Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 38

Transcript of the Testimony of:

30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer
Date: November 20, 2012

Case: Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. 4:12-CV-0139

Tom Crites & Associates International, Inc. P.O. Box 9438 Savannah, Georgia 31412 Phone: 800-631-3480 Fax: 912-233-7777 critesreporting@aol.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 2 of 38
Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION LISA T. JACKSON, Plaintiff, vs. PAULA DEEN, PAULA DEEN 4:12-CV-0139 ENTERPRISES, LLC, THE LADY & SONS, LLC, THE LADY ENTERPRISES, INC., EARL W. "BUBBA" HIERS, and UNCLE BUBBA'S SEAFOOD and OYSTER HOUSE, INC., Defendants. _________________________________________________ CIVIL ACTION NO.

30(b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, The Lady & Sons, LLC, The Lady Enterprises, Inc., and Uncle Bubba's Seafood and Oyster House, Inc., through its designated representative, JODY FARMER, taken by counsel for the Plaintiff, pursuant to notice and agreement, before Rachael Miller, Certified Court Reporter, at 218 West State Street, Savannah, Georgia, November 20, 2012, at 4:10 p.m.

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 3 of 38
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
Page 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2

Page 4
INDEX OPENING REMARKS AND STIPULATIONS ------- 7

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MATTHEW C. BILLIPS, Esquire Billips & Benjamin, LLP 3101 Towercreek Parkway Suite 190 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 (770) 859-0753 S. WESLEY WOOLF, Esquire 408 East Bay Street Savannah, Georgia 31401 (912) 201-3696

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

EXAMINATION By Mr. Billips -------------------- 7 By Mr. Withers -------------------- 81

ATTESTATION --------------------------- 85 ERRATA SHEET -------------------------- 86 CERTIFICATE --------------------------- 87

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: WILLIAM FRANKLIN, Esquire KELIN MURPHY, Esquire Oliver, Maner, LLP 218 West State Street Savannah, Georgia 31401 (912) 236-3311 Page 3

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: THOMAS A. WITHERS, Esquire Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC 8 East Liberty Street Savannah, Georgia 31401 (912) 447-8400 Also Present: Earl Hiers

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE 15 March 17, 2010 letter from 10 Karl to Paula Re: Dustin's actions 16 Uncle Bubba's Seafood & 16 Oyster House Policy and Procedures Manual 17 Human Resource Issue 36 Occurrence July 30, 2010 18 August 19, 2010 email 36 Subject: From Tanya/Question 19 Lisa Jackson Case Notice of 47 Deposition (15) 20 Lisa Jackson Case Notice of 47 Deposition (17) 21 The Paula Deen Family of 59 Companies: People are a "key" to success!

(Original Exhibits attached.)

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 4 of 38
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
Page 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 8
1 2 3 4

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT STATE OF GEORGIA: COUNTY OF CHATHAM: Pursuant to Article 10.B. of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council of Georgia, I make the following disclosure. I am a Georgia Certified Court Reporter. I am not disqualified for a relationship of interest under the provisions of O.C.G.A. 9-11-28(c). Tom Crites & Associates International, Inc. was contacted by S. Wesley Woolf, P.C. to provide court reporting services for this proceeding. Tom Crites & Associates International, Inc. will not be taking this proceeding under any contract that is prohibited by Georgia law. This, the 5th day of December, 2012. _________________________

presently employed? A. Paula Deen Enterprises. Q. In what capacity? A. As director of human resources. Q. What is your -- what's your job? A. To develop and implement human resource policies for all of our employees and The Lady & Sons, Uncle Bubba's, Paula Deen Enterprises, Paula Deen Retail and Paula Deen Online. Q. So the -- when did you start working for the defendants? A. October 26th, 2010. Q. And was there anyone in your position who was predecessor? A. Not in my position, although they had brought in some human resource consultants prior to my arrival. Q. And prior to the human resources consultants' arrival, who had performed or attempted to perform the functions of your position? A. It was divided among the general managers of each location, and in certain aspects would have involved either Karl Schumacher or Theresa Feuger from time to time over the course

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MR. BILLIPS: This is the continuation of the deposition of Uncle Bubba's Seafood and Oyster House, Incorporated, Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, Lady Enterprises, Incorporated, and The Lady & Sons, LLC, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The witness, I understand, has been designated -- this representative has been designated as to 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. MR. FRANKLIN: That is correct. MR. BILLIPS: Okay. This deposition will be taken pursuant to the same stipulations -MR. FRANKLIN: Yes. MR. BILLIPS: -- as previously. MR. WITHERS: Agreed. MR. BILLIPS: Please swear the witness. JODY FARMER, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Please state your full legal name. A. Jody Wynn Farmer. Q. Okay. And, Mr. Farmer, where are you

of those years. Q. All right. Were there occasions in which Mr. Schumacher received an investigative complaint of alleged harassment or discrimination? A. Yes, there were. Q. And does he presently hold that function for the combined group of companies? A. No, he does not. Q. Do you presently hold that function for the combined group of companies? A. Yes, I do as far as overseeing it. Obviously there's some responsibility from the general managers, so it's handled as a team between them and myself. Q. If the general manager is the person about whom the complaint is being made, would you then be the person having sole responsibility for the investigation? A. I don't know that I would say sole responsibility, because we might seek outside sources but, yes, I would be the person that they are instructed to contact. Q. Okay. A. And any employee can contact me directly if they don't feel like going through the entire

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 5 of 38
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
Page 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

chain of command. Q. What, if anything, can you do if there is a complaint of discrimination made against one of the owners? A. Against one of the owners. It would depend on the owner, but it would definitely get brought to the attention of Paula or the other owners, depending on who -- I don't know what scenario you would be talking about. Q. Right. A. And I guess that they would seek some type of counsel or work through it. Q. Have you had occasion -- strike. Are you aware of occasions where allegations of discrimination and harassment were investigated by Mr. Schumacher? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And on how many occasions? A. I don't know the answer to that. I can think of a few off the top of my head, but I can't think of the answer. (Exhibit 15 marked for identification.) BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. I'll show you what's been marked as Exhibit 15. Is Exhibit 15 a report of an

intimidation. I don't know the answer to that. I wasn't there. Q. If a manager manages with fear and intimidation, that may very well discourage employees from complaining to that manager; would you agree? A. Yes. I would agree. Q. And Mr. Schumacher recommended that Dustin be written up for two reasons, for calling staff monkeys and for managing by fear and intimidation, and lack of respect for others? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. And he was, in fact, written up for it. Q. Okay. Is there anyone other than Mr. Schumacher who would have had the responsibility for conducting complaints of harassment or discrimination that related to general managers? A. Well, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the first part of the question? Q. Is there -- prior to your coming onboard, prior to the consultant coming onboard, was there anyone who would have conducted an investigation into harassment or discrimination other than Mr. Schumacher?

Page 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

investigation by Mr. Schumacher into an allegation of harassment by Dustin Walls? A. Yes, it is. Q. Okay. And the allegation against Mr. Walls was that he had called an African-American employee a monkey and called other employees a bunch of monkeys; is that correct? A. That is the allegation, yes. Q. And Mr. Walls had the year before been accused of sexual harassment; is that correct? A. I don't believe so. Q. It says, the fourth paragraph down, "Last year there was an issue regarding Nathan and sexual harassment." A. That was his -- one of his direct reports. Q. Okay. A. It was not him sexually harassing Nathan. It was an allegation that Nathan had sexually harassed an SA, a server assistant. Q. Okay. Why was that an issue with Dustin? Because Dustin was aware of it? A. I don't know the answer to that. I mean, by reading what it says that he spoke to everybody and that Dustin manages by fear and

A. I would say that the owners have on occasion. Q. Okay. A. Especially earlier when they were much more hands-on and there on a day-to-day basis. But, yes, Karl had -- I mean, they have turned to him a lot to help with that. Q. Okay. Do these -- let me ask you this. Do the various companies, Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, Lady & Sons, LLC, Lady Enterprises, Incorporated, and Uncle Bubba's, do they have common control over these kinds of labor issues? A. No. Q. Each of them are separate? A. Each of them are separate. Q. Who has the authority to fire anybody? A. General managers do. Q. Okay. Who has the authority to fire the general managers? A. Either the owners -- I would say just the owners to the best of my knowledge, not being here at that point. But I know they've -- as you said, Karl's participated in that process, so I'm sure he'll make recommendations. Q. And the owners, Paula Deen is an owner

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 6 of 38
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
Page 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

of all of these restaurants, all of these corporations, correct? A. Yes. Correct. Q. So Ms. Deen would have the authority to fire anybody in the company, right? A. Yes. As an owner, I would say she would. Q. Okay. And there is a single -- strike. There is a personnel handbook for each of the companies, correct? A. Correct. There's an employee handbook for each of them. Q. And that handbook was developed by Paula Deen Enterprises in conjunction with this corporate consultant; is that correct? A. No. Not -- I'm not sure which version you're talking about, because there's a lot of them or there's several of them over the course of time. Starting back in 2005, each of the companies have their own separate employee handbooks that they wrote and developed. I suspect they did a little bit of plagiarizing from one another, because they are very similar. That was the responsibility of the general managers to develop. And it wasn't until

little bit different. They are different, I would say, in my opinion. I'm not sure if that -Q. What employee benefits are different? A. Just the wording on some of the discounts. Some of the restaurants give different types of discounts to -- for instance, Uncle Bubba's employees do not get as big a discount as Lady & Sons and different small things like that. And between Paula Deen Enterprises and the restaurants there's a big difference in the benefits, insurance levels, different carve out groups. There are more managers at Lady & Sons, so there's more people on the management benefits, things like that. Q. Who determines the benefits that will be offered at the various restaurants? A. You mean currently? Q. Currently. A. Myself and Karl Schumacher with the input and the approval of the owners. Obviously they don't want us to. Q. Previously was it Karl Schumacher with the approval of the owners? A. I believe so. For a large part of it. Now, especially areas like 401(K), his area of

Page 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Mackworks came in that they suggested, number one, that we needed to rewrite, and secondly to bring that into a more consolidated effort. Q. Okay. So when Mackworks was consulting with the companies, they put together a consolidated set of personnel policies? A. Actually, they began the process. Q. Okay. A. And I finished it. Q. Okay. A. So I wrote the employee handbooks that we currently have. Q. Okay. So the employee handbooks that you currently have, are they identical or nearly identical? A. I would say substantial parts of them are identical, but they're each one tailored to each location. For instance, the welcome letter for Uncle Bubba's is from Bubba and Paula. Obviously there's things specific to each. Q. Right. They have like different names on them? A. They're got different policies and procedures. Some of the employee benefits are a

expertise, I think he bid out the insurance plan. Things like sick pay and vacation pay, that's been more driven by the owners. Q. So do all of the employees have health insurance? A. No. They all are offered health insurance. Q. And are all the employees of the various organizations offered health insurance on the same plan? A. Almost. There are a couple of plans that are not offered to some of the companies. So the way that you phrased the question, I think I'd have to say no. But, for instance, a manager at Lady & Sons would be on the same insurance plan as an employee at Uncle Bubba's. Yes. Some of the staff that travels with Paula, some of the different Paula Deen Enterprises employees are on different plans. Q. Okay. A. Another example is 401(K) is totally separate. Q. 401(K) is totally separate between -A. Each company. The only ones that are in

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 7 of 38
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
Page 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the same are Paula Deen Retail is in the Lady & Sons, and I honestly historically don't know how that happened. There's a separate Paula Deen -Uncle Bubba's 401(K) profit sharing plan that's totally separate from Paula Deen Enterprises and Lady & Sons. Q. And who determined what those plans would be? Would that be Mr. Schumacher? A. I don't know the answer to that because it was in place before I got there. I never asked. Q. Has the company had written policies regarding prohibited discrimination based on race, color -A. Yes. Q. -- gender, retaliation throughout the entire period of January 1, 2005 to the present? A. Yes, they have. Q. And have those -- have there been policies that set out the manner in which complaints of discrimination or harassment would be investigated? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you have those with you? A. I do.

MR. BILLIPS: -- for yourself? THE WITNESS: I do. MR. BILLIPS: Could I have it and mark it? THE WITNESS: Sure. MR. FRANKLIN: Is there a page 6 in your group? MR. WITHERS: I've got a copy. (Exhibit 16 marked for identification.) BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. I'll show you what's been marked as Exhibit 16. Is this the current Uncle Bubba's Seafood and Oyster House policy and procedures manual? A. No. But I have the current one. Q. Okay. What is this one then? A. That, to the best of my knowledge, is -according to my interviews with managers, that's the one that was in place back in 2005 I believe was the date on question -- right. From the period January 1st, 2005 until now, it was this employee handbook up until the one that I issued. Q. Okay. A. Just for your knowledge, there's one other that was written and never implemented in

Page 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Q. May I see them. A. Yes. These are some of the materials that have already been provided. I just brought copies for you. Q. Okay. A. They start on page 4 or on page 4, I believe. Q. Why does this document start on page 4? A. Oh, you know what, I think when I ran it through the photocopier I might have got the pages out of order. MR. FRANKLIN: Yeah. You did. THE WITNESS: Sorry. MR. BILLIPS: Are the other pages in there somewhere? THE WITNESS: The other pages are in there. MR. WITHERS: Yeah. There they are. MR. FRANKLIN: Fooled the lawyer. THE WITNESS: I think I pulled it out to look at that page and forgot to put them back in order when I copied it. MR. BILLIPS: All right. So is -- do you have a copy of this -THE WITNESS: I do.

