other grievances, issues | | 13 | that are | non-harassment, you would do an | | 14 | internal | investigation, correct, that docs | | 15 | not involve | a committee? | | 16 | A. | I would look into the complaint. | | 17 | Q. | Okay. When you say I would look | | 18 | into, you yourself? | | | 19 | A. | Me myself. | | 20 | Q. | Okay. And with the committee | | 21 | there's | tive people, their findings are | | 22 | written | up, and then it's approved by upper | | 23 | management, | oug Lang, am I correct? | | 24 | | MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. | | 25 | | THE WITNESS: The president. |

1 something to yourself at least because you 2 are the one conducting this internal 3 investigation? 4 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. 5 THE WITNESS: I would write 6 something that, no findings, and I would talk 7 to the person that put in the complaint. 8 BY MS. GRUBB: 9 Q. Okay. And these are not, these 10 internal investigation files or data that's 11 collected is not reviewed by Mr. Lang? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Okay. Are these brought to his 14 attention anyway? 15 A. Depends on what it is. 16 Q. Okay. Let's say it's an 17 allegation, someone hit someone, but you 18 couldn't substantiate it, would it still be 19 brought to his attention by yourself? 20 A. It depends on the situation. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. Did they go up to him and brush 23 against them or did they punch him in the 24 face. You see there's a big difference 25 there.

Page 62 1 BY MS. GRUBB: 2 Q. Right, he's the one that makes the 3 final determination and then issues, agrees 4 or disagrecs with the recommendations, makes 5 the final finding? 6 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. 7 THE WITNESS: He agrees or 8 disagrees with the findings of the 9 investigation. 10 BY MS. GRUBB: 11 Q. Okay. With an internal 12 investigation, however, there's obviously no 13 committee. How is that internal 14 investigation documented as to how it's been 15 conducted? 16 A. It's in its file folder and it will 17 have statements, witnesses, their things, 18 other statements, the complainant, the person 19 it was against. I usually, it depends on 20 what it is. I can't really say. It could be 21 a writeup, it could be mandatory earn, which 22 is an employee assist program, or there could 23 be no findings. 24 Q. And you would write to that effect, 25 you would write something in a memo or

Page 64 1 Q. Okay. Sure. Is there, as far as 2 these internal investigations, if someone is 3 terminated, would that then have you take 4 that file and your investigative notes then 5 to Mr. Lang to bring him up to speed on that? 6 A. If somebody was terminated, we 7 won't investigate. 8 Q. As far as Mr. Easton, Beau Easton, 9 what role, if any, does he play as far as the 10 internal investigations? 11 A. None that I know of. 12 Q. I'm trying to understand whether or 13 not Mr. Beau Easton is in the chain of 14 command such that individuals, given his 15 executive position, feel comfortable or can 16 speak to him regarding a problem at work? 17 A. It's an open door policy. 18 Q. But there is no requirement that 19 they advise him of any problems that they may 20 be having at work, correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Okay. Now as far as this internal 23 investigation, so if we look at AA, the last 24 time I deposed you, you said you were in the 25 middle of --

| | Page 73 | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 1 | they are free to come to anyone else in HR, | 1 | | 2 | not just yourself, correct? | 2 | | 3 | MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. | 3 | | 4 | THE WITNESS: Correct. | 4 | | 5 | BY MS. GRUBB: | 5 | | 6 | Q. Okay. So is it possible that he | 6 | | 7 | consulted with someone else in your HR | 7 | | 8 | department as to Ms. Santiago, let's say | 8 | | 9 | January 1, 2017, to the present, to her | 9 | | 10 | termination date of $7/20/2017$ ? | 10 | | 11 | A. I don't know. | 11 | | 12 | Q. Okay. Would they have had it | 12 | | 13 | documented in a communication log form? | 13 | | 14 | MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. | 14 | | 15 | THE WITNESS: No. | 15 | | 16 | BY MS. GRUBB: | 16 | | 17 | Q. Would they have noted it in her | 16 | | 18 | file? | 17 | | 19 | A. No. | 19 | | 20 | Q. Okay. So he may have come in and | 20 | | 21 | said hey, I got this employee, I want to talk | 21 | | 22 | with you, and then there would be no | 22 | | 23 | documentation of that conversation? | 24 | | 24 | MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. | 25 | | 25 | THE WITNESS: Possible, yes. | 25 |

Page 75 1 Q. Okay. So it was slipped under your 2 door? 3 A. I'm not sure on that. 4 Q. Okay. So you believe it might have 5 been - but you didn't have any face-to-face 6 conversation going here, I want to have you 7 take a look at this termination form? 8 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. 9 THE WITNESS: No. Wait a 10 minute. I think he did hand it to me and 11 said, you know, here's a form, I need you to 12 go through the process. 13 BY MS. GRUBB: 14 Q. Okay. And at that stage do you 15 then take the form and send it up the chain 16 because if it's a termination, you said it 17 has to be approved by upper management? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Who did you send that form to? 20 A. I didn't send the form to nobody. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. It would have been a call. It 23 would have been a call from me to them. 24 Q. Okay. Who did you call first in 25 the case of Ms. Santiago?

1 BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Okay. But you yourself personally 3 never overheard him talking about Ms. 4 Santiago with anybody in the HR department? 5 A. No, I never heard him talking about 6 anybody. 7 Q. And you weren't part of any 8 conversations with him regarding Ms. Santiago 9 for the six months prior to her termination? MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. 11 THE WITNESS: Not that I recall. 12 BY MS. GRUBB: 13 Q. Okay. All right. So at the point 14 that he came in with the form completed, am I 15 correct, the termination form completed? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. All right. And it was a single 18 form? 19 A. I don't know. 20 Q. Okay. Did he hand it personally to you? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Who did he hand it to? 24 A. I think it was slipped under my 25 door.