2009. So I've seen some copies floating around in some of the boxes. Q. All right. Now, do you know when this was first put in place? A. I don't. I don't know the answer to that. Q. Okay. Was it actually put into place sometime in 2010? A. No. No. I know it was prior to that. Q. How do you know that? A. Well, I asked the managers at Uncle Bubba's. Melissa was there from day negative seven, I believe, and it was her best estimate that this was in place in 2005, so I know it was more recent than 2010. Also, Mackworks was working with us in 2010. We spoke about the versions of the employee handbooks. I know this was the one in place. Q. On the third page of the document, there's a reference in here that Uncle Bubba's Seafood and Oyster House is composed of specific departments with different functions. The departments are as follows: The first is corporate. A. Interesting.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 8 of 38
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
Page 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Do you know what corporate refers to? A. I would assume that in most instances that would mean it would refer to the corporate office, which is -Q. Paula Deen Enterprises? A. -- Paula Deen Enterprises. Uh-huh. Q. It then -- it refers to the next paragraph. A. Lady & Sons. Q. This policy and procedure guide for the Lady & Sons hereinafter referred to as the company. Was this policy and procedure manual put into effect as -- at the same time as the one for Lady & Sons? A. I don't think so. Q. Okay. Do you think this one was copied from Lady & Sons? A. I would guess that's where they started. It looks like a typo that they started with that. Q. The policy against harassment on page 4 -A. Yes. Q. -- states that an employee who feels that he or she is the subject of harassment or he or she has witnessed any harassment should

the answer to that. I wasn't there, so I'm not sure. Q. You're human resources director for the company, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you have prepared yourself to give testimony on the extent to which there was common control over setting terms or conditions of employment, labor relation issues, et cetera? A. Correct. Q. And are you able to tell me -- strike. But you are not able to tell me who Lisa Jackson's immediate supervisor was? A. I have no reason to assume that it was not Theresa. I do know as an example Karl Schumacher has now taken over that -- recently has taken over that responsibility. I think Theresa testified to that May of 2010. I'm guessing. I think that's what she said. Q. Is Karl Schumacher presently supervising the general managers as a formal acknowledgment, formal role? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And the general managers that he supervises are employed by The Lady & Sons -- or

Page 23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

immediately contact his or her supervisor. Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Who is the supervisor for the general managers? A. It has varied over the history of the company is my understanding. They obviously report to the owners and the owners could for the most part be the consistent supervisor across the board. There are some points in time that Karl Schumacher and Theresa Feuger have stepped in to oversee the general managers more closely to give them guidance and mentorship. As a matter of fact, on Lisa Jackson's EEOC complaint she lists Theresa as her direct supervisor, so she would have gone to Theresa if she followed it. Q. And Theresa is an employee of Paula Deen Enterprises, correct? A. Correct. Q. So is that an accurate -- did Ms. Jackson accurately identify her supervisor as being Theresa? A. I don't -- I don't know. I don't know

excuse me, The Lady Enterprises, Incorporated and Uncle Bubba's Seafood and Oyster House, Incorporated, correct? A. Yes. And in addition to that Paula Deen Retail. Q. And Paula Deen Retail. I keep forgetting that. In the policy on making complaints, the internal complaint review procedure -A. Yes. Q. -- is the internal complaint review procedure, the mechanism by which one would address a complaint of harassment? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Yes. Q. So individuals wishing to complain of racial or gender-based discrimination or harassment would be able to do so verbally; is that correct? A. They could initiate that process, but as a part of the investigation we would request a written statement as to what happened. Q. Okay. But the -- the investigation would be initiated upon receipt of the verbal

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 9 of 38
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
Page 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

complaint of harassment, correct? A. Correct. If that's the way it came in, yes. Q. Okay. All right. And which individuals within the Paula Deen organizations have the authority and obligation to receive and either investigate or pass along to higher management complaints of harassment or discrimination? A. Any -- any supervisor who supervises employees. Q. Okay. A. Or as it says, you could go to another member of management. So somebody in management. Q. Now, under the complaint procedure, to whom would an employee address a complaint alleging that Bubba Hiers was engaging in racially or sexually discriminatory conduct? A. I don't know the answer to that. Q. Who, if anyone, at the company would have the authority to take prompt effective remedial action against Mr. Hiers if he were found to have engaged in unlawful harassment or discrimination? A. I don't know the answer to that. Q. And would it be fair to say that you are

Q. Okay. If there was one? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And you don't know whether there was one? A. I don't know off the top of my head. Q. Have the companies, the Paula Deen companies, provided training to managerial and supervisory personnel regarding the obligation to avoid discrimination? A. Yes. We have recently. Q. And when was that? A. Just a second. Beginning in January of 2000 -- well, from January 2005 through October 2010, it would have only taken the form of the employee handbook and training the managers that they're responsible for knowing the policies and upholding the complaint procedure. So it was minimal. In October of 2010, Mackworks conducted management training. The topics were diversity training and conflict resolution. The training was done in two places, down at Ellis Square and Uncle Bubba's. Managers were split into two groups and had to attend one of the two days. And if you

Page 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

more knowledgeable and more educated about policies of the companies than -- hopefully than just about anybody else here? A. Right. Q. Have you ever received any complaints of harassment or discrimination that were against one of the owners? A. We received the EEOC complaint from Lisa Jackson that has that in it, yes. Q. Okay. Other than that one, have you received any? A. No. Q. Okay. With regard to the one by Ms. Jackson, did human resources conduct any form of investigation of her allegations? A. I believe from the notes -- I don't know the answer to that question off the top of my head. Q. Okay. A. One thing I can answer, if it was investigated by human resources, it would have been by the HR consultants that were helping out at the time. But my understanding is that Karl Schumacher was also involved in that investigation.

would like copies, I could give this to you. Q. Okay. A. And then every year in January we close down for maintenance, and so that's usually an opportunity where we train a lot of our employees. January 2011 Mackworks conducted management training. The topics were employee evaluations and coaching, and also the basics of financial analysis. That was done with all the managers from Lady & Sons, Uncle Bubba's, Paula Deen Enterprises and PDR. Each manager was required to attend one day. And then in January of 2012 we used a different company, PST, that's local here. They conducted management training and line-level employee training. The topics were diversity and sexual harassment that all employees had to attend. And then additionally we did one day of management coaching, management training on coaching employees. Q. So prior to October of 2010, you described the training that was provided as being minimal. A. You know, on-the-job training.

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 10 of 38
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
Page 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. A. Maybe less formal for sure. Q. I think minimal was the word you used. A. That was the word I used. Q. And afterwards, beginning in October of 2010, there's been some further training -A. Yes. Q. -- with managers. And then in January 2012, line-level employees were required to attend, correct? A. Correct. Q. Were owners required to attend? A. No, they were not. Although, I know that at least one of the owners did attend. Q. Which one? A. Bubba. Q. Which one did he attend? A. I believe he attended the -- all of the ones in 2012. Q. Okay. Did he attend the October 2010 training? A. I don't know the answer to that for sure. I do know that in the documents that we have provided they had the sign-in sheets and the list of employees who attended. I don't know the

were no further complaints about pornography or anything like that after the fact. So apparently it was effective. Q. Do you have or have you produced documents relating to that complaint? A. No. To the best of my knowledge, it was verbal. Q. Okay. And what was the nature of the complaint? A. The complaint -- let me see. Q. And if you're looking at something that will refresh your testimony, if I could take a look, please. A. Sure. You can have this copy. So Lisa Jackson had reported to Karl Schumacher that pornography had been viewed on the computer in the office at Uncle Bubba's, and reports varied as to whether it was Bubba Hiers who viewed the pornography or whether it was viewed by the kitchen staff late at night. And then Karl instructed our IT firm to install a filter to block access to pornographic sites and no further complaints were ever reported. I got this information from interviewing

Page 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

answer to that off the top of my head. Q. What about Dustin Walls? Did he attend? A. Yes. He attended all of these. Q. Okay. A. Is it possible to go back and amend an answer that I gave? Q. Sure. MR. FRANKLIN: Sure. THE WITNESS: It just occurred to me that when you asked the question about whether Lisa Jackson's complaints have been investigated, actually in giving this a little bit more thought, we did not know she had a complaint until she -until Mr. Woolf turned in her keys and her resignation. To the best of my knowledge, there was no investigation done about the EEOC complaints because she was already gone at the time. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Well -A. She did -- she did make a complaint about pornography being viewed on a computer. That one was -- was both addressed -- received by Karl Schumacher and he addressed it by having a filter put on the computer right away. And there

Karl. So I do not know of the written documents where she emailed the complaint that I'm aware of. Q. Did he give you the date -A. No, he did not. Q. -- of this complaint? A. No, he didn't. Q. Did he tell you that Ms. Jackson had alleged that it was Mr. Hiers that was looking at pornography? A. Yes. But he also told me that when he spoke to Bubba that Bubba had said that she had alleged to him it was the kitchen employees, and several people had access to that same computer. There was not a way of finding out from history from what I understand who was on it. Q. Did he indicate whether Mr. Hiers had admitted it? A. No. He did not indicate to me. Q. Okay. Have there been any other complaints about Mr. Hiers, the conduct of Mr. Hiers? A. There was one -- just a second. Let me catch up with where we are. There was a complaint or a concern that was raised about Mr. Hiers in an incident with Big Willy who was William Frazier.

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 11 of 38
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
Page 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Right. A. And Karl Schumacher did an investigation of that and produced two documents with that investigation. It was one document where it said where he noted that Lisa had called Karl on Wednesday to tell him about an issue that occurred between Bubba and Big Willy about two weeks ago. A male employee asked a female employee to do an inappropriate sexual act that was reported to Lisa. Bubba and Lisa fired the employee on Friday, July 30th, 2010. After the employee was fired, Bubba heard that another employee was present and witnessed the whole thing. Bubba called him in the office and -oops. Sorry -- asked him to tell Bubba what had happened. Big Willy did not want to tell him. He pleaded the Fifth in parenthesis. Bubba said that he had to tell him. Big Willy said the constitution did not force him to tell him. Bubba said some curse words including the only constitution was his constitution. He physically got up and put both hands on Big Willy and shook him while yelling in his face, be a man and tell him. It took several days for this issue to come to Lisa's attention. She

Q. Okay. Why would Big Willy need to be given a chance to see Jim? A. I don't know the answer to that. I can infer from that knowing Karl and how he speaks that perhaps he was -- wasn't sure if Jim was going to investigate it or if Karl was going to have time to investigate it. Q. Okay. A. Especially given that's in the first document before he had investigated further. Q. Okay. Was there -- let's mark this. (Exhibit 17 marked for identification.) THE WITNESS: That other document I failed to make copies of that. MR. FRANKLIN: That's okay. THE WITNESS: I don't know if you guys need a copy. (Exhibit 18 marked for identification.) BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. I'll show you what's been marked as Exhibit 18. Are these documents prepared and given to you by Karl Schumacher or Schumacher? A. I'm sorry. Did you say were they? Q. Yes. A. Yes.

Page 35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

called Jim Gerard, and I think that Jim said, Bubba needs to apologize to Big Willy, and Big Willy needs to be given a chance to see Jim. Big Willy told Lisa he was scared of Bubba and heard about this issue on Wednesday around 11:15. Then there's a second follow-up email that on Tuesday we had a talk with Bubba regarding Big Will, and I felt I had not done a good job finding the facts. I had relied on Lisa for information. Let's see. Skip down. I can give you this entire document. I don't know if you want me to read it or read it yourself. But essentially, he went back and talked to Big Willy who denied that the whole thing happened. And I'm paraphrasing. Basically, Karl had taken Lisa's -- the first document was taking Lisa's word -- version of what had happened in the incident when he spoke to Big Willy, and he disputed that it ever happened. Bubba -- he didn't dispute that the incident never happened, but that Bubba didn't shake him and he was not scared of Bubba. He even laughed and joked about the size difference between he and Bubba. Q. Right. Who is Jim Gerard? A. He is one of our attorneys.

MR. BILLIPS: Let's take a five-minute break. MR. FRANKLIN: Sure. (Recess taken from 4:57 p.m. to 5:03 p.m.) BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. With regard to the Dustin Walls allegation -A. Yes. Q. -- why was the decision made that Mr. Walls -- that calling African-American staff monkeys only merited a reprimand? A. Well, I wasn't actually involved in the decision, so I can't really speak on that one. Q. Okay. A. My professional opinion is that you would start with, you know, progressive discipline. And usually a good measure of whether the discipline was appropriate or not was did the behavior stop. And we haven't had any complaints about Dustin since then. So it was a very serious reprimand, in my opinion, sit down with Bobby and Jamie and have them give you a final warning. I think Karl was in that as well. Q. Now, according to the memo from Karl,

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 12 of 38
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
Page 38
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Dustin had had a problem with managing in that he managed by fear and intimidation; is that correct? A. That's what it says in here, yes. Q. In addition, during the course of the investigation, there were dramatically different versions of what had occurred given by the employees to whom it was said and by Dustin -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- correct? A. Yeah. I don't know if I would characterize it as dramatically, but he said that he used the word monkeying around or monkey business. I forgot which one it was. It was monkeying around and, yeah, so that's definitely got a different connotation. Q. Right. And according to the employees who were present, he actually called Ray a monkey, correct? A. According to Scott Hopke is my understanding, yes. Q. And according to Ray as well? A. Yes. Q. So if they are to be believed -MR. FRANKLIN: I'm going to object to that. I know where you're going, but I don't

MR. FRANKLIN: Once again, you're asking him to assess the credibility -- the credibility of the people who allegedly witnessed this. MR. BILLIPS: No. I'm saying if they had to have done so, would he agree. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. So was Dustin written up for lying to the company during the course of an investigation into harassment or discrimination? A. No. Not according to this document, no. Q. Okay. Under the company's policies, would lying to the company during the course of an allegation of -- in order to defend yourself from an allegation of harassment or discrimination be grounds for termination? A. It would be -- it would be grounds for discipline. Q. Would it be grounds for termination? A. I can't answer that. Q. Who could? A. Well, I believe -- give me a second. Let me look at the employee handbook at that time. There's a couple of different sections in this employee handbook regarding discipline -Q. Okay.

Page 39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

think you can ask -- I know you can't ask this witness to assess the credibility -MR. BILLIPS: I'm not. MR. FRANKLIN: -- of other witnesses. MR. BILLIPS: I'm not. I'm not. MR. FRANKLIN: You can't ask him a hypothetical question. MR. BILLIPS: I can ask him a hypothetical question. MR. FRANKLIN: I don't believe you can. MR. BILLIPS: But the company -- let me ask a non-hypothetical question then. MR. FRANKLIN: Sure. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. The company believed Ray and Scott and wrote Dustin up specifically for calling employees monkeys? A. Yes. As one of two items, yes. Q. So a necessary predicate to that finding is a finding that Dustin lied to them during the investigation, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Or they could not distinguish exactly what the truth was.

A. -- and his conduct. And so on page 10, it says that a written warning would be issued to an employee when misconduct takes place. Q. All right. A. And then continuing on to page 11, it says, disciplinary action would call for any of four steps, verbal warning, written warning, suspension with or without pay, or termination of employment. Any action would depend on the severity of the problem and number of occurrences. Progressive discipline means with respect to most disciplinary problems these steps would normally be followed. The first offense would call for verbal warning. Next offense, written warning. Another offense would lead to suspension. Another offense would lead to termination. Q. Right. A. And it also goes on to say that Lady & Sons recognizes that there are certain types of employee problems that are serious enough to justify suspension, or in extreme situations termination without going through the usual progressive discipline steps. Q. Okay.

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 13 of 38
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
Page 42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. So there is no written policy to support that it would absolutely have to be termination, if that's the way you're phrasing the question. I've forgotten now. Q. No. I'm saying it would be grounds for termination, for immediate termination that an employee lied to management in order to defend himself from an allegation of harassment or discrimination, right? A. I don't know -- I would disagree. I don't know how it can be grounds for termination when it clearly says that we would go through progressive discipline or, you know, extreme measures would skip to termination. Q. Okay. So you don't consider lying to management about whether you used a racial slur towards subordinate employees to be an extreme circumstance? A. You know, without any kind of audio evidence, I don't know how you can conclude that Dustin was lying. We have two people -- he says he thought he said monkeying around. Is he lying? I don't know. I don't know how you judge his intent. If it was his conviction that's what he honestly said, he's not lying.

A. That's what they -- the conclusion that Karl and Jamie and Bobby came to. Q. Okay. And do you know if the employees -- well, strike. Mr. Schumacher did learn that the employees were afraid to complain about Dustin because of his strong relationship with Jamie and Bobby? A. According to this document, yes, that was the opinion of Rance and Scott Hopke. Q. That they were afraid to go to Jamie or Bobby about problems concerning Dustin, correct? A. I believe from -- well, let me just read what it says on here. He was hesitant about saying anything. He asked whether I would keep what he said confidential. He said that Dustin called Ray a monkey. He felt that he could not go to Jamie or Bobby about the problem because they have a stronger relationship with Dustin and would side with him. He does not want the wrath of Dustin. And it is the same feeling I got from Rance. That was Karl's words after speaking with him at that time, yes. Q. And Ray, the individual who was the -who was called a monkey by Dustin -A. Yes.

Page 43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Do you have children? A. I do. I have four. Q. Do you sometimes find that they're lying because their statements are not believable or are contradicted by other -MR. FRANKLIN: Excuse me. He's not here to testify about his family. He's here to testify about this case. MR. BILLIPS: You know what the question's for. MR. FRANKLIN: I know what the questions are, but talking about how he handles things in his personal life is outside the scope of anything he is being offered to testify to, and anything you have asked us to have him or a designee testify. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Isn't it true that a human resources professional and a manager often have to make a determination whether an employee is lying in order to determine what discipline to effectuate? A. I don't know if I'd say often. Q. But it does occur, such as in this case, where a decision was made that Mr. Walls did the thing that he denied having done?

Q. -- Ray was subsequently fired, correct? A. He was. At a later date. Q. Okay. Allegedly for leaving mushrooms off of a sandwich? A. I believe that's the case, yes. Q. Okay. Which is more serious, leaving mushrooms off of a sandwich or calling your subordinate employees monkeys? A. I would think that the second one would be. Q. Okay. Which do you believe would be more serious, a supervisor lying to management during an investigation or leaving the mushrooms off a sandwich? A. I would think that the first one would be. Q. Okay. A. However, you know, as I said, it says progressive discipline. There's a lot of other factors that go into it. Q. Sure. Have you ever, other than in connection with the allegations -- strike. Have defendants ever received complaints from any source that Mr. Hiers used racial slurs to refer to employees or customers if you have a

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 14 of 38
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
Page 46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 48
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

document that you would want to share with me that is -A. I've lost track of what numbers we're on. Number 16. Actually, I'll share this with you. The procedures had that happened would have been to -- would have been to report the incident to the supervisor or another member of management. No record exists of any racial slurs committed by Bubba Hiers being reported to Theresa Feuger, Karl Schumacher or Paula Deen or any other member of management. And in interviews that I conducted with those individuals, also they confirmed that they had not heard any verbal complaints as well. Q. Had anyone ever reported to Paula Deen, a supervisor or manager of Paula Deen Enterprises, Incorporated that Mr. Hiers had used racial slurs? A. No. Q. Okay. Same question with regard to the other companies. Anyone in any supervisory or managerial or officer or director or owner position ever received any complaint or any allegation? A. Not that I'm aware of, no. Q. Okay. Now, these documents that you've

Q. -- Karl Schumacher. Okay. As a matter of fact, the -- strike. Now, Mr. Schumacher did learn, at least when Ms. Jackson filed her EEOC charge, that Mr. Hiers had allegedly used racial slurs, correct? A. Yes. Q. And what, if anything, did he do to investigate that? A. I don't know the answer to that question. Q. Okay. Could you describe for me each and every fact discovered during any investigation that may have been conducted. I know that you know that you can't, but I need to get this on the record. A. Can you rephrase the question. Q. Did he conduct any investigation, he Mr. Schumacher? A. I don't know the answer to that. MR. FRANKLIN: You're asking when the EEOC complaint was filed? MR. BILLIPS: Correct. MR. FRANKLIN: When she was no longer employed? MR. BILLIPS: Correct.

Page 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 49
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

been pulling out, are these -A. Those are my notes that I wrote. Q. Okay. And did you write these up primarily based on your interviews with Karl Schumacher? I think this one is probably with Theresa, Karl and Paula Deen. A. Uh-huh. MR. FRANKLIN: Why don't you for the record identify which exhibit it is so we'll know. MR. BILLIPS: It's actually not been marked. It was item -- his notes. We'll go ahead and mark it. (Exhibit 19 marked for identification.) (Exhibit 20 marked for identification.) BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. I'll show you Exhibits 19 and 20. Exhibits 19 and 20, are those documents that you put together after speaking to Karl Schumacher? A. Yes. And Theresa and Bubba and other members of management. Q. Okay. That's true with respect to 19. Exhibit 20 -A. Sorry. Q. Exhibit 20 is only -A. Only Karl, yes.

THE WITNESS: I don't know the answer. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Since you don't know whether he conducted an investigation, is it fair to say you can't tell me what facts were learned during such an investigation, if it occurred? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And it would also be fair to say you don't know what actions, if any, were undertaken to make a record of or remedy such incidents to ensure that they do not reoccur? A. Yes. That's fair. Q. All right. Now, Ms. Jackson was no longer employed by the Paula Deen organizations, but did that eliminate the company's obligation to conduct an investigation into and/or remedy harassment that was occurring in the workplace? A. No. No. MR. FRANKLIN: Objection. You're assuming there was harassment occurring in the workplace. MR. BILLIPS: No. I'm actually not. I'm just asking whether it would eliminate their obligation to do so. MR. FRANKLIN: And I'll object to it's

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 15 of 38
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
Page 50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

asking him for a legal conclusion. It's a contention question. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Okay. Under the company's policies and procedures, if a former employee provides information indicating to you that they quit their job because they were being harassed, would you still investigate even though they're no longer working there? A. That's not addressed in the employee handbook, so I don't know what the policy would have been. There's obviously no written policy to that effect. Q. Okay. Whether it is in writing, there is a written policy or not, can you tell me what the company's position is? Would -- would you investigate? A. Yes, I would. If it were to happen now, yes. Q. All right. And the reason you would do that is because even though that one employee is gone, there are still others working for the company, right? A. Yes. Q. And those other employees are -- if the

Q. I'm sorry. You can't say any of that? You can't answer those questions? Can you answer those questions? A. For number 15, no, because I could not find any evidence there ever was an allegation made. Q. Well, you received the EEOC charge, right? A. Right. Q. So that was an allegation, right? A. Right. Q. And that was an allegation where there was an obligation to investigate in your understanding and interpretation of what human resources is supposed to do? MR. WITHERS: Objection. Asked and answered. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Correct? MR. FRANKLIN: No. He's answered that. MR. BILLIPS: All right. MR. FRANKLIN: He said he looked and there was no evidence of it. MR. BILLIPS: I know. But then he backtracked, so I was going over it again.

Page 51
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 53
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

harassment was current are at risk of experiencing it as well, correct? A. Correct. Yeah. Hypothetically. Q. All right. And -A. And I'll just reiterate that I don't know that there wasn't an investigation that happened. I don't know if it was conducted by Karl or Jim Gerard. Q. Sure. And if such an investigation was conducted, you don't know what happened or what action was taken or whether any action was taken? A. At that point, no. Q. Okay. So with respect to -- with respect to item number 15 of the 30(b)(6) noticed deposition, it is your testimony as the corporate representative that the company was first informed of the plaintiff's allegations upon receipt of her EEOC charge? A. Yes. Q. And you cannot otherwise give any testimony because you do not know the answers with regard to whether an investigation occurred, what facts were discovered, whether any actions were taken as a result or what they were? A. No.

BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Now, subsequent to the August 19th email from Karl Schumacher where he says he spoke to Bubba again -- not Bubba. What was the guy's name? MR. WITHERS: Will. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Will. That he spoke to Will again and Will said that he didn't get threatened or shaken or anything like that. MR. FRANKLIN: Objection. MR. WITHERS: Objection to the extent it mischaracterizes his testimony in terms of again, but go ahead and answer. MR. FRANKLIN: Objection. Yeah. MR. BILLIPS: Yes. I think you're correct. Where he says he spoke to Will and that Will denied being shaken. THE WITNESS: Correct. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Has there been any subsequent investigation into whether the event occurred as originally described? MR. WITHERS: Objection to the extent that anything that he might know now arises as a

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 16 of 38
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Page 54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 56
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

result of his contact with counsel, it infringes upon the attorney-client privilege. MR. FRANKLIN: Attorney-client privilege. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Let me ask you this. Has the company taken any action to -- strike. Did the company have cameras installed on the date and time in question? A. At which date and time? I'm sorry. I don't know which one you're talking about. Q. With regard to the incident where Mr. Hiers was accused of grabbing and shaking Will. MR. FRANKLIN: And cameras installed where? MR. BILLIPS: Well, I'll get there. So if you let me ask those questions. THE WITNESS: We did have a camera system. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Okay. A. You would have to ask Mr. Schumacher, but I would assume that that would be one of the first things that he would have looked at in an investigation is what does the video evidence

Q. And during -- during the period in August of 2010, Mr. Hiers was removed from having any -- removed from -- was directed not to interfere with the operations of Uncle Bubba's restaurant. Are you aware of that? A. No. I was not aware of that. Q. Do you know whether he was issued such a directive because of any complaints made by Ms. Jackson to Mr. Schumacher? A. No. Q. Okay. Do you know whether Ms. -- did Ms. Jackson ever inform Mr. Schumacher that Mr. Hiers had engaged in inappropriate conduct, discrimination, harassment or violent conduct in the workplace while impaired? A. Nothing prior to the EEOC complaint. I think it's maybe mentioned in that. Q. Okay. Do you know why Mr. Hiers would have been instructed then in August of 2010 while Ms. Jackson was still working there not to show up impaired? MR. WITHERS: Objection to the extent that it assumes facts in evidence and it's posed as a hypothetical. You can go ahead and answer. THE WITNESS: Can you please repeat the

Page 55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 57
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

show. Because we do that quite routinely. Back at that time we did not have a very sophisticated system. We've added a camera since. So whether it was on camera or not, I don't know. Q. Okay. A. My opinion is it was not because he would have referenced it. Q. Have you spoken to Will or has Will contacted you about this incident? A. No. Q. Are you aware -- do you know whether Will has since retracted the denial? A. I don't. I don't know or have any knowledge of him retracting the denial. Q. Are you aware of other employees who have come forward and said that they did, in fact, witness it and witness a physical attack? A. No. The only thing I'm aware of was Lisa Jackson reported that Bubba was -- what she seemed to think was his indiscretion to Karl. So she obviously knew how to report it. And they were -- you know, he investigated it. Q. Right. A. Which is when she reported the pornography with Bubba to Karl.

question. I'm sorry. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Were you aware that -- I'll show you an August 18, 2010 email, Exhibit 5, that you see under HR issues, I think number two. A. I see. Yes. No. I wasn't aware of this. Q. Okay. So -A. This is the first time I've seen it. Q. And had Ms. Jackson previously complained to Mr. Schumacher or anyone else that Mr. Hiers had used sexist or sexually demeaning comments? A. No. Q. Go ahead. A. No. The only ones -- well, the only things I'm aware of are the other EEOC claims that indicated Ms. Jackson as being the defendant, seven of those with him. But, no. Q. Okay. Were there -- okay. I'm going to object and move to strike as nonresponsive. My question was about Mr. Hiers using sexist or sexually demeaning comments. A. No. When I interviewed Karl Schumacher, Theresa Feuger and Paula and the other members of

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 17 of 38
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
Page 58
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

management that I've spoken to over time, no one was aware that she had made that allegation except for the EEOC complaint that came in. Q. Okay. And do you know whether that allegation was ever investigated after the EEOC charge was received? A. I don't personally know. Q. Okay. A. My assumption would be since we investigated all the other EEOC claims we did this one as well. Q. Do you know who would have conducted the investigation? A. No. I don't know for sure. In my experience, my judgment it would be that it would have either been the assistance of the Mackworks consultants, or it was Karl, or it would have been Jim Gerard or at his direction. Q. Okay. Was the company informed that -that Mackworks as a result of its audit and interviews had concluded that Ms. Jackson would have grounds to bring an EEOC complaint against the company? A. I don't know the answer to that. Q. Okay.