1 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. 2 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure who I 3 called first. I think it was Doug Lang. 4 BY MS. GRUBB: 5 Q. Okay. And what did you say to 6 Mr. Lang and what did he say to you on that 7 call? 8 A. I don't know, this is two years, it 9 was approved. 10 Q. Okay. He gave that approval? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. Did you have to say anything 13 regarding the facts and the circumstances of 14 termination? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. I'm trying to get the gist of that 17 conversation. And so he said yes. The day 18 that Huck gave it to you, did he approve it? 19 A. Who approve it? 20 Q. Okay. I was trying to abbreviate, 21 I shouldn't, I apologize, bad question. The 22 day that Mr. Finn gave you Mr. Santiago's 23 termination form, you said you talked by 24 telephone to Mr. Lang. Did Mr. Lang approve 25 that termination of Ms. Santiago the same day

Rebeca Santiago v. Meyer Tool, Inc. Page 77 1 that you gave him the form? 2 A. I don't know, I don't know if that 3 phone call happened then or later. I don't 4 know the timeframe there. 5 Q. Do you think it was within a day or 6 two? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. So when Mr. Lang verbally gives his 9 approval on something, is there some email or 10 documentation via text -- 11 A. No. 12 Q. -- that he said it's okay? 13 A. No. 14 Q. All right. So you heard that, I 15 said I approve, did he tell you why he was 16 approving it? 17 A. He would have asked me what did the supervisor say, why does the supervisor want 19 to terminate, is this, you know, is this what 20 he says on here, you know, I just explain 21 what he put on there, and he said yes, yes, 22 if the supervisor is good with it, I'm good 23 with it. 24 Q. And you believe you did that same 25 discussion regarding Ms. Santiago on the

Page 78 1 phone with Mr. Lang? 2 A. I would have just read from the 3 actual warning. 4 Q. Okay. So you would have read from 5 the warning. Now when you get off the phone 6 do you note somewhere that he approved it 7 that day or time? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Do you have a policy or procedure 10 then by notifying the employee within 24 11 hours or how does that, what is the next step 12 after Mr. Lang approved the termination? 13 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. 14 THE WITNESS: When I can get to 15 it, I mean that's what -- I have to, when I 16 can get it in there. When I can call him, 17 usually I try to do it right away but there's 18 no timeline. 19 BY MS. GRUBB: 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. If that's what you're asking, 22 there's no timeline. 23 Q. Okay. He's given the approval to 24 terminate someone and then you said you don't 25 make any notation, he said it was okay. You

Page 79 1 at that point, at that point you get off the 2 phone, what next do you do with that paper 3 and who do you advise? MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. THE WITNESS: What do you mean who do I advise? BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Well, wouldn't you have to tell the supervisor that Mr. Lang approved the termination? A. Yes. Q. Okay. In Ms. Santiago's case, do you recall getting the approval and then advising Mr. Finn of the approval? A. That it was okay to move forward. Q. Okay. And how did you advise Mr. Finn of that? A. I would have said it's okay to move forward. Q. Would you have done it by phone or by email or text? A. I probably just handed him his form back. Q. Okay. So you would have gone out onto the floor, and do you recall doing so?

Page 80 1 A. No, he would have came in there and 2 I would have given it -- he would have came 3 to the HR department and I would have given 4 him the form back. Q. So you would have called him to 6 come from the shop? A. I don't know if I called him, I don't know how, I mean -- Q. Okay. So within a couple of, within a day or so you would have done that of the approval? A. Yeah. If I, I don't know if I -- I don't know the timeline. It would have been on the forms. Q. At that point, once you handed it back to Mr. Finn are you then out of that discussion and then you just send a letter to the employee?

MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. THE WITNESS: Once I get the form back. BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Back with her signature or his signature? A. I don't know if it was a signature.

Tab 2

In The Matter Of:

Rebeca Santiago $v$ . Meyer Tool, Inc.

GORDON McGUIRE November 13, 2019

Around-The-Clock Reporting Services Jean Long, RPR
P.O. Box 11008
Cincinnati, Ohio 45211
513.481.5200

| | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 1 | Q. And who reported to you? | 1 | | 2 | A. Let's see, I had several people, | 2 | | 3 | Jerry Blair -- I mean, excuse me, Jerry Ruff. | 3 | | 4 | Edwin Finn, Jim Gloris, I guess those were | 4 | | 5 | the -- and Mark Hempleman. | 5 | | 6 | Q. All right. So as far as Mr. Finn, | 6 | | 7 | when you left in 2018 what was his position? | 7 | | 8 | A. When I left he was the night shift | 8 | | 9 | supervisor. | 9 | | 10 | Q. Okay. And then you said there was | 10 | | 11 | Jerry Ruff, Ed Finn. Who else, I'm sorry? | 11 | | 12 | A. Jerry Ruff, he was the day shift | 12 | | 13 | supervisor. | 13 | | 14 | Q. Okay. And you said you had two | 14 | | 15 | other individuals reporting? | 15 | | 16 | A. Yes, Jim Gloris, who was the tool | 16 | | 17 | room supervisor. And then Mark Hempleman, he | 17 | | 18 | was the machine manager or supervisor. | 18 | | 19 | Q. And you are acquainted, of course, | 19 | | 20 | with Mr. Rick Ackerson; does he report to | 20 | | 21 | you? | 21 | | 22 | A. Yes, I forgot about these guys. | 22 | | 23 | Q. Okay. | 23 | | 24 | A. Be gone for a year and I just kind | 24 | | 25 | of forget. | 25 | | | | | | 1 | Q. All right. Well, and so | 2 | | 2 | Mr. Ackerson also reported to you? | 3 | | 3 | A. Yes. | 4 | | 4 | Q. And what position was he? | 4 | | 5 | A. He's our, I guess what they called | 5 | | 6 | him at that time was, he was the supervisor | 6 | | 7 | of the development and of hardware processes, | 7 | | 8 | development and processes. | 8 | | 9 | Q. Now was Mr. Rick Ackerson over Mr. | 9 | | 10 | Finn in 2016? | 10 | | 11 | MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. | 11 | | 12 | THE WITNESS: No. | 12 | | 13 | BY MS. GRUBB: | 13 | | 14 | Q. Okay. So they were equal? | 14 | | 15 | A. Yes. | 15 | | 16 | Q. All right. And this one, two, | 16 | | 17 | three, four, five individuals all reported | 17 | | 18 | directly to you. Did they have any dotted | 18 | | 19 | line reporting relationships to anyone else; | 19 | | 20 | by that I mean they may have reported to you | 20 | | 21 | but they also reported to someone else? | 21 | | 22 | A. They may have reported to other | 22 | | 23 | people, depending, not necessarily reported | 23 | | 24 | to them but worked with other people because | 24 | | 25 | of the nature of their job. | 25 |