Q. Okay. Now, do you see on page 9 of the report that the three weakest links -- there's a reference limiting employment-related liability. "Perhaps the three weakest links we found during the review process was tolerance of, inconsistent approach to handling inappropriate behavior with no consequences, and lack of management training across the board in management topics such as conflict resolution, diversity training." They then go on to identify a couple of findings on key liability issues, the first being with regard to Dustin Walls. A. Yes. Q. This report was put together after Dustin was written up, wasn't it? A. Let me refer back to the date of Karl's email. He was written up, yes. He was written up on March 11th. Q. Okay. And Dustin -- according to the HR consultants that were hired to come in and address these issues, Dustin didn't cooperate with them and only allowed them 15 minutes to interview him? A. Yes. That's what the report says. Q. Okay. Complaints about Dustin -A. Uh-huh.

Page 59
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 61
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. I believe it could be, but I don't know off the top of my head. If you have a document, I'd like to look at it. MR. BILLIPS: Here it is. Let's mark this. (Exhibit 21 marked for identification.) BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Have you seen Exhibit 21 before? A. Yes. A long time ago. Q. Okay. Now, the Mackworks, when did this Mackworks report come out? A. I don't know the exact date. I'm trying to see if it's on here anywhere. It doesn't look like it. I do know that it's a part of the interviewing process. It had already been completed when I came onboard. I don't know the exact date. I know they started in May of 2010. Q. Okay. A. That's when they started their work. They continued it after this report was done. Q. Okay. A. I think they began interviewing me in September, so it would have to be somewhere between May and September that they completed this.

Q. -- ranged from no tolerance of speaking to each other during work, no personal interactions, few face-to-face discussions with other managers on important issues, inconsistent disciplinary action, racial favoritism and very intimidating. Okay. So this is the finding of the audit, the HR audit report after he's written up for these other -- for the monkey issue, correct? A. It is. But it doesn't say what the dates are that occurred. You know, it could be employee opinions that they've felt over the last five years of working under Dustin. Q. Well, Dustin's refusal to cooperate with HR consultants occurred after he was written up, right? A. That did, yes. Q. Now, the next one is Uncle Bubba. It says, Uncle Bubba history. Past inappropriate behavior on company premises. What was the past inappropriate behavior on company premises? A. I don't know. Q. Do you know whether it was allegations of sexually demeaning comments or language or allegations of racial slurs?

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 18 of 38
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
Page 62
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 64
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. I would assume not because -Q. Why? A. Because if those had occurred, the general manager would have had the obligation to report them. Q. Okay. A. As she did with the pornography on the computer and the incident with Big Willy. Q. Okay. So you're assuming those didn't occur because she didn't -- would have had to report them? A. It would have been her responsibility as a general manager. Q. You were aware she alleges she did report them, correct? A. In the EEOC claim, yes. Q. Right. Okay. And this says that there was something that was dealt with by senior management. A. Uh-huh. Q. But you don't know what it is, right? A. No. I don't know what they're referring to. They don't spell it out. Q. It then goes on and says, "Continues to have conflict with existing manager." That was

Q. Right. Okay. Object and move to strike as nonresponsive. Had Ms. Jackson had any training in avoiding discrimination? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. Was there any human resources function, other than whatever Mr. Schumacher did, at the time of these seven EEOC charges to which you refer? A. Let's see. No. There would not have been. Q. Okay. And the seven EEOC charges to which you're referring, what are they? Who were the complainants? A. Eddie Holmes. I don't know if I made a copy of this or not. Eddie Holmes on November 29th, 2007 regarding race and named Lisa Jackson. 11/23/2009, Theresa Robinson, sexual harassment. She had reported sexual harassment to the general manager, Lisa Jackson, who chose not to investigate but instructed Theresa to tell Nicholas to shut the fuck up. January 28th, 2009, Ellen Boyce for age discrimination. And Lisa Jackson. January 28th, 2009, Katherine Olney, age

Page 63
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Ms. Jackson, correct? A. I would assume so. Q. All right. "Current manager probably has enough fodder for her own EEOC complaint should she choose to file. A. Yes. That's what it says. Q. Okay. Doesn't that indicate to you that the problems that she has had with Mr. Hiers fall within the jurisdiction of the EEOC? MR. FRANKLIN: You mean the allegations you're asking him? BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Yeah. The alleged problems she has had with Mr. Hiers are problems that would fall within the jurisdiction of the EEOC? A. Apparently so, yes. Q. And the EEOC has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of discrimination on the basis of race and sex and national origin, color? A. Uh-huh. Q. They investigate discrimination claims, right? A. Yes. Which they investigated seven times in recent history at Uncle Bubba's prior to this where Lisa Jackson was named.

discrimination. Lisa Jackson's name. February 3rd, 2009, Elaine Thomas. Retaliation and age discrimination. Named Lisa Jackson. March 27th, 2009, Sandra Wolmsley. Retaliation and age discrimination. Named Lisa Jackson. And as recent as June 15th, 2010, Sheldon Irvin, discriminated by race. Named Lisa Jackson. Q. Okay. A. And the next one was Lisa Jackson in October 2010. There's been one since. Q. Who was that? A. Tony Cole. It was race. And he named Louis Ross the general manager on that one. Q. Okay. With regard to Eddie Holmes, Mr. Holmes was fired by Ms. Jackson after he threatened to kill a co-worker; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. He threatened to go to his car and was in the process of going to his car and said that he was going to get out -- get his gun and shoot him a white boy, correct? A. Correct. I'm not saying that EEOC claims can't be baseless.

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 19 of 38
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
Page 66
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 68
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Right. Theresa Robinson. Do you know if Ms. Jackson had ever had any training on what an employee should do if they're sexually harassed by a co-worker? A. No. Not other than what's in the employee handbook, but I think that his advances were pretty blatant. He asked for sexual favors. She was uncomfortable. It wasn't just verbal. I mean, it was verbal, but it wasn't just that he was using bad language but actually was asking her for sex. So one would think that since she knows that she can go to Karl Schumacher and other people if she doesn't know how to handle it, she should have reported it like she did with the pornography. Q. Well, didn't -A. Or to Theresa Feuger who she thinks was her supervisor. Either one of them. Q. Well, didn't the employee also have a right to go to them, to go to another member of management? A. If they didn't feel comfortable, but she felt comfortable going to Lisa Jackson, apparently.

and procedures manual in effect at the time, the company also had a no tolerance policy for false complaints, correct? A. I don't know the answer off the top of my head. MR. FRANKLIN: Here it is. THE WITNESS: You are correct. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Okay. So if the company finds that a complaint is false, the complaining employee could be subject to discipline, correct? A. At that time, yes. Q. All right. Would you agree that that's likely to act as a deterrent to making complaints of harassment or discrimination? A. It's also -MR. WITHERS: Objection. That calls for speculation -MR. FRANKLIN: Right. MR. WITHERS: -- as to what someone knows and what someone else may think. MR. FRANKLIN: And it addresses false complaints. MR. BILLIPS: Go ahead. THE WITNESS: I was just going to say it

Page 67
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 69
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Or if it's not been resolved. Did this employee go to another member of management? A. No. Q. Okay. A. No. Is that what you're asking? Q. The employee did not go to another member of management, did she? A. No. Q. Okay. Now, do you know if Ms. Jackson had ever witnessed the harassment in question? A. No. Q. Do you know if she had personal knowledge of whether the harassment had occurred? A. No, I don't, because she didn't investigate. Q. Do you know whether she had any reasonable basis for believing that it did occur other than the fact that she was -- that she had received that allegation? A. No. But common sense would think that you would look into it and see if there's anything behind it rather than just dismissing it and telling the employee just to tell him to shut the fuck up. Q. Well, is there a -- within the policies

says in the paragraph about harassment though that there would be no retaliation against any employee who reports harassing conduct. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Okay. A. And that prompt corrective action will be taken. Q. But you did also tell me that the complaint or the internal complaint review procedure was the procedure by which complaints of harassment were addressed, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. The most recent sexual harassment complaint, most recent EEOC charge was? A. Tony -- at Uncle Bubba's for Tony Cole. Q. Yes. Okay. It was alleged by Tony Cole? A. Yes. Alleged by Tony Cole. Q. And what did he allege? A. He alleged that he was discriminated based on race and the fact, if I remember correctly, that he was suspended pending -- he got in an argument with a manager. They told him that he would be suspended until an investigation can take place. I was out of town at the time, and it

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 20 of 38
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
Page 70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 72
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

was a week later before an investigation was completed. And his allegation was that he was suspended and not allowed to work while a white employee was suspended in another matter and allowed to work until the decision was made. They were vastly different circumstances, but that was his allegation. Q. Okay. But to return to the -- what I was asking you, this report from the consultant does indicate that there has been some form of discrimination or harassment against Ms. Jackson by Mr. Hiers as of the date that they wrote this report. MR. WITHERS: Objection to the extent that you're calling for him to conclude what it says about a conclusion as in harassment. It says what it says. You can go ahead and answer. THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, it does -- I mean, the facts that I know about it is it does say that he continues to have conflict with the existing manager. Current manager probably has enough fodder for her own EEOC complaint. I don't know. I don't know if that's inappropriate behavior, if it rises to the level

employees? MR. WITHERS: Objection to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion, number one. Number two is a hypothetical. And hypotheticals, as Mr. Franklin said, are not proper for a 30(b)(6) examination. MR. BILLIPS: You can answer. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. You don't think so? A. No. I don't choose to answer. Q. I wasn't giving you a choice. A. You weren't. Yeah. I could think of hypothetical situations where, yes, if it were -if it were people who were racist then it was pervasive that would be hostile to a white employee. Q. Okay. And if Ms. Jackson's immediate supervisor was Bubba Hiers -A. Theresa Feuger according to her. Q. At some point in time did Mr. Hiers have supervisory responsibility over her? A. As an owner. Q. Okay. And did Ms. -- are you aware of any authority that Theresa Feuger would have over

Page 71
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 73
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

-- I mean, obviously their interpretation knowing what they looked at, yes. I don't know because it's not lined out. Q. And this is a company that does human resources consulting for a living, correct? A. Yes. Q. And, I mean, they were hired to come in and conduct an assessment of the Company's human resources function and identify human resources problems, right? A. Right. Q. They were acting on behalf of Paula Deen Enterprises when they wrote this document, right? A. Yes. But I don't know what she means by fodder or what they mean by fodder. That could be the seven EEOC claims that she was in the middle of. It may be -- it could be -- you know, I don't know if it's the Big Will incident. She's not black, so I don't know. Apparently it wasn't about race, or if it was, maybe she had knowledge. So I don't know. Q. Do you think that a white person could be discriminated against or feel that they were subject to a hostile work environment because of racist statements and conduct toward black

Bubba Hiers? A. No. But she would have a direct line to Paula or to the attorneys. If she were aware of something, she would take steps. Could she herself have authority over Bubba as an owner? No. Would she know where to turn and other options for help, yes. Q. What are they? A. What are they? Could go to Paula, could go to an attorney. Q. What's Paula going to do? MR. WITHERS: Objection. MR. FRANKLIN: That calls for speculation. MR. WITHERS: We are going wildly down this road of hypotheticals, which is not proper for a 30(b)(6). MR. BILLIPS: Where is that in the rule? MR. FRANKLIN: If you look at the case law -MR. WITHERS: Yeah. MR. FRANKLIN: -- in the Southern District. MR. WITHERS: It doesn't have -- every item of law is not in the rule. That's a pretty

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 21 of 38
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
Page 74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 76
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

basic issue. If we want to press it, continue on and we're going to get to a point very quickly. It's not -- it is not my intention to argue. It really isn't. We're going to get to a point very quickly where he's not going to answer these hypotheticals. MR. BILLIPS: Well, see, here's the problem. Your witness keeps giving hypothetical answers to -- hypothetical speeches to explain his answers, so I am entitled to follow up on anything he says. MR. FRANKLIN: We're not going to argue with you. MR. WITHERS: That is plain wrong. Ask your question. We'll make a record. That statement is patently false with respect to what is going on in this deposition. Ask the next question. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. All right. You have indicated that there were steps that Ms. Jackson could have taken to complain about Mr. Hiers -A. Yes, she did. Q. -- engaging in racially harassing

MR. WITHERS: Well, I object to the extent -MR. FRANKLIN: What do you mean by anything? MR. BILLIPS: I'll rephrase. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Did Mr. Hiers indicate that Ms. Jackson had ever made any complaints or otherwise expressed opposition to conduct by Mr. Hiers that was sexually harassing, sexually demeaning or racially harassing or racially demeaning? A. No. Q. Did Mr. Hiers indicate whether he was aware that Ms. Jackson had complained about pornography on the computer? A. I assume since -- no. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. Q. You did not ask him about that? A. I did not ask him about that, ask Karl about that. He was the one who took care of the issue. Q. Okay. Now, let me -- I'm going to reask something that drew an objection earlier. I don't recall if there was an instruction. Since the date that Mr. Schumacher spoke

Page 75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 77
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

conduct. A. The same ones that she used to report the pornography. Either to Karl or to her supervisor, Theresa. Q. All right. So do you know what, if anything, she did to confront Mr. Hiers directly about his conduct? A. What Lisa did to confront him directly? Q. Yeah. A. No. Q. Okay. Had you done anything to -- in preparation to give testimony, have you done anything to determine whether she confronted Mr. Hiers directly? A. I have not interviewed Lisa, no. Q. Okay. Have you interviewed Mr. Hiers? A. I've spoken with Mr. Hiers. Q. Did Mr. Hiers indicate whether she did anything to confront him directly about his conduct? A. Not to the best of my recollection. I do not. Q. Okay. Did Mr. Hiers indicate whether Ms. Jackson had ever complained about him on anything?

to Will about whether he had been attacked by Mr. Hiers, has the company learned of any other information supporting that allegation? A. Not that I'm aware of, no. Q. Okay. Was Lisa Jackson ever disciplined for allegedly discriminating against employees? A. There's nothing in her personnel file. I don't know. I never learned anything. Q. Is there any indication that she was considered by anybody at the company to have engaged in any form of unlawful discrimination or harassment? A. Not that I'm aware of other than the EEOC complaint, but one of which ended up going to mediation. Q. Right. And if the company had -- under the policies in effect at the time, if the company had believed that Ms. Jackson engaged in any form of unlawful discrimination, it would have been obligated to conduct an investigation and to write up the result of that and to take disciplinary action? MR. FRANKLIN: Object to that as a hypothetical question. BY MR. BILLIPS:

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 22 of 38
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
Page 78
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. And to take disciplinary action against Ms. Jackson; is that correct? MR. FRANKLIN: Objection. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Is that what the policies require? A. That's what's in the employee handbook. Q. Okay. And nothing of the kind occurred? In other words, she wasn't ever written up, there is no indication in any of the files you've seen that the company ever believed she ever engaged in discrimination; true? A. Not that I'm aware of. MR. BILLIPS: Okay. Let's take a few-minute break. If you would let us have the room. MR. FRANKLIN: Sure. (Recess from 6:06 p.m. to 6:14 p.m.) MR. BILLIPS: Again, we've -- we've got to a point on some of the matters of examination, specifically regarding investigations arising out of the EEOC charges and whether there was any investigation, what if any action was taken that the witness is unable to testify to. I think it's clear Mr. Schumacher would be able to testify to those, or at least I believe

MR. WITHERS: We'll just simplify. I think that the answer is that it will be fine for you to ask questions of Mr. Schumacher and, Mr. Franklin, you correct me if I'm wrong, to the extent that you've described investigation that he's unable to tell you about. I can tell you as a practical matter with respect to the investigation that occurs after the charge of EEOC, we're going to claim work product and trial preparation privilege. And we can -MR. BILLIPS: And we'll -- I mean, I'll inquire and find out whether there's a basis for that. MR. WITHERS: So I think that's fine. MR. BILLIPS: All right. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. Oh, one question. I think I said this at the beginning, but I'm not sure. MR. FRANKLIN: You must have. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. You are here testifying today as the corporate representative of all of the defendants; is that correct? A. That's correct. MR. BILLIPS: All right. Then with that

Page 79
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 81
1 2 3 4 5

he would be able to. And we'd ask that you agree to let us inquire of him into whether any investigation occurred at that point and the scope of the investigation, et cetera, as set out in the -MR. FRANKLIN: He'll be here in the morning. MR. BILLIPS: Okay. So do you -- are y'all agreeable to us asking him about 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18? MR. FRANKLIN: Whoa. All of a sudden we've opened up Pandora's box. MR. BILLIPS: No. No. No. I'm just talking to the extent that this witness was unable to answer the question, which is essentially what if any investigation -- the investigation conducted after the charge was filed. MR. FRANKLIN: Solely on that EEOC complaint, that's what you're asking me about? MR. BILLIPS: Well, yeah. But if he -if he were to have conducted an investigation into something else or additional allegations as a result of the EEOC complaint -- I guess what I'm saying, let's say that Lisa Jackson said to -MR. FRANKLIN: Objection. Hypothetical.

understanding, we can be done with this portion. MR. FRANKLIN: Okay. MR. WITHERS: I've got a couple of questions on matters. EXAMINATION BY MR. WITHERS: Q. Mr. Farmer, earlier in the deposition, counsel had asked you about to whom would an employee make a complaint about Mr. Hiers if he were engaged in racial or sexual harassment. And I believe that was addressed as in today's date. In other words, during the current time frame. You said, I believe, you did not know. Is -- is that accurate, you don't know who Mr. Hiers -- who an employee could make a complaint about Mr. Hiers to concerning racial or sexual harassment? A. No, that's not. He could -- an employee could complain to any other member of management or his own team. So as Lisa did going to Theresa and Karl or Karl on various occasions, those would be people he could go to, including Bobby, Jamie and Paula. Q. Well, let me put a point to it. Let's break it down because I think it was broken down in two fashions as well.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 23 of 38
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
Page 82
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 84
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

During the present time, who would those complaints concerning Mr. Hiers be made about if it were a racial or sexual harassment matter? A. To me. Q. Anyone else? A. They could go to other -- if they didn't feel comfortable coming to me, they could have gone to Karl or Theresa or Paula. Q. And you began work in October of 2010; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Say prior to August of 2010, what is your understanding as to who an employee could make a complaint about Mr. Hiers to if he were engaged in what they perceived to be sexual or racial harassment? A. I would say to Theresa, Karl or Paula. Q. And kind of the third issue, sir, is you testified that you were not aware of who could take action against Mr. Hiers. If he were found to have engaged in sexual or racial harassment, what is your understanding of who would have that responsibility, that ability as it were, to take any action against Mr. Hiers if he were engaged in

MR. FRANKLIN: I object to that because it is asking this witness to make a legal judgment, a legal conclusion. And subsequent to that he can answer, if he can. BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. You can answer. A. I don't know the answer to that. MR. BILLIPS: Okay. Good enough. That's all. (Signature reserved.) (Deposition concluded at 6:21 p.m.)

Page 83
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 85
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

racial or sexual harassment? MR. BILLIPS: I'm sorry. Is this a hypothetical question? MR. WITHERS: Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Paula Deen. MR. WITHERS: Thanks. That's all I've got. MR. BILLIPS: I have some follow-up on that unless you have some. EXAMINATION BY MR. BILLIPS: Q. How would Paula Deen take action against Bubba Hiers? What could she do to him? A. She could alert -- she could seek legal counsel, I assume. Q. Okay. What has that got to do with Mr. Hiers? A. I don't know. Q. What effective action could Paula Deen take against Mr. Hiers? A. And being his sister, I suppose or suspect that she could talk to him. Q. Okay. Other than having a sisterly talk, are you aware of any effective action that Ms. Deen could take against Mr. Hiers?

ATTESTATION I, the undersigned, have read the foregoing transcript, and, with the exception of any corrections specified on the attached correction sheet, attest it constitutes a true and correct transcription of my testimony given at the time and place specified therein.

(Signed):___________________ Jody Farmer WITNESS:____________________

DATE:_______________________

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 24 of 38
23 (Pages 86 to 87)
Page 86
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ERRATA SHEET STATE OF GEORGIA ) ) COUNTY OF CHATHAM ) I wish to make the following changes for the following reasons: PAGE LINE ____ ____ CHANGE:________________________ REASON:________________________ ____ ____ CHANGE:________________________ REASON:________________________ ____ ____ CHANGE:________________________ REASON:________________________ ____ ____ CHANGE:________________________ REASON:________________________ ____ ____ CHANGE:________________________ REASON:________________________ ____ ____ CHANGE:________________________ REASON:________________________ ____ ____ CHANGE:________________________ REASON:________________________

(Signed) ________________________________ Jody Farmer

Page 87
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CERTIFICATE STATE OF GEORGIA: COUNTY OF CHATHAM: I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript was taken down, as stated in the caption, and the questions and answers thereto were reduced to typewriting under my direction; that the foregoing pages 1 through 86 represent a true, complete, and correct transcript of the evidence given upon said hearing, and I further certify that I am not of kin or counsel to the parties in the case; am not in the regular employ of counsel for any of said parties; nor am I in anywise interested in the result of said case. This, the 5th day of December, 2012.

__________________________________ RACHAEL MILLER, RPR, CSR, CCR 2807

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 25 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 88
A ability 82:24 able 24:11,12 25:19 78:25 79:1 absolutely 42:2 access 32:22 33:13 accurate 23:22 81:14 accurately 23:23 accused 11:10 54:13 acknowledgm... 24:21 act 34:9 68:14 acting 71:12 action 1:5 26:21 41:6,9 51:11 51:11 54:7 61:5 69:6 77:22 78:1,22 82:20,25 83:12,19,24 actions 5:5 49:9 51:23 added 55:3 addition 25:4 38:4 additional 79:22 additionally 29:19 address 25:13 26:15 60:20 addressed 31:23 31:24 50:10 69:11 81:11 addresses 68:22 admitted 33:17 advances 66:6 afraid 44:5,10 africanameri... 11:5 37:11 age 64:24,25 65:3,6 ago 34:7 59:9 agree 12:6,7 40:5 68:13 79:1 agreeable 79:9 agreed 7:16 agreement 1:21 ahead 47:11 53:14 56:24 57:15 68:24 70:18 83:4 alert 83:14 allegation 11:1 11:4,8,19 37:8 40:13,14 42:8 46:23 52:5,10 52:12 58:2,5 67:19 70:3,8 77:3 allegations 10:14 27:15 45:22 51:17 61:23,25 63:10,18 79:22 allege 69:19 alleged 9:4 33:8 33:12 63:13 69:16,18,20 allegedly 40:3 45:3 48:5 77:6 alleges 62:14 alleging 26:16 allowed 60:22 70:4,6 amend 31:5 analysis 29:9 answer 10:19 10:21 11:23 12:1 18:9 21:5 24:1 26:18,24 27:17,20 30:22 31:1,6 36:3 40:19 48:9,19 49:1 52:2,2 53:14 56:24 58:24 68:4 70:18 72:7,11 74:6 76:17 79:15 80:2 84:4,6,7 answered 52:17 52:20 answers 51:21 74:10,11 87:9 anybody 13:16 14:5 27:3 77:10 anywise 87:18 apologize 35:2 apparently 32:2 63:16 66:25 71:19 appearance 2:3 approach 60:6 appropriate 37:19 approval 16:20 16:23 area 16:25 areas 16:25 argue 74:3,13 argument 69:23 arises 53:25 arising 78:20 arrival 8:17,19 article 6:5 asked 18:11 21:11 31:10 34:8,15 43:15 44:14 52:16 66:7 81:8 asking 40:1 48:20 49:23 50:1 63:11 66:10 67:5 70:10 79:9,19 84:2 aspects 8:23 assess 39:2 40:2 assessment 71:8 assistance 58:16 assistant 11:20 associates 6:13 6:17 assume 22:2 24:14 54:23 62:1 63:2 76:16 83:15 assumes 56:23 assuming 49:20 62:9 assumption 58:9 atlanta 2:10 attached 5:22 85:5 attack 55:17 attacked 77:1 attempted 8:20 attend 28:25 29:12,18 30:10,12,14 30:17,20 31:2 attended 30:18 30:25 31:3 attention 10:7 34:25 attest 85:6 attestation 4:14 attorney 73:10 attorneyclient 54:2,3 attorneys 35:25 73:3 audio 42:19 audit 58:20 61:7 61:7 august 5:11 53:2 56:2,19 57:4 82:12 authority 13:16 13:18 14:4 26:6,20 72:25 73:5 avoid 28:9 avoiding 64:4 aware 10:14 11:22 33:2 46:24 55:11 55:15,18 56:5 56:6 57:3,6,17 58:2 62:14 64:5 72:24 73:3 76:14 77:4,13 78:12 82:19 83:24 B b 1:16 6:5 7:6 51:14 72:5 73:17 back 14:19 19:21 20:19 31:5 35:13 55:2 60:16 backtracked 52:25 bad 66:10 based 18:13 47:4 69:21 baseless 65:25 basic 74:1 basically 35:15 basics 29:8 basis 13:5 63:19 67:17 80:12 bay 2:14 began 15:7 59:22 82:9 beginning 28:12 30:5 80:18 behalf 71:12 behavior 37:20 60:6 61:20,21 70:25 believable 43:4 believe 11:11 16:24 19:7 20:19 21:13 27:16 30:18 39:10 40:21 44:12 45:5,11 59:1 78:25 81:11,13 believed 38:23 39:15 77:18 78:10

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 26 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 89
believing 67:17 benefits 15:25 16:3,11,13,15 benjamin 2:7 best 13:21 20:17 21:13 31:16 32:6 75:21 bid 17:1 big 16:7,10 33:25 34:7,16 34:18,23 35:2 35:2,3,7,14,18 36:1 62:8 71:18 billips 2:6,7 4:8 7:1,12,15,17 7:22 10:23 19:14,23 20:1 20:3,10 31:19 36:19 37:1,6 39:3,5,8,11,14 40:4,6 43:9,17 47:10,15 48:22,25 49:2 49:22 50:3 52:18,21,24 53:1,7,16,20 54:5,16,20 57:2 59:4,7 63:12 68:8,24 69:4 72:7,9 73:18 74:8,20 76:5,6 77:25 78:4,13,18 79:8,13,20 80:11,15,16 80:20,25 83:2 83:8,11 84:5,8 bit 14:22 16:1 31:12 black 71:19,25 blatant 66:7 block 32:22 board 6:6 23:10 60:8 bobby 37:22 44:2,7,11,17 81:21 box 79:12 boxes 21:2 boy 65:23 boyce 64:23 break 37:2 78:14 81:24 bring 15:2 58:22 broken 81:24 brought 8:16 10:7 19:3 bubba 1:9 15:20 26:16 30:16 32:18 33:11 33:11 34:7,10 34:12,14,15 34:17,19 35:2 35:4,7,19,21 35:22,23 46:9 47:19 53:4,4 55:19,25 61:18,19 72:19 73:1,5 83:13 bubbas 1:10,18 5:6 7:2 8:8 13:11 15:20 16:7 17:17 18:4 20:12 21:12,20 25:2 28:23 29:10 32:17 56:4 63:24 69:15 bunch 11:7 business 38:13 C c 2:6 5:1,1 6:1 6:11,12,14 87:1,1 call 41:6,14 called 11:5,6 34:5,14 35:1 38:17 44:16 44:24 calling 12:9 37:11 39:16 45:7 70:16 calls 68:17 72:3 73:13 camera 54:18 55:3,4 cameras 54:8 54:14 cant 10:20 37:14 39:1,6 40:19 48:14 49:5 52:1,2 65:25 capacity 8:3 caption 87:8 car 65:20,21 care 76:20 carve 16:11 case 5:13,15 43:8,23 45:5 73:19 87:16 87:19 catch 33:23 ccr 87:24 certain 8:23 41:20 certificate 4:16 certified 1:22 6:9 certify 87:6,14 cetera 24:9 79:4 chain 10:1 chance 35:3 36:2 change 86:7,9 86:11,13,15 86:17,19 changes 86:5 characterize 38:11 charge 48:4 51:18 52:7 58:6 69:14 79:17 80:8 charges 64:8,12 78:21 chatham 6:3 86:3 87:4 children 43:1 choice 72:12 choose 63:5 72:11 chose 64:21 circumstance 42:18 circumstances 70:7 civil 1:5 7:6 claim 62:16 80:9 claims 57:17 58:10 63:21 65:25 71:16 clear 78:24 clearly 42:12 close 29:3 closely 23:13 coaching 29:8 29:20,21 cole 65:14 69:15 69:17,18 color 18:14 63:19 combined 9:7 9:10 come 34:25 55:16 59:11 60:20 71:7 comfortable 66:23,24 82:7 coming 12:21 12:22 82:7 command 10:1 comments 57:13,23 61:24 committed 46:8 common 13:12 24:7 67:20 companies 5:18 9:7,10 13:9 14:10,20 15:5 17:12 27:2 28:6,7 46:20 company 14:5 17:25 18:12 22:12 23:7 24:4 26:19 29:14 39:11 39:15 40:8,12 50:23 51:16 54:6,7 58:19 58:23 61:20 61:21 68:2,9 71:4 77:2,10 77:16,17 78:10 companys 40:11 49:15 50:4,16 71:8 complain 25:17 44:5 74:23 81:18 complainants 64:14 complained 57:11 75:24 76:14 complaining 12:5 68:10 complaint 9:4 9:16 10:3 23:16 25:8,11 25:13 26:1,14 26:15 27:8 28:17 31:13 31:21 32:5,9 32:10 33:2,5 33:23 46:22 48:21 56:16 58:3,22 63:4 68:10 69:9,9 69:14 70:23 77:14 79:19 79:23 81:9,15 82:14 complaints 12:17 18:21 25:8 26:8 27:5 31:11,17 32:1 32:23 33:20