Page 9 Page 11 1 Q. Okay. Now as far as your, you said you had day-to-day operations? A. Yes. Q. As far as the production itself, if any of these, they are all gentlemen, had issues or problems with production, then they came to you? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. Okay. And then if any of them had employee problems, they would come to you, shift scheduling problems, anything of that nature? MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. BY MS. GRUBB: Q. When it came to employee evaluations, did you have to sign off on those evaluations? A. We started the process towards, I'm trying to think a minute here, yes, I did. Q. Okay. Now when an employee is evaluated, let's say, for instance, I'm trying to think of, give a good example, Mr. Ackerson is responsible for Glenn Young, okay, he would get the evaluation form from

Page 12 1 HR, am I correct? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And then he would complete that evaluation form and then before it's given to the employee, would he have to send it to you for review? A. It would go, I would review all of them and then they would go to HR. Q. And did you kind of sign off or check off that you approved what was -MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. THE WITNESS: I would just initial. BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Initial, okay. All right. Then they were sent to HR. Did they have any say into the amount that, for instance, Mr. Ackerson wanted to give Mr. Young and that you approved or were they simply for entering into the computer systems? MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. THE WITNESS: To the best of my knowledge it was strictly for entering the information into the computer system. BY MS. GRUBB:

| | Page 13 | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 1 | Q. All right. So, for instance, a | 1 and they would have the evaluation forms of | | 2 | worker in HR, such as Tina Lovelace, couldn't | 2 all the employees for that particular | | 3 | suddenly decide to change a rate? | 3 supervisor. | | 4 | MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. | 4 Q. Okay. So, for instance, let's use | | 5 | THE WITNESS: No. | 5 Mr. Ackerson. That year, 2016, they may have | | 6 | BY MS. GRUBB: | 6 determined that 1.8 is going to be the cost | | 7 | Q. Okay. And in the last, I know it's | 7 of living adjustment or the base rate -- | | 8 | been a while since you have been retired; | 8 A. Yes. | | 9 | however, was there in the last decade a time | 9 Q. -- adjustment, and he would be | | 10 | where there was a set raise amount given to | 10 given, you would give him a stack of folders? | | 11 | all individuals? | 11 A. Yes. | | 12 | A. No set rate. There was a guideline | Q. With all his employees in them, | | 13 | to go by, okay. | 13 correct? | | 14 | Q. Okay. | 14 A. Yes. | | 15 | A. There was a rate given out as a | 15 Q. Okay. And then he was to evaluate | | 16 | guideline. | 16 and then bring those folders back to you? | | 17 | Q. Mr. Ackerson recalls that in 2014, | 17 A. Yes. | | 18 | I believe it was ' 14 through ' 16 , that there | 18 Q. To review? | | 19 | was a flat rate of 1.8 and then it was | 19 A. And we would review, yes. | | 20 | changed later to 2.3 ? | 20 Q. Now if someone wanted to go above | | 21 | MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. | 21 whatever the set rate of 1.8 or 2.3 , then | | 22 | BY MS. GRUBB: | 22 they would have to make a special notation or | | 23 | Q. Did those numbers seem at all | 23 discussion as to why it should be, correct? | | 24 | familiar to you? | 24 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. | | 25 | A. Some of those numbers seemed right, | 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. | | | Page 14 | | | 1 yes. You know, when, when the evaluations | | | | 2 | are given out, there's a guideline number, | 1 BY MS. GRUBB: | | 3 | whether it was 1.8 or 2.8 or 3.5 or whatever | Q. Then you would then, they would | | 4 | the case may be, and that was with the | 3 have to say oh, this person gets a merit | | 5 | supervisor was supposed to work his | 4 increase because not only do they do their | | 6 | evaluation, you know, within those rates. | 5 work but they have taken on something | | 7 | Then if somebody was more or better, then you | 6 additional and that is worth another so many | | 8 | would work accordingly. | 7 cents, correct? | | 9 | Q. Okay. So maybe we can go into some | 8 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. | | 10 | more detail as far as how that worked. Who | 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. | | 11 | set, some people call it a COLA, some people | 10 BY MS. GRUBB: | | 12 | call it cost of living adjustment, you | 11 Q. And so then you would be the one | | 13 | remember that from the form, who set that 1.8 | 12 that would have to approve something over and | | 14 | or 2.3 ? | 13 above the 1.8 ? | | 15 | A. To the best of my knowledge, it | 14 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection, form. | | 16 | would have been the financial department of | 15 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't approve | | 17 | Meyer Tool and the president of Meyer Tool. | 16 it. I would either agree with it because it | | 18 | Q. Okay. How did they communicate | 17 goes on to other people to approve, you know. | | 19 | that to you so when you're reviewing | 18 I can think okay, yes, this might be pretty | | 20 | evaluations somebody doesn't get a 5.25 ? | 19 good, but I'm not the final say-so on the | | 21 | A. Well, they actually write it down | 20 raises or -- | | 22 | on the folder that's given out. Then when I | 21 BY MS. GRUBB: | | 23 | handed the folders to the individuals, you | 22 Q. Who would be the final say-so? | | 24 | know, it would be there, there would be a | 23 A. That would be the president and the | | 25 | print-out sheet in each one of the folders | 24 financial people at Meyer Tool. | | | | 25 Q. Okay. All right. So no one is |

Rebeca Santiago v. Meyer Tool, Inc.

Page 17 1 getting crazy because the president would 2 have to see and understand a justification 3 for that very large merit increase? 4 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection, form. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 BY MS. GRUBB: 7 Q. Okay. Now you said, let's talk 8 about that folder. There's the evaluation 9 form and then there are documents behind that 10 for each person that HR has stapled to the 11 form; for instance, it could be attendance, 12 it could be errors, it could be a 13 disciplinary writeup, things that went on in 14 that employee's history that year, correct? 15 A. That is correct, yes. 16 Q. And then all discipline and other 17 writeups for that particular evaluation 18 period, it would be the year preceding the 19 date of the evaluation, correct? 20 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. Form. 21 THE WITNESS: Preceding, yes. 22 It would be from the last time they got 23 evaluated to this current evaluation. 24 BY MS. GRUBB: 25 Q. Right. So, in other words, if you

Page 18 1 have an employee who is hired in 1998, you 2 didn't get an evaluation form with a stack 3 this big of every offense from 1998 to 2016? 4 A. No, no, no, no. 5 Q. Okay. And to your understanding, 6 does the discipline fall off the record if 7 it's older than a year? 8 A. It did at one time, yes, but I 9 don't know now. 10 Q. As we sit here today, because you 11 are retired, they may have changed the policy? 13 A. Absolutely. 14 Q. But when you left it was just that 15 year? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. Now as far as once the data 18 was inputted into the system was it your 19 understanding that the supervisor, such as 20 Rick Ackerson, was discussing the evaluation 21 then with the employee? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And was it your understanding that 24 they were having them sign those evaluations? 25 A. Yes, that was my -- yes.

1 Q. All right. And then from that 2 point was there any further input that you 3 had on the evaluation after the supervisors 4 provided them to their employees? A. No. Q. Okay. At that point it's all 7 payroll and accounting to make any 8 adjustments? A. Yes, ma'am. 10 Q. Okay. All right. Do you recall 11 any employee not being given that COLA or 12 that 1.8 percent out of Mr. Finn's 13 department? MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. 15 BY MS. GRUBB: Q. In the last ten years? A. I don't know which department, but 18 I know from time to time there were people 19 that did not get a cost of living raise or a 20 raise, period, no. Q. Okay. Do you know what type, when 22 you said you recall, what situations did that 23 occur in? A. Normally it was a borderline

25 employee that, you know, their work ethic was

Page 20 1 bad and stuff of that nature. Q. And at that point if their

3 performance was such that didn't even warrant 4 a COLA increase, what did Meyer Tool do in 5 order to try to work with that employee or 6 rehabilitate that employee? MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. THE WITNESS: From my standpoint 9 normally the employee knew it before it ever 10 come out, and the evaluation form would state 11 on there what he needed to do to improve 12 himself or herself or whatever because most 13 of the time the people know that, you know, 14 that they are probably not going to get a 15 very good raise because they probably have 16 been talked to and everything else trying to 17 give them the benefit of the doubt. 18 BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Okay. Now do you make the referral 20 for what's called a PIP, a performance 21 improvement plan for the employees or does, 22 for instance, Mr. Ackerson, Mr. Ruff, 23 Mr. Finn, your first line supervisors do it? 24 A. Those guys would figure out what 25 they need to do to improve, yes.

Rebeca Santiago v. Meyer Tool, Inc.

| | Page 169 | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 1 | you testified you had no issues with him in that period? | 1 A. Makes for a long day. | | 3 | A. No, I've never had any issues with | 2 Q. Yes, it does. Can you do me a | | 4 | Mr. Finn. | 3 favor and put in front of you Exhibit G, | | 5 | Q. And during that time what was his | 4 which is the MT-21 policy. | | 6 | role in the company? | 5 A. Yes. | | 7 | A. Originally when I first took over, | 6 Q. Let me know when you have that. | | 8 | he was day shift supervisor and then we made | 7 A. I have got it. | | 9 | him in the one area there and then he went to | 8 Q. Okay. You mentioned that you were | | 10 | night shift, he was over the whole second | 9 a part of two investigations? | | 11 | shift then because we lost an individual on | 10 A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge it | | 12 | second shift that normally did that, so we | 11 was two, and there may have been a third one, | | 13 | put Huck in charge of that. | 12 but I don't recall it, and I believe she had | | 14 | Q. Okay. Do you recall a reason why | 13 two of them that my name was on, if I'm not | | 15 | he went to night shift? | 14 mistaken. | | 16 | A. We asked him to. | 15 Q. And you recall, before your memory | | 17 | Q. Why did you ask him to? | 16 was refreshed, you recall one complaint of | | 18 | A. We had an individual had a heart | 17 harassment? | | 19 | attack and went ahead and retired and Huck | 18 A. The one was, yes -- no, they were | | 20 | was the most qualified individual to go to | 19 both harassments. | | 21 | second shift because he had done machining | 20 Q. Okay. | | 22 | and the whole nine yards so that's when we | 21 A. In my opinion. One was sexual -- | | 23 | asked him to do it, so he took the challenge | 22 well, they both could be considered sexual | | 24 | and went to the second shift. | 23 harassment. | | 25 | Q. You call it a challenge, why is | 24 Q. Okay. And you weren't, you had no | | | | 25 firsthand knowledge of those complaints of | | | Page 170 | | | 1 | that? | 1 sexual harassment when you were assigned to | | 2 | A. The second shift, you're kind of | 2 that investigative committee, did you? | | 3 | out there all alone, you know, you don't have | 3 A. No, no, I wasn't aware of it until | | 4 | the support people that people do during the | 4 I would get assigned to the committee and, | | 5 | day, you don't have the HR department, | 5 okay, what am I doing, and they brought us | | 6 | although they are a phone call away, he | 6 all in a room and told us what was going on | | 7 | always had my number if he needed me or he | 7 and we would go from there. | | 8 | could call a certain engineer. | 8 Q. So everything you learned about the | | 9 | On night shift you don't have | 9 allegations and any defenses would be through | | 10 | the support people you have on day shift, so | 10 reviewing documents that you didn't create, | | 11 | to me it's a challenge, and I forget how many | 11 and through discussing this with witnesses? | | 12 | people he supervised, probably fifty, eighty, | 12 A. Correct. | | 13 | about fifty, sixty people, so there were | 13 Q. Okay. Was this policy in some | | 14 | other individuals in charge of certain areas, | 14 form -- you mentioned before there was always | | 15 | but he was over all of them. | 15 some type of investigation process at Meyer | | 16 | Q. Did other employees view the night | 16 Tool. Did, was this formalized in the | | 17 | shift supervisor role as a challenge? | 17 handbook revisions that we went over earlier | | 18 | A. No, I can't answer that, you know, | 18 today, in the 2013 handbook revisions, or was | | 19 | truthfully -- | 19 there a similar policy, written policy prior | | 20 | Q. Fair enough. | 20 to those revisions? | | 21 | A. -- myself personally I would prefer | 21 A. No, I believe this was the original | | 22 | not to be on second shift. Our second shift | 22 policy. | | 23 | was a pretty tough shift from 5:00, 4:00 to | 23 Q. Okay. They put pen to paper in | | 24 | the morning. | 242013 ? | | 25 | Q. Okay. | 25 A. Yes, they went through quite a few |