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 27 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 90
37:20 45:23 46:14 56:8 60:24 68:3,14 68:23 69:10 76:8 82:2 complete 87:12 completed 59:16,24 70:2 composed 21:21 computer 31:22 31:25 32:16 33:13 62:8 76:15 concern 33:24 concerning 44:11 81:16 82:2 conclude 42:20 70:16 concluded 58:21 84:11 conclusion 44:1 50:1 70:17 72:3 84:3 conditions 24:8 conduct 26:17 27:14 33:20 41:1 48:17 49:16 56:13 56:14 69:3 71:8,25 75:1,7 75:20 76:9 77:20 conducted 12:23 28:19 29:6,15 46:12 48:13 49:4 51:7,10 58:12 79:17,21 conducting 12:17 confidential 44:15 confirmed 46:13 conflict 28:21 60:9 62:25 70:21 confront 75:6,8 75:19 confronted 75:13 conjunction 14:14 connection 45:22 connotation 38:15 consequences 60:7 consider 42:15 considered 77:10 consistent 23:9 consolidated 15:3,6 constitutes 85:6 constitution 34:19,21,21 consultant 12:22 14:15 70:10 consultants 8:16,19 27:22 58:17 60:20 61:15 consulting 15:4 71:5 contact 9:22,24 23:1 54:1 contacted 6:14 55:9 contention 50:2 continuation 7:1 continue 74:1 continued 59:20 continues 62:24 70:21 continuing 41:5 contract 6:19 contradicted 43:5 control 13:12 24:8 conviction 42:24 cooperate 60:21 61:14 copied 19:22 22:16 copies 19:4 21:1 29:1 36:14 copy 19:24 20:8 32:14 36:17 64:16 corporate 14:15 21:24 22:1,3 51:15 80:22 corporations 14:2 correct 7:11 11:7,10 14:2,3 14:10,11,15 23:20,21 24:4 24:5,10 25:3 25:20 26:1,2 28:2 30:10,11 38:2,9,18 39:21 44:11 45:1 48:5,22 48:25 51:2,3 52:19 53:17 53:19 61:9 62:15 63:1 65:18,19,23 65:24 68:3,7 68:11 71:5 78:2 80:4,23 80:24 82:11 85:7 87:12 correction 85:6 corrections 85:5 corrective 69:6 correctly 69:22 council 6:7 counsel 1:20 2:3 10:12 54:1 81:8 83:15 87:15,17 county 6:3 86:3 87:4 couple 17:11 40:23 60:10 81:3 course 8:25 14:18 38:4 40:8,12 court 1:1,22 6:6 6:9,15 coworker 65:18 66:4 credibility 39:2 40:2,2 crites 6:13,17 csr 87:24 current 20:12 20:15 51:1 63:3 70:22 81:12 currently 15:12 15:14 16:17 16:18 curse 34:20 customers 45:25 D d 4:1 5:1,1 6:1 date 20:20 33:3 45:2 54:8,10 59:12,17 60:16 70:13 76:25 81:11 85:19 dates 61:11 day 6:20 21:12 29:12,19 87:20 days 28:25 34:24 daytoday 13:5 dealt 62:18 december 6:20 87:20 decision 37:10 37:14 43:24 70:6 deen 1:7,7,16 5:17 7:3 8:2,8 8:9,9 13:9,25 14:4,14 16:9 17:19 18:1,3,5 22:5,6 23:19 25:4,6 26:5 28:6 29:10 46:10,15,16 47:6 49:14 71:12 83:5,12 83:19,25 defend 40:13 42:7 defendant 57:18 defendants 1:11 2:19 3:2 8:11 45:23 80:22 definitely 10:6 38:14 demeaning 57:12,23 61:24 76:10 76:11 denial 55:12,14 denied 35:14 43:25 53:18 departments 21:22,23 depend 10:6 41:9 depending 10:8 deposition 1:16 5:14,16 7:2,12 51:15 74:18 81:7 84:11 describe 48:11 described 29:23 53:23 80:5 description 5:2 designated 1:19 7:8,9 designee 43:15 determination 43:20 determine 43:21 75:13

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 28 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 91
determined 18:7 determines 16:15 deterrent 68:14 develop 8:6 14:25 developed 14:13 14:21 didnt 33:6 35:20,21 53:9 60:21 62:9,10 66:17,20,23 67:14 82:6 difference 16:10 35:23 different 15:22 15:24 16:1,1,3 16:5,8,11 17:19,20 21:22 29:14 38:5,15 40:23 70:7 direct 11:15 23:16 73:2 directed 56:3 direction 58:18 87:10 directive 56:8 directly 9:24 75:6,8,14,19 director 8:4 24:3 46:21 disagree 42:10 disciplinary 41:6,12 61:5 77:21 78:1 discipline 37:18 37:19 40:17 40:24 41:11 41:24 42:13 43:21 45:19 68:11 disciplined 77:5 disclosure 6:8 discount 16:7 discounts 16:5,6 discourage 12:4 discovered 48:12 51:23 discriminated 65:8 69:20 71:23 discriminating 77:6 discrimination 9:4 10:3,15 12:18,24 18:13,21 25:18 26:8,23 27:6 28:9 40:9 40:14 42:9 56:14 63:18 63:21 64:4,24 65:1,3,6 68:15 70:12 77:11 77:19 78:11 discriminatory 26:17 discussions 61:3 dismissing 67:22 dispute 35:20 disputed 35:19 disqualified 6:10 distinguish 39:24 district 1:1,2 73:23 diversity 28:20 29:16 60:9 divided 8:22 division 1:3 document 19:8 21:19 34:4 35:11,16 36:10,13 40:10 44:8 46:1 59:2 71:13 documents 30:23 32:5 33:1 34:3 36:21 46:25 47:17 doesnt 59:13 61:10 63:7 66:14 73:24 dont 9:19,25 10:8,19 11:11 11:23 12:1 16:21 18:2,9 21:5,5 22:15 23:25,25,25 26:18,24 27:16 28:3,5 30:22,25 35:11 36:3,16 38:10,25 39:10 42:10 42:11,15,20 42:23,23 43:22 47:8 48:9,19 49:1,3 49:9 50:11 51:5,7,10 54:11 55:4,13 55:13 58:7,14 58:24 59:1,12 59:16 61:22 62:21,22,23 64:15 67:14 68:4 70:24,24 71:2,14,17,19 71:21 72:10 72:11 76:16 76:17,23 77:8 81:14 83:18 84:7 dramatically 38:5,11 drew 76:23 driven 17:3 duly 7:19 dustin 11:2,22 11:22,25 12:9 31:2 37:7,21 38:1,7 39:16 39:20 40:7 42:21 44:5,11 44:15,18,20 44:24 60:12 60:15,19,21 60:24 61:13 dustins 5:4 61:14 E e 4:1 5:1,1,1,1 6:1,1,1 85:1 87:1,1 earl 1:9 3:9 earlier 13:4 76:23 81:7 east 2:14 3:5 eddie 64:15,16 65:16 educated 27:1 eeoc 23:16 27:8 31:17 48:4,21 51:18 52:7 56:16 57:17 58:3,5,10,22 62:16 63:4,9 63:15,17 64:8 64:12 65:24 69:14 70:23 71:16 77:14 78:21 79:18 79:23 80:9 effect 22:13 50:13 68:1 77:17 effective 26:20 32:3 83:19,24 effectuate 43:21 effort 15:3 either 8:24 13:20 26:6 58:16 66:19 75:3 elaine 65:2 eliminate 49:15 49:23 ellen 64:23 ellis 28:22 email 5:11 35:6 53:3 57:4 60:17 emailed 33:2 employ 87:16 employed 8:1 24:25 48:24 49:14 employee 9:24 11:6 14:11,20 15:11,13,25 16:3 17:17 20:22 21:17 22:23 23:19 26:15 28:15 29:7,16 34:8,8 34:10,11,12 40:22,24 41:3 41:21 42:7 43:20 50:5,10 50:21 61:12 66:3,6,20 67:2 67:6,23 68:10 69:2 70:5 72:17 78:6 81:9,15,17 82:13 employees 8:7 11:6 12:5 16:7 17:4,8,19 26:10 29:5,17 29:21 30:9,25 33:12 38:7,16 39:16 42:17 44:3,5 45:8,25 50:25 55:15 72:1 77:6 employment 24:9 41:9 employmentr... 60:3 ended 77:14 engaged 26:22 56:13 77:11 77:18 78:10 81:10 82:15 82:21,25 engaging 26:16

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 29 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 92
74:25 ensure 49:11 enterprises 1:8 1:9,17,18 7:4 7:4 8:2,8 13:9 13:10 14:14 16:9 17:19 18:5 22:5,6 23:20 25:1 29:11 46:16 71:13 entire 9:25 18:17 35:10 entitled 74:11 environment 71:24 errata 4:15 86:1 especially 13:4 16:25 36:9 esquire 2:6,13 2:20,21 3:3 essentially 35:13 79:15 estimate 21:13 et 24:9 79:4 evaluations 29:7 event 53:22 everybody 11:25 evidence 42:20 52:5,23 54:25 56:23 87:13 exact 59:12,17 exactly 39:24 examination 4:7 7:21 72:6 78:19 81:5 83:10 examined 7:19 example 17:22 24:15 exception 85:4 excuse 25:1 43:6 exhibit 10:22,25 10:25 20:9,12 36:12,18,21 47:9,13,14,22 47:24 57:4 59:6,8 exhibits 5:22 47:16,17 existing 62:25 70:22 exists 46:8 experience 58:15 experiencing 51:1 expertise 17:1 explain 74:10 expressed 76:9 extent 24:7 53:12,24 56:22 70:15 72:2 76:2 79:14 80:5 extreme 41:22 42:13,17 F f 87:1 face 34:24 facetoface 61:3 fact 12:14 23:15 32:2 48:2,12 55:16 67:18 69:21 factors 45:20 facts 35:8 49:5 51:23 56:23 70:20 failed 36:14 fair 26:25 49:4 49:8,12 fall 63:8,14 false 68:2,10,22 74:17 family 5:17 43:7 far 9:11 farmer 1:20 7:18,24,25 81:7 85:13 86:24 fashions 81:25 favoritism 61:5 favors 66:7 fear 11:25 12:3 12:10 38:2 february 65:2 federal 7:6 feel 9:25 66:23 71:23 82:7 feeling 44:20 feels 22:23 felt 35:8 44:16 61:12 66:24 female 34:8 feuger 8:25 23:12 46:9 57:25 66:18 72:20,25 fewminute 78:14 fifth 34:17 file 63:5 77:7 filed 48:4,21 79:17 files 78:9 filter 31:25 32:22 final 37:23 financial 29:8 find 43:3 52:5 80:12 finding 33:14 35:8 39:19,20 61:6 findings 60:11 finds 68:9 fine 80:2,14 finished 15:9 fire 13:16,18 14:5 fired 34:10,12 45:1 65:17 firm 32:21 first 7:19 12:20 21:4,23 35:16 36:9 41:13 45:15 51:16 54:24 57:9 60:11 five 61:13 fiveminute 37:1 floating 21:1 fodder 63:4 70:23 71:15 71:15 follow 74:11 followed 23:18 41:13 following 6:8 86:4,5 follows 7:20 21:23 followup 35:6 83:8 fooled 19:19 force 34:19 foregoing 85:4 87:6,11 forgetting 25:7 forgot 19:21 38:13 forgotten 42:4 form 27:14 28:14 70:11 77:11,18 formal 24:21,22 30:2 former 50:5 forward 55:16 found 26:21 60:4 82:21 four 41:7 43:2 fourth 11:12 frame 81:12 franklin 2:20 7:11,14 19:12 19:19 20:6 31:8 36:15 37:3 38:24 39:4,6,10,13 40:1 43:6,11 47:8 48:20,23 49:19,25 52:20,22 53:11,15 54:3 54:14 63:10 68:6,19,22 72:5 73:13,19 73:22 74:13 76:3 77:23 78:3,16 79:6 79:11,18,25 80:4,19 81:2 84:1 frazier 33:25 friday 34:11 fuck 64:22 67:24 full 7:23 function 9:6,9 64:6 71:9 functions 8:20 21:22 further 30:6 32:1,23 36:10 87:14 G g 6:11 gender 18:16 genderbased 25:18 general 8:22 9:13,15 12:18 13:17,19 14:25 23:4,13 24:21,24 62:4 62:13 64:20 65:15 georgia 1:2,23 2:10,15,24 3:6 6:2,7,9,19 86:2 87:3 gerard 35:1,24 51:8 58:18 gillen 3:4 give 16:5 23:13 24:6 29:1 33:3 35:10 37:23 40:21 51:20

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 30 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 93
75:12 given 35:3 36:2 36:9,22 38:6 85:7 87:13 giving 31:12 72:12 74:9 go 26:12 31:5 42:12 44:10 44:16 45:20 47:11 53:14 56:24 57:15 60:10 65:20 66:13,21,21 67:2,6 68:24 70:18 73:9,10 81:21 82:6 83:4 goes 41:19 62:24 going 9:25 36:6 36:6 38:24,25 41:23 52:25 57:20 65:21 65:22 66:24 68:25 73:11 73:15 74:2,5,6 74:13,18 76:22 77:14 80:9 81:19 good 35:8 37:18 84:8 grabbing 54:13 grounds 40:15 40:16,18 42:5 42:11 58:22 group 9:7,10 20:7 groups 16:12 28:24 guess 10:11 22:18 79:23 guessing 24:18 guidance 23:14 guide 22:10 gun 65:22 guys 36:16 53:4 H handbook 14:9 14:11,13 20:22 28:15 40:22,24 50:11 66:6 78:6 handbooks 14:21 15:11 15:13 21:18 handle 66:14 handled 9:13 handles 43:12 handling 60:6 hands 34:22 handson 13:5 happen 50:18 happened 18:3 25:23 34:16 35:15,17,19 35:20 46:5 51:7,10 harassed 11:20 50:7 66:3 harassing 11:18 69:3 74:25 76:10,11 harassment 9:4 10:15 11:2,10 11:14 12:17 12:24 18:21 22:20,24,25 25:13,19 26:1 26:8,22 27:6 29:17 40:9,14 42:8 49:17,20 51:1 56:14 64:19,20 67:10,13 68:15 69:1,11 69:13 70:12 70:17 77:12 81:10,16 82:3 82:16,22 83:1 havent 37:20 head 10:20 27:18 28:5 31:1 59:2 68:5 health 17:4,6,9 heard 34:12 35:4 46:14 hearing 87:13 hell 13:24 79:6 help 13:7 73:7 helping 27:22 hereinafter 22:11 heres 74:8 hes 42:25 43:6,7 52:20 61:7 74:6 80:6 hesitant 44:13 hiers 1:9 3:9 26:16,21 32:18 33:8,16 33:20,21,24 45:24 46:9,17 48:5 54:13 56:2,13,18 57:12,22 63:8 63:14 70:13 72:19,21 73:1 74:23 75:6,14 75:16,17,18 75:23 76:7,9 76:13 77:2 81:9,14,15 82:2,14,20,25 83:13,17,20 83:25 higher 26:7 hired 60:20 71:7 historically 18:2 history 23:6 33:14 61:19 63:24 hold 9:6,9 holmes 64:15,16 65:16,17 honestly 18:2 42:25 hopefully 27:2 hopke 38:19 44:9 hostile 71:24 72:16 house 1:10,19 5:7 7:3 20:13 21:21 25:2 hr 27:22 57:5 60:19 61:7,15 human 5:9 8:4,6 8:16,18 24:3 27:14,21 43:18 52:14 64:6 71:4,8,9 hypothetical 39:7,9 56:24 72:4,14 74:9 74:10 77:24 79:25 83:3 hypothetically 51:3 hypotheticals 72:4 73:16 74:7 I id 17:13 43:22 59:3 identical 15:14 15:15,17 identification 10:22 20:9 36:12,18 47:13,14 59:6 identify 23:23 47:9 60:10 71:9 ill 10:24 20:11 36:20 46:4 47:16 49:25 51:5 54:16 57:3 76:5 80:11 im 12:19 13:23 14:16 16:2 24:1,18 33:2 35:15 36:23 38:24 39:3,5,5 40:4 42:5 46:24 49:22 49:23 52:1 54:10 55:18 57:1,17,20 59:12 64:5 65:24 76:22 77:4,13 78:12 79:13,23 80:4 80:18 83:2 immediate 24:13 42:6 72:18 immediately 23:1 impaired 56:15 56:21 implement 8:6 implemented 20:25 important 61:4 inappropriate 34:9 56:13 60:6 61:19,21 70:25 incident 33:25 35:18,20 46:6 54:12 55:9 62:8 71:18 incidents 49:11 including 34:20 81:21 inconsistent 60:5 61:4 incorporated 7:3,4 13:11 25:1,3 46:17 indicate 33:16 33:18 63:7 70:11 75:18 75:23 76:7,13 indicated 57:18 74:21 indicating 50:6 indication 77:9 78:9

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 31 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 94
indiscretion 55:20 individual 44:23 individuals 25:17 26:4 46:13 infer 36:4 inform 56:12 information 32:25 35:9 50:6 77:3 informed 51:16 58:19 infringes 54:1 initiate 25:21 initiated 25:25 input 16:20 inquire 79:2 80:12 install 32:22 installed 54:8 54:14 instance 15:19 16:6 17:15 instances 22:2 instructed 9:22 32:21 56:19 64:21 instruction 76:24 insurance 16:11 17:1,5,7,9,16 intent 42:24 intention 74:3 interactions 61:3 interest 6:11 interested 87:18 interesting 21:25 interfere 56:4 internal 25:8,11 69:9 international 6:13,17 interpretation 52:14 71:1 interview 60:22 interviewed 57:24 75:15 75:16 interviewing 32:25 59:15 59:22 interviews 20:18 46:12 47:4 58:21 intimidating 61:6 intimidation 12:1,4,11 38:2 investigate 26:7 36:6,7 48:8 50:8,17 52:13 63:18,21 64:21 67:15 investigated 10:15 18:22 27:21 31:11 36:10 55:22 58:5,10 63:23 investigation 9:18 11:1 12:24 25:22 25:24 27:15 27:25 31:17 34:2,4 38:5 39:21 40:8 45:13 48:12 48:17 49:4,6 49:16 51:6,9 51:22 53:22 54:25 58:13 69:24 70:1 77:20 78:22 79:3,4,16,16 79:21 80:5,8 investigations 78:20 investigative 9:3 involved 8:24 27:24 37:13 irvin 65:8 isnt 43:18 74:4 issue 5:9 11:13 11:21 34:6,25 35:5 61:8 74:1 76:21 82:18 issued 20:22 41:2 56:7 issues 13:12 24:9 57:5 60:11,21 61:4 item 47:11 51:14 73:25 items 39:18 ive 20:8 21:1 42:4 46:3 57:9 58:1 75:17 81:3 83:6 J jackson 1:4 5:13,15 23:23 27:9,14 32:15 33:7 48:4 49:13 55:19 56:9,12,20 57:10,18 58:21 63:1,25 64:3,18,20,24 65:4,7,9,11,17 66:2,24 67:9 70:12 74:22 75:24 76:7,14 77:5,18 78:2 79:24 jacksons 23:15 24:12 31:11 65:1 72:18 jamie 37:23 44:2,6,10,17 81:21 january 18:17 20:21 28:12 28:13 29:3,6 29:13 30:9 64:23,25 jim 35:1,1,3,24 36:2,5 51:8 58:18 job 8:5 35:8 50:7 jody 1:20 7:18 7:24 85:13 86:24 joked 35:22 judge 42:23 judgment 58:15 84:3 judicial 6:7 july 5:10 34:11 june 65:7 jurisdiction 63:9,15,17 justify 41:22 K k 16:25 17:22 17:24 18:4 karl 5:4 8:24 13:6 16:19,22 23:11 24:15 24:20 27:23 31:24 32:15 32:21 33:1 34:2,5 35:15 36:4,6,22 37:24,25 44:2 46:9 47:4,6,18 47:25 48:1 51:8 53:3 55:20,25 57:24 58:17 66:13 75:3 76:19 81:20 81:20 82:8,17 karls 13:23 44:21 60:16 katherine 64:25 keep 25:6 44:14 keeps 74:9 kelin 2:21 key 5:19 60:11 keys 31:14 kill 65:18 kin 87:15 kind 42:19 78:7 82:18 kinds 13:12 kitchen 32:20 33:12 knew 55:21 know 9:19 10:8 10:19 11:23 12:1 13:22 18:2,9 19:9 21:3,5,9,10,14 21:18 22:1 23:25,25 24:15 26:18 26:24 27:16 28:3,5 29:25 30:13,22,23 30:25 31:13 33:1 35:11 36:3,16 37:17 38:10,25 39:1 42:10,11,13 42:19,20,23 42:23 43:9,11 43:22 44:3 45:18 47:9 48:9,13,14,19 49:1,3,9 50:11 51:6,7,10,21 52:24 53:25 54:11 55:4,11 55:13,22 56:7 56:11,18 58:4 58:7,12,14,24 59:1,12,14,16 59:17 61:11 61:22,23 62:21,22 64:15 66:1,14 67:9,12,16 68:4 70:20,24 70:24 71:2,14 71:17,18,19 71:21 73:6 75:5 76:16,17 77:8 81:13,14

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 32 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 95
83:18 84:7 knowing 28:16 36:4 71:1 knowledge 13:21 20:17 20:24 31:16 32:6 55:14 67:13 71:20 knowledgeable 27:1 knows 66:12 68:21 L l 6:1 labor 13:12 24:9 lack 12:11 60:7 lady 1:8,8,17,17 7:4,5 8:7 13:10,10 16:8 16:12 17:15 18:1,6 22:9,11 22:14,17 24:25 25:1 29:10 41:19 lake 3:4 language 61:24 66:10 large 16:24 late 32:20 laughed 35:22 law 6:19 73:20 73:25 lawyer 19:19 lead 41:15,16 learn 44:4 48:3 learned 49:5 77:2,8 leaving 45:3,6 45:13 legal 7:23 50:1 72:3 83:14 84:2,3 letter 5:3 15:19 level 70:25 levels 16:11 liability 60:3,11 liberty 3:5 lied 39:20 42:7 life 43:13 limiting 60:3 line 73:2 86:6 lined 71:3 linelevel 29:15 30:9 links 60:2,4 lisa 1:4 5:13,15 23:15 24:12 27:8 31:11 32:14 34:5,10 34:10 35:4,9 55:19 63:25 64:18,20,24 65:1,3,6,8,11 66:24 75:8,15 77:5 79:24 81:19 lisas 34:25 35:16,17 list 30:25 lists 23:16 little 14:22 16:1 31:12 living 71:5 llc 1:8,8,17,17 3:4 7:4,5 13:10,10 llp 2:7,22 local 29:14 location 8:23 15:18 long 59:9 longer 48:23 49:14 50:8 look 19:21 32:13 40:22 59:3,13 67:21 73:19 looked 52:22 54:24 71:2 looking 32:11 33:8 looks 22:19 lost 46:3 lot 13:7 14:17 29:5 45:19 louis 65:15 lying 40:7,12 42:15,21,22 42:25 43:3,20 45:12 M m 1:24 5:1 6:1 37:4,5 78:17 78:17 84:11 mackworks 15:1,4 21:16 28:19 29:6 58:16,20 59:10,11 maintenance 29:4 making 25:7 68:14 male 34:8 man 34:24 managed 38:2 management 16:13 26:7,13 26:13 28:20 29:6,15,20,20 42:7,16 45:12 46:7,11 47:20 58:1 60:7,8 62:19 66:22 67:2,7 81:18 manager 9:15 12:3,5 17:15 29:11 43:19 46:16 62:4,13 62:25 63:3 64:20 65:15 69:23 70:22 70:22 managerial 28:7 46:21 managers 8:23 9:13 12:18 13:17,19 14:25 16:12 20:18 21:11 23:5,13 24:21 24:24 28:15 28:24 29:9 30:8 61:4 manages 11:25 12:3 managing 12:10 38:1 maner 2:22 manner 18:20 manual 5:8 20:14 22:12 68:1 march 5:3 60:18 65:5 mark 20:3 36:11 47:12 59:4 marked 10:22 10:24 20:9,11 36:12,18,20 47:11,13,14 59:6 materials 19:2 matter 23:15 48:1 70:5 80:7 82:3 matters 78:19 81:4 matthew 2:6 mean 11:24 13:6 16:17 22:3 63:10 66:9 70:20 71:1,7,15 76:3 80:11 means 41:11 71:14 measure 37:18 measures 42:14 mechanism 25:12 mediation 77:15 melissa 21:12 member 26:13 46:7,10 66:21 67:2,7 81:18 members 47:20 57:25 memo 37:25 mentioned 56:17 mentorship 23:14 merited 37:12 middle 71:16 miller 1:22 87:24 minimal 28:18 29:24 30:3 minutes 60:22 mischaracteri... 53:13 misconduct 41:3 monkey 11:6 38:12,17 44:16,24 61:8 monkeying 38:12,14 42:22 monkeys 11:7 12:10 37:12 39:17 45:8 morning 79:7 move 57:21 64:1 murphy 2:21 mushrooms 45:3,7,13 N n 4:1 5:1,1 6:1 85:1 name 7:23 53:5 65:1 named 63:25 64:17 65:3,6,8 65:14 names 15:22 nathan 11:13,19 11:19