Tab 3

| | Page 22 | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 1 | (Telephone interruption.) | 1 Q. Regarding the reason for your termination. | | 2 | A. Sorry. I'll put this on mute or turn it | 2 A. No, because I didn't come to -- this was | | 3 | off. Sorry about that. | 3 the only things that I contact them with. | | 4 | Q. That's okay. Your letter is dated, | 4 Q. Okay. | | 5 | Exhibit 1, which we looked at a moment ago, is dated | 5 A. That I remember. | | 6 | July 27th. And you wrote a letter to Meyer Tool | 6 Q. Okay. In looking at Exhibit 2, there's | | 7 | complaining about your termination on | 7 nothing in Exhibit 2 about any harassment, is there? | | 8 | September 15th, so that's, you know, about six | 8 A. No. | | 9 | weeks. I'm just wondering why it took six weeks for | 9 Q. Okay. And there's nothing in Exhibit 2 | | 10 | you to write -- to send this letter to Meyer Tool? | 10 about gender discrimination, is there? | | 11 | A. I believe I was in a position I was trying | 11 A. Nope. | | 12 | to find counsel about what to do next because I knew | 12 Q. There is nothing in Exhibit 2 about you | | 13 | it was not the right -- it wasn't fair. | 13 being paid less than male employees, correct? | | 14 | Q. Okay. Did you talk to a lawyer before you | 14 A. Correct. | | 15 | wrote the September 15 th letter? | 15 Q. Okay. And when you say in Exhibit 2, you | | 16 | A. I believe so. Can I talk to her before | 16 say I believe that Huck Finn terminated my position | | 17 | you ask the next question? | 17 due to my use of FMLA leave due to my -- to a | | 18 | Q. Sure. You guys want to step out for a | 18 disability (my HIV condition) and his actions were | | 19 | minute? | 19 discriminatory in that the reason he stated for my | | 20 | (Off the record.) | 20 termination was due to four bad parts. You told me | | 21 | MS. GRUBB: Let's put this on the | 21 earlier, I think, that you believe that your FMLA | | 22 | record what I've instructed Miss Santiago | 22 use was the reason for your termination because of | | 23 | to do. You can inquire if she talked to an | 23 the reaction you would get from Huck Finn when you | | 24 | attorney. The only thing that she will not | 24 would call in sick; is that right? | | 25 | answer that we'll object to is any | 25 A. Yes. | | | | Page 25 | | 1 | discussions with a lawyer as that is | 1 Q. And he was just gruff about it usually? | | 2 | privileged and she's not waiving the | 2 A. I don't know what that word means. | | 3 | privilege. | 3 Q. He wasn't friendly, right? | | 4 | MR. GREINER: I understand. | 4 A. Yes. | | 5 | MS. GRUBB: So go ahead and answer. | 5 Q. Is that -- is that how you describe those | | 6 | You simply cannot talk about whatever was | 6 conversations? | | 7 | talked about with any attomey or their | 7 A. Yeah. | | 8 | staff, okay? | 8 Q. Okay. | | 9 | THE WITNESS: Okay. Yeah, I believe | 9 A. Inappropriate, unnecessary. | | 10 | that I contact Miss Grubb to get counseling | 10 Q. He seemed irritated, right? | | 11 | about this because I knew something need to | 11 A. Yes. | | 12 | be done after me working there almost 20 | 12 Q. Okay. When you would call in sick, as the | | 13 | years just being fired like that, so I knew | 13 supervisor that would mean that Huck would have to | | 14 | not to write or say anything else until I | 14 figure out a way to cover the shift, right? | | 15 | get counseling. | 15 A. I don't know what he need to do. | | 16 | BY MR. GREINER: | 16 Q. Well. don't you think that stands to | | 17 | Q. So you did -- you did talk to a lawyer | 17 reason? | | 18 | before you wrote Exhibit 2? | 18 A. I -- do you want me to assume, to guess? | | 19 | A. Yes. | 19 Q. I don't want you to assume anything. | | 20 | Q. Okay. Did you learn any new information | 20 A. I don't know his work. I only know mine, | | 21 | about your situation between July 27 th and | 21 so I don't know what he need to do next. | | 22 | September 15 th? | 22 Q. Okay. So if you weren't there for your | | 23 | A. New information? | 23 shift -- | | 24 | Q. Yes. | 24 A. Okay. | | 25 | A. Regard? | 25 Q. -- somebody would have to cover for you, |

1 And it lays out how the point system works. It 2 sounds like you didn't really focus much on, read 3 this? 4 A. Yes, this is the first time I see it to be 5 honest. 6 Q. You were not aware of it really until 7 today, right, okay. 8 (Thereupon, Exhibit No. 16, Meyer Tool, 9 Inc. Performance and Training policies, was 10 identified for purposes of the record.) 11 BY MR. GREINER: 12 Q. Okay. Take a look at Exhibit 16, please. 13 Exhibit 16 is another part of the handbook. In 14 Section 11:1, which is on 882 , right in front of 15 you, indicates that poor job performance will lead 16 to discipline up to and including termination, you 17 see that, correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And you understood, I'm going to assume, 20 that as in any job a poor performer is subject to 21 being terminated, right? 22 A. Not right away, but I guess eventually. 23 Q. If the performance doesn't improve, right? 24 A. I guess. 25 Q. Okay. And you understand that the parts

1 that you were working on that Meyer Tool 2 manufactured were used in some cases in jet engines, 3 right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So if those parts didn't meet 6 specifications, you would agree there's a risk that 7 it could lead to a catastrophic failure, right? 8 MS. GRUBB: Objection. Go ahead. 9 THE WITNESS: I assume that, yeah. 10 It was important job. 11 BY MR. GREINER: 12 Q. And would you agree that deviating parts, 13 it would be fair to characterize that as poor job 14 performance? 15 A. No. 16 Q. No. Why not? 17 A. Because we all made mistakes in this 18 industry, that's why there's a procedure to tell, 19 write out papers after you deviate something to be 20 aware that don't go further as a damaged, but that 21 don't avoid you from making mistakes. 22 Q. Sure. But if -- if one employee has a -- 23 deviates a lot of parts and another employee only 24 deviates -- doesn't deviate many parts at all, would 25 you say the first employee is a poor performer?

| 1 | MS. GRUBB: Objection. Go ahead. | | :--: | :--: | | 2 | THE WITNESS: I don't understand. | | 3 | Can you rephrase that, please? | | 4 BY MR. GREINER: | | | 5 Q. Yes. Let's just say you have an employee | | | 6 who frequently winds up with deviated parts, would | | | 7 you consider that poor performance? | | | 8 | MS. GRUBB: Objection. Go ahead. | | 9 | THE WITNESS: Depending what you call | | 10 | frequently. | | 11 BY MR. GREINER: | | | 12 Q. Well, tell me, how often would it have to | | | 13 happen before you could call that person a poor | | | 14 performer? | | | 15 A. I'm not the one to judge. I'm just saying | | | 16 your question, it's not specific about what's the | | | 17 amount of time that you're insinuating is poor | | | 18 performance, that's not for me to be the judge. | | | 19 Q. Okay. You can't answer that question? | | | 20 A. No. | | | 21 Q. How about if the deviation results from | | | 22 the employee not paying attention to the operation | | | 23 sheet, would you call that poor performance? | | | 24 | MS. GRUBB: Objection. Go ahead. | | 25 | THE WITNESS: Yes. |

Page 83 1 (Thereupon, Exhibit No. 17, Meyer 2 Tool, Inc. Complaint Policies, was identified for 3 purposes of the record.) 4 BY MR. GREINER: 5 Q. Okay. Take a look at Exhibit 17, please. 6 Exhibit 17 is another portion of the Meyer Tool 7 Handbook, are you with me, and it says here 8 Complaint Procedure, do you see that? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And it says if an employee experiences an 11 incident or situation that could be considered 12 job-related harassment, the employee should 13 communicate to the offender specifically what is 14 offensive or that the behavior is disturbing or 15 state specifically what is bothersome. The employee 16 should then report these actions to their immediate 17 supervisor and/or the Human Resource Department 18 and/or a member of Senior Management. Do you see 19 that? 20 A. Yes, sir. 21 Q. You never followed this procedure -- 22 strike that. 23 You never made a complaint about any kind 24 of harassment to the Human Resource Department, 25 correct?

Page 86 1 A. Right. 2 Q. And you never made a complaint about any 3 harassment to any member of Senior Management; is 4 that correct? 5 A. Right. 6 Q. Did you -- okay. Strike that. 7 (Thereupon, Exhibit No. 18, 8 November 2, 1999 Employee Warning Report, was 9 identified for purposes of the record.) 10 BY MR. GREINER: 11 Q. Let's take a look at Exhibit 18, please. 12 Exhibit 18 is an Employee Warning Report from 13 November 2nd of 1999. And you were given a warning 14 for a failure to follow instruction, do you see 15 that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And you signed this report, correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And you gave no comments on the report, 20 correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And it appears that, at least according to 23 the warning report, that you had failed to follow 24 instructions on the operation sheet; is that 25 correct? Page 87 1 A. That's what it says, yes. 2 Q. Okay. And it was 1999 , so I -- I assume 3 you don't have any specific recollection of this, 4 correct? 5 A. Apparently not, but I would like to know 6 what that's saying there, operation sheet what? 7 Q. Page two, it looks like. I think it might 8 be -- 9 A. See attached, anyway yeah, what's your 10 next question? 11 Q. Were you retrained after you got this 12 notice? 13 A. I would not know unless you showed me a 14 paper I was. 15 MS. GRUBB: You have to look at the 16 entire exhibit when he's directing you to 17 an exhibit. 18 THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry about 19 that. So your question to me was? Sorry. 20 BY MR. GREINER: 21 Q. Do you recall whether you had retraining 22 after this? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Okay. Your supervisor was Chuck Martin; 25 is that correct? Page 88 1 A. Yeah. He was not -- I don't think he was 2 supervisor, he was lead man. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. Because supervisor title, I think it was 5 for Chuck -- I mean for Huck. 6 Q. Got you. Okay. Is that the same as cell 7 lead? 8 A. I guess, yeah, it would mean the same. 9 (Thereupon, Exhibit No. 19, April 29, 102002 Employee Warning Report, was identified for 11 purposes of the record.) 12 BY MR. GREINER: 13 Q. Okay. Take a look at Exhibit 19, please. 14 Exhibit 19 is a verbal warning that was given to you 15 April 29th, 2002 for substandard work or work 16 quality. It's admittedly kind of hard to read, but 17 can you take a look at what it says and can you tell 18 me if that has any meaning to you? 19 A. Apparently it's -- it does have specific 20 dimensions of the result, according to the form 495 21 thousandths and 505 thousandths dimension and he 22 says it's under. It could be 494 , nine, which is 23 half of my hair under, so it can be from there to 24 who knows what is the under that they're referring 25 to.

1 Q. Okay. You did not sign this warning. I 2 don't suppose you have any recollection of why you 3 may not have signed it? 4 A. No. Maybe I did not even see it. It was 5 probably not bring it to me, who knows. 6 Q. Okay. The specifications that you talked 7 about, you know, those very precise specifications, 8 are those provided by the client that Meyer Tool is 9 working for, do you know? 10 A. I don't know if it's by the client, but 11 it's in the operations sheet. 12 Q. Okay. Got you. 13 A. I'm sorry when I mispronounce sheet. 14 Q. Yes, that's okay. 15 A. I'm not trying to be rude. 16 Q. Yes, that's okay. 17 (Thereupon, Exhibit No. 20, February 18 24, 2011 Employee Warning Report, was identified for 19 purposes of the record.) 20 BY MR. GREINER: 21 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 20, please. 22 Exhibit 20 is another -- Exhibit 20 is an Employee 23 Warning Report. It has to do with attendance. It 24 was dated 2/24/2011. And according to this, on 2/21 25 and $2/22$ , it says not coming to work, start to work

| Natalie F. Grubb | Grubb & Associates, LPA | | :--: | :--: | | Mark E. Owens | Attomeys and Counselors at Law
437 W. Lafayette Road, Suite 260-A
Medina, Ohio 44256 | | PH: (330) 725-7252 | www.grubbandassoc.com | | FAX: (330) 723-1095 | | | E-Mail: officemgr@grubbandassoc.com | |

SENT VIA E-MAIL TO: $$ litkovitz_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov; JGreiner@Graydon.law; December 19, 2019 Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse, Room 716 100 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Re: Santiago v. Meyer Tool Incorporated, Case No. 1:19-cv-00032-SJD-KLL Dear Magistrate Litkovitz: Plaintiff respectfully submits this brief rebuttal to the position statement regarding deposition of Doug Lang submitted by Defendant, Meyer Tool Incorporated ("Meyer Tool"), on December 18, 2019. First, Mr. McGuire clearly testified that any employee folders given to him recommending raises over and above the set COLA rate would have to go to "the president and the financial people at Meyer Tool" for final approval. (See Lang Trans., pp. 16-17, relevant portions of which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein as Exhibit A). Mr. McGuire agreed that "no one is getting crazy because the president would have to see and understand a justification for that very large merit increase[.]" (See Id.)

Meyer's argument that Mr. Lang has "no firsthand knowledge or involvement with Meyer Tool's decision to terminate an employee" is nonsensical, as it would equally be the case with Deanna Adams, Meyer's Human Resources Director. Ms. Adams would also get her facts and understanding of employee incidents "second hand" through first line supervisors and coworkers of the employee targeted for termination. Ms. Adams testified that she has no recollection of Plaintiff's supervisor, Huck Finn, consulting with her about Plaintiff in the six months prior to her termination. (See Adams Trans., p. 72, relevant portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit B). Nor could Ms. Adams recall being part of any conversations with Mr. Finn regarding Plaintiff. (See Id. at p. 74). In fact, she testified that she was not even involved in the termination process after Mr. Lang's approval or in the discussions with Plaintiff. (See Id. at p. 86).

Relative to Mr. Lang, Ms. Adams testified that she discussed the specific facts and circumstances underlying the approval for the termination of Plaintiff in a telephone call directly with Mr. Lang. (See Id. at p. 76). After receiving answers from Ms. Adams to all of his

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. December 19, 2019 Page 2 questions, Mr. Lang then gave Ms. Adams his approval to terminate Plaintiff's employment. (See Id. at p. 77). Ms. Adams is Mr. Lang's direct report. (See Id. at p. 22).

Meyer completely ignores the deposition testimony of JoAnne Poff, who was the HR Coordinator for Meyer. She testified that all paperwork for termination of employees would be brought to a Vice President and to Mr. Lang for their review (See Poff Trans., pp. 72-73, relevant portions of which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein as Exhibit C).

In addition, this Court should be mindful of the broad permissible scope of pretrial fact discovery under Federal Rule 26(b), which states: "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable." (Emphasis added).

Doug Lang clearly has knowledge and information that meets this liberal standard, as supported by the deposition testimony of Mr. McGuire, Ms. Adams and Ms. Poff. His deposition should be permitted and not limited in scope, in the same manner as the depositions of all other fact witnesses in this case.

Very Truly Yours, GRUBB & ASSOCIATES, LPA /4/ Mark E. Owens Mark E. Owens, Esq. cc: John C. Greiner, Esq. Nicholas J. Ziepfel, Esq. File Copy Client Copy

In The Matter Of:

Rebeca Santiago $v$ . Meyer Tool, Inc.

GORDON McGUIRE November 13, 2019

Around-The-Clock Reporting Services Jean Long, RPR
P.O. Box 11008
Cincinnati, Ohio 45211
513.481 .5200

1 BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Then you would then, they would 3 have to say oh, this person gets a merit 4 increase because not only do they do their 5 work but they have taken on something 6 additional and that is worth another so many 7 cents, correct? 8 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 BY MS. GRUBB: Q. And so then you would be the one 12 that would have to approve something over and 13 above the 1.8 ? MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection, form. THE WITNESS: I wouldn't approve 16 it. I would either agree with it because it 17 goes on to other people to approve, you know. 18 I can think okay, yes, this might be pretty 19 good, but I'm not the final say-so on the 20 raises or -- 21 BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Who would be the final say-so? 23 A. That would be the president and the 24 financial people at Meyer Tool. Q. Okay. All right. So no one is

getting crazy because the president would have to see and understand a justification for that very large merit increase? MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection, form. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Okay. Now you said, let's talk about that folder. There's the evaluation form and then there are documents behind that for each person that HR has stapled to the form; for instance, it could be attendance, it could be errors, it could be a disciplinary writeup, things that went on in that employee's history that year, correct? A. That is correct, yes. Q. And then all discipline and other writeups for that particular evaluation period, it would be the year preceding the date of the evaluation, correct? MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. Form. THE WITNESS: Preceding, yes. It would be from the last time they got evaluated to this current evaluation. BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Right. So, in other words, if you

In The Matter Of:

Rebeca Santiago $v$ . Meyer Tool, Inc.

DEANNA ADAMS

November 15, 2019

Around-The-Clock Reporting Services

Jean Long, RPR P.O. Box 11008

Cincinnati, Ohio 45211 513.481.5200

A. Christine Steele. Q. All right, but then she was starting to take longer and longer leave until she eventually left the company in that 2017 year, and then who did you report to? A. Doug Lang. Q. Okay, that was directly to Doug, and has that changed at all? A. No. Q. Okay. All right. So in 2017 you would not have known whether or not Ms. Santiago would have received any pay adjustments whatsoever? A. I would not. Q. In 2016 would you have any knowledge about whether or not she received any pay adjustments? A. No. Q. So at this point we have to rely upon the records in her file, am I correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And after assuming full time all of the duties that Ms. Steele had, and I understand there was a transition period, have you now taken over the review of the

Q. No, with him regarding Rebeca? A. No. Q. Okay. And then obviously a 4 termination cannot be approved, as you said, 5 without certain policies and certain steps. 6 Had he in the past at all provided 7 documentation as far as verbal warnings 8 documented on a corrective action form, 9 writeups documented on a corrective action 10 form? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know? A. I don't know, it would be in her personnel file. Q. Do you recall him ever consulting with you about Ms. Santiago in the prior six months to her termination, she was terminated July 20, 2017?

MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. THE WITNESS: Not that I recall, I don't know. BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Is there, if the supervisors have 24 questions about an employee's performance or 25 how to discipline them or how to work them,

1 BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Okay. But you yourself personally 3 never overheard him talking about Ms. 4 Santiago with anybody in the HR department? A. No, I never heard him talking about 6 anybody. Q. And you weren't part of any 8 conversations with him regarding Ms. Santiago 9 for the six months prior to her termination? 10 MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. 11 THE WITNESS: Not that I recall. 12 BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Okay. All right. So at the point that he came in with the form completed, am I 15 correct, the termination form completed? A. Yes. Q. All right. And it was a single form? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. Did he hand it personally to you? A. No. Q. Who did he hand it to? A. I think it was slipped under my door.

MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. THE WITNESS: I'm not sure who I called first. I think it was Doug Lang. BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Okay. And what did you say to

Mr. Lang and what did he say to you on that call? A. I don't know, this is two years, it was approved. Q. Okay. He gave that approval? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did you have to say anything regarding the facts and the circumstances of termination? A. Yes. Q. I'm trying to get the gist of that conversation. And so he said yes. The day that Huck gave it to you, did he approve it? A. Who approve it? Q. Okay. I was trying to abbreviate,

I shouldn't, I apologize, bad question. The day that Mr. Finn gave you Mr. Santiago's termination form, you said you talked by telephone to Mr. Lang. Did Mr. Lang approve that termination of Ms. Santiago the same day

that you gave him the form? A. I don't know, I don't know if that phone call happened then or later. I don't know the timeframe there. Q. Do you think it was within a day or two? A. I don't know. Q. So when Mr. Lang verbally gives his approval on something, is there some email or documentation via text -- A. No. Q. -- that he said it's okay? A. No. Q. All right. So you heard that, I said I approve, did he tell you why he was approving it? A. He would have asked me what did the supervisor say, why does the supervisor want to terminate, is this, you know, is this what he says on here, you know, I just explain what he put on there, and he said yes, yes, if the supervisor is good with it, I'm good with it. Q. And you believe you did that same discussion regarding Ms. Santiago on the

In The Matter Of:

Rebeca Santiago v. Meyer Tool, Inc.

JoANNE POFF November 15, 2019

Around-The-Clock Reporting Services

Jean Long, RPR P.O. Box 11008

Cincinnati, Ohio 45211 513.481 .5200

THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Okay. And you yourself never saw one in writing from Ms. Santiago to the company? A. No. Q. Okay. Now as far as Ms. Adams, do you know whether or not she worked closely with Mr. Finn to discipline his employees? A. I couldn't answer that. Q. If a termination of an employee were to take place, who does it have to be approved by? A. All of management. So I would go to the vice president and the president before a termination could be done. Q. Okay. Vice president and president, so that was Beau Easton? A. There's multiple vice presidents. Q. Okay. And the president would be

Doug Lang? A. Yes. Q. So the paperwork would actually be brought to them and reviewed?

MR. ZIEPEEL: Objection. AROUND-THE-CLOCK REPORTING SERVICES $513.481\mathrm{.5200}$

THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MS. GRUBB: Q. And you would not be involved with that, that would be something that Ms. Adams would take it?

MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. THE WITNESS: Correct. BY MS. GRUBB: Q. Do you recall ever being consulted on Ms. Santiago's termination? A. No. Q. Do you recall anyone ever asking your opinion? A. No. Q. Do you recall anyone in HR coming to you, obtaining your, Ms. Santiago's FMLA file or any other files that you may have regarding Ms. Santiago? A. No. Q. You said those were reports that Ms. Santiago could fill out. Did the supervisor have access to see what was put on that report?

MR. ZIEPFEL: Objection. THE WITNESS: What do you mean?

NOTES

Notes

${}^1$ The parties' email submissions are attached hereto.

${}^1$ See November 15, 2019 Deposition testimony of Deanna Adams ("Adams Deposition"), pp. 74-78. Relevant excerpts of the Adams Deposition are attached at Tab 1.

${}^2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{d}$ .

${}^3\mathrm{I}\mathrm{d}$ .

${}^4$ See November 13, 2019 Deposition testimony of Gordon McGuire ("McGuire Deposition"), pp. 11-12, 14-17. Relevant excerpts of the McGuire Deposition are attached at Tab 2.

${}^5$ Adams Deposition, pp. 59, 61-63; McGuire Deposition, p. 171.

${}^6$ See November 112, 2019 Deposition testimony of Rebeca Santiago ("Plaintiff Deposition"), pp. 24, 85-86, Fx. 2. Relevant excerpts of the Plaintiff Deposition are attached at Tab 3.

Case Details

Case Name: Santiago v. Meyer Tool Incorporated

Court Name: District Court, S.D. Ohio

Date Published: Dec 20, 2019

Citation: 1:19-cv-00032

Docket Number: 1:19-cv-00032

Court Abbreviation: S.D. Ohio