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 33 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 96
national 63:19 nature 32:8 nearly 15:14 necessary 39:19 need 36:1,17 48:14 needed 15:2 needs 35:2,3 negative 21:12 never 18:10 20:25 35:20 77:8 nicholas 64:22 night 32:20 nonhypotheti... 39:12 nonresponsive 57:21 64:2 normally 41:13 noted 34:5 notes 27:16 47:2 47:11 notice 1:21 5:13 5:15 noticed 51:14 november 1:24 64:17 number 5:2 15:1 41:10 46:4 51:14 52:4 57:5 72:3 72:3 numbers 46:3 O o 5:1 6:1,11 85:1 object 38:24 49:25 57:21 64:1 76:1 77:23 84:1 objection 49:19 52:16 53:11 53:12,15,24 56:22 68:17 70:15 72:2 73:12 76:23 78:3 79:25 obligated 77:20 obligation 26:6 28:8 49:15,24 52:13 62:4 obviously 9:12 15:20 16:20 23:7 50:12 55:21 71:1 occasion 10:13 13:2 occasions 9:2 10:14,18 81:20 occur 43:23 62:10 67:17 occurred 31:9 34:6 38:6 49:6 51:22 53:22 61:11,15 62:3 67:13 78:7 79:3 occurrence 5:10 occurrences 41:10 occurring 49:17 49:20 occurs 80:8 october 8:12 28:14,19 29:22 30:5,20 65:12 82:9 offense 41:13,14 41:15,16 offered 16:16 17:6,9,12 43:14 office 22:4 32:17 34:14 officer 46:21 oh 19:9 80:17 okay 7:12,25 9:23 10:18 11:4,17,21 12:13,15 13:3 13:8,18 14:8 15:4,8,10,13 17:21 19:5 20:16,23 21:7 22:16 24:24 25:15,24 26:4 26:11 27:10 27:13,19 28:1 28:3 29:2 30:1 30:20 31:4 32:8 33:19 36:1,8,11,15 37:15 39:23 40:11,25 41:25 42:15 44:3 45:3,6,11 45:17 46:19 46:25 47:3,21 48:1,11 49:8 50:4,14 51:13 54:21 55:5 56:11,18 57:8 57:20,20 58:4 58:8,19,25 59:10,18,21 60:1,19,24 61:6 62:6,9,17 63:7 64:1,12 65:10,16 67:4 67:9 68:9 69:5 69:13,16 70:9 70:19 72:18 72:24 75:11 75:16,23 76:22 77:5 78:7,13 79:8 81:2 83:16,23 84:8 oliver 2:22 olney 64:25 onboard 12:22 12:22 59:16 once 40:1 ones 17:25 30:19 57:16 75:2 online 8:9 onthejob 29:25 oops 34:15 opened 79:12 opening 4:3 operations 56:4 opinion 16:2 37:16,22 44:9 55:6 opinions 61:12 opportunity 29:5 opposition 76:9 options 73:7 order 19:11,22 40:13 42:7 43:21 organizations 17:9 26:5 49:14 origin 63:19 original 5:22 originally 53:23 outside 9:20 43:13 oversee 23:13 overseeing 9:11 owner 10:6 13:25 14:6 46:21 72:23 73:5 owners 10:4,5,8 13:1,20,21,25 16:20,23 17:3 23:8,8 27:7 30:12,14 oyster 1:10,19 5:7 7:3 20:13 21:21 25:2 P p 1:24 6:14 37:4 37:5 78:17,17 84:11 page 5:2 19:6,6 19:8,21 20:6 21:19 22:20 41:1,5 60:1 86:6 pages 19:10,14 19:16 87:11 pandoras 79:12 paragraph 11:12 22:8 69:1 paraphrasing 35:15 parenthesis 34:17 parkway 2:8 part 12:20 16:24 23:9 25:22 59:14 participated 13:23 parties 87:15,17 parts 15:16 pass 26:7 patently 74:17 paula 1:7,7,16 5:4,17 7:3 8:2 8:8,8,9 10:7 13:9,25 14:13 15:20 16:9 17:18,19 18:1 18:3,5 22:5,6 23:19 25:4,6 26:5 28:6 29:10 46:10 46:15,16 47:6 49:14 57:25 71:12 73:3,9 73:11 81:22 82:8,17 83:5 83:12,19 pay 17:2,2 41:8 pdr 29:11 pending 69:22 people 5:18 16:13 33:13 40:3 42:21 66:14 72:15 81:21 perceived 82:15 perform 8:20 performed 8:19 period 18:17

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 34 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 97
20:21 56:1 person 9:15,17 9:21 71:22 personal 43:13 61:2 67:12 personally 58:7 personnel 14:9 15:6 28:8 77:7 pervasive 72:16 photocopier 19:10 phrased 17:13 phrasing 42:3 physical 55:17 physically 34:22 place 18:10 20:19 21:4,7 21:14,18 41:3 69:25 85:8 places 28:22 plagiarizing 14:23 plain 74:15 plaintiff 1:5,21 2:5 plaintiffs 51:17 plan 17:1,10,16 18:4 plans 17:11,20 18:7 pleaded 34:17 please 7:17,23 32:13 56:25 point 13:22 51:12 72:21 74:2,5 78:19 79:3 81:23 points 23:11 policies 8:7 15:6 15:24 18:12 18:20 27:2 28:16 40:11 50:4 67:25 77:17 78:5 policy 5:7 20:13 22:10,12,20 25:7 42:1 50:11,12,15 68:2 pornographic 32:22 pornography 31:22 32:1,16 32:19 33:9 55:25 62:7 66:16 75:3 76:15 portion 81:1 posed 56:23 position 8:13,15 8:21 46:22 50:16 possible 31:5 practical 80:7 predecessor 8:14 predicate 39:19 premises 61:20 61:21 preparation 75:12 80:10 prepared 24:6 36:21 present 3:9 18:17 34:13 38:17 82:1 presently 8:1 9:6,9 24:20 press 74:1 pretty 66:7 73:25 previously 7:15 16:22 57:10 primarily 47:4 prior 8:16,18 12:21,22 21:9 29:22 56:16 63:24 82:12 privilege 54:2,4 80:10 probably 47:5 63:3 70:22 problem 38:1 41:10 44:17 74:9 problems 41:12 41:21 44:11 63:8,13,14 71:10 procedure 7:6 22:10,12 25:9 25:12 26:14 28:17 69:10 69:10 procedures 5:8 15:25 20:13 46:5 50:5 68:1 proceeding 6:16 6:18 process 13:23 15:7 25:21 59:15 60:5 65:21 produced 32:4 34:3 product 80:9 professional 37:16 43:19 profit 18:4 progressive 37:17 41:11 41:24 42:13 45:19 prohibited 6:19 18:13 prompt 26:20 69:6 proper 72:5 73:16 provide 6:15 provided 19:3 28:7 29:23 30:24 provides 50:5 provisions 6:11 pst 29:14 pulled 19:20 pulling 47:1 pursuant 1:21 6:5 7:5,13 put 15:5 19:21 21:4,7 22:12 31:25 34:22 47:18 60:14 81:23 Q question 5:12 12:20 17:13 20:20 27:17 31:10 39:7,9 39:12 42:3 46:19 48:10 48:16 50:2 54:9 57:1,22 67:10 74:16 74:19 77:24 79:15 80:17 83:3 questions 43:10 43:11 52:2,3 54:17 80:3 81:4 87:8 quickly 74:2,6 quit 50:6 quite 55:1 R r 5:1 6:1 87:1 race 18:13 63:19 64:17 65:8,14 69:21 71:20 rachael 1:22 87:24 racial 25:18 42:16 45:24 46:8,17 48:5 61:5,25 81:10 81:16 82:3,16 82:22 83:1 racially 26:16 74:25 76:11 76:11 racist 71:25 72:15 raised 33:24 ran 19:9 rance 44:9,21 ranged 61:1 ray 38:17,21 39:15 44:16 44:23 45:1 read 35:11,12 44:12 85:3 reading 11:24 really 37:14 74:4 reask 76:22 reason 24:14 50:20 86:8,10 86:12,14,16 86:18,20 reasonable 67:17 reasons 12:9 86:5 recall 76:24 receipt 25:25 51:17 receive 26:6 received 9:3 27:5,8,11 31:23 45:23 46:22 52:7 58:6 67:19 recess 37:4 78:17 recognizes 41:20 recollection 75:21 recommendat... 13:24 recommended 12:8 record 46:8 47:9 48:15 49:10 74:16 reduced 87:9 refer 22:3 45:25 60:16 64:9 reference 21:20 60:3 referenced 55:7

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 35 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 98
referred 22:11 referring 62:22 64:13 refers 22:1,7 refresh 32:12 refusal 61:14 regard 27:13 37:7 46:19 51:22 54:12 60:12 65:16 regarding 11:13 18:13 28:8 35:7 40:24 64:17 78:20 regular 87:16 regulations 6:6 reiterate 51:5 related 12:18 relating 32:5 relation 24:9 relationship 6:10 44:6,18 relied 35:9 remarks 4:3 remedial 26:21 remedy 49:10 49:16 remember 69:21 removed 56:2,3 reoccur 49:11 repeat 12:19 56:25 rephrase 48:16 76:5 report 10:25 23:8 46:6 55:21 59:11 59:20 60:2,14 60:23 61:7 62:5,11,15 70:10,14 75:2 reported 32:15 32:24 34:9 46:9,15 55:19 55:24 64:19 66:15 reporter 1:22 6:9 reporting 6:6 6:15 reports 11:16 32:17 69:3 represent 87:11 representative 1:20 7:8 51:16 80:22 reprimand 37:12,22 request 25:22 require 78:5 required 29:11 30:9,12 reserved 84:10 resignation 31:15 resolution 28:21 60:9 resolved 67:1 resource 5:9 8:6 8:16 resources 8:4 8:18 24:3 27:14,21 43:18 52:15 64:6 71:5,9,9 respect 12:11 41:12 47:21 51:13,14 74:17 80:7 responsibility 9:12,17,20 12:16 14:24 24:17 62:12 72:22 82:24 responsible 28:16 restaurant 56:5 restaurants 14:1 16:5,10 16:16 result 51:24 54:1 58:20 77:21 79:23 87:18 retail 8:9 18:1 25:5,6 retaliation 18:16 65:3,6 69:2 retracted 55:12 retracting 55:14 return 70:9 review 25:8,11 60:5 69:9 rewrite 15:2 right 9:2 10:10 14:5 15:22 19:23 20:20 21:3 26:4 27:4 31:25 34:1 35:24 38:16 41:4,18 42:9 49:13 50:20 50:23 51:4 52:8,9,10,11 52:21 55:23 61:16 62:17 62:21 63:3,22 64:1 66:1,21 68:13,19 69:11 71:10 71:11,13 74:21 75:5 77:16 80:15 80:25 82:10 rises 70:25 risk 51:1 road 73:16 robinson 64:18 66:1 role 24:22 room 78:15 ross 65:15 routinely 55:1 rpr 87:24 rule 7:5 73:18 73:25 rules 6:5 7:6 S s 2:13 6:1,1,1,14 85:1 sa 11:20 sandra 65:5 sandwich 45:4,7 45:14 savannah 1:3 1:23 2:15,24 3:6 saying 40:4 42:5 44:14 65:24 79:24 says 11:12,24 26:12 38:3 41:2,6 42:12 42:21 44:13 45:18 53:3,17 60:23 61:19 62:17,24 63:6 69:1 70:17,17 70:18 74:12 scared 35:4,22 scenario 10:9 schumacher 8:24 9:3 10:16 11:1 12:8,16 12:25 16:19 16:22 18:8 23:12 24:16 24:20 27:24 31:24 32:15 34:2 36:22,22 44:4 46:10 47:5,18 48:1,3 48:18 53:3 54:22 56:9,12 57:11,24 64:7 66:13 76:25 78:24 80:3 scope 43:13 79:3 scott 38:19 39:15 44:9 seafood 1:10,18 5:6 7:2 20:13 21:21 25:2 second 28:12 33:22 35:6 40:21 45:9 secondly 15:2 sections 40:23 see 19:1 23:2 32:10 35:3,10 36:2 57:4,6 59:13 60:1 64:10 67:21 74:8 seek 9:20 10:11 83:14 seen 21:1 57:9 59:8 78:9 senior 62:18 sense 67:20 separate 13:14 13:15 14:20 17:23,24 18:3 18:5 september 59:23,24 serious 37:21 41:21 45:6,12 server 11:20 services 6:15 set 15:6 18:20 79:4 setting 24:8 seven 21:13 57:19 63:23 64:8,12 71:16 severity 41:10 sex 63:19 66:11 sexist 57:12,23 sexual 11:10,14 29:17 34:9 64:19,19 66:7 69:13 81:10 81:16 82:3,15 82:22 83:1 sexually 11:18 11:20 26:17 57:12,23 61:24 66:3 76:10,10 shake 35:21

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 36 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 99
shaken 53:9,18 shaking 54:13 share 46:1,4 sharing 18:4 sheet 4:15 85:6 86:1 sheets 30:24 sheldon 65:8 shes 71:18 shook 34:23 shoot 65:22 show 10:24 20:11 36:20 47:16 55:1 56:20 57:3 shut 64:22 67:23 sick 17:2 side 44:19 signature 84:10 signed 85:12 86:23 signin 30:24 similar 14:24 simplify 80:1 single 14:8 sir 18:23 82:18 sister 83:21 sisterly 83:23 sit 37:22 sites 32:23 situations 41:22 72:14 size 35:23 skip 35:10 42:14 slur 42:16 slurs 45:24 46:8 46:17 48:5 61:25 small 16:8 sole 9:17,19 solely 79:18 somebody 26:13 sons 1:8,17 7:5 8:8 13:10 16:8 16:12 17:16 18:2,6 22:9,11 22:14,17 24:25 29:10 41:20 sophisticated 55:3 sorry 12:19 19:13 34:15 36:23 47:23 52:1 54:10 57:1 83:2 source 45:24 sources 9:21 southern 1:2 73:22 speak 37:14 speaking 44:21 47:18 61:1 speaks 36:4 specific 15:21 21:21 specifically 39:16 78:20 specified 85:5,8 speculation 68:18 73:14 speeches 74:10 spell 62:23 split 28:24 spoke 11:24 21:17 33:11 35:18 53:3,8 53:17 76:25 spoken 55:8 58:1 75:17 square 28:22 staff 12:10 17:18 32:20 37:11 start 8:10 19:6,8 37:17 started 22:18,19 59:17,19 starting 14:19 state 1:23 2:23 6:2 7:23 86:2 87:3 stated 87:7 statement 25:23 74:17 statements 43:4 71:25 states 1:1 22:23 stepped 23:12 steps 41:7,12,24 73:4 74:22 stipulations 4:3 7:13 stop 37:20 street 1:23 2:14 2:23 3:5 strike 10:13 14:8 24:11 44:4 45:22 48:2 54:7 57:21 64:1 strong 44:6 stronger 44:18 subject 5:12 22:24 68:11 71:24 subordinate 42:17 45:8 subsequent 53:2 53:21 84:3 subsequently 45:1 substantial 15:16 success 5:19 sudden 79:11 suggested 15:1 suite 2:9 supervises 24:25 26:9 supervising 24:20 supervisor 23:1 23:4,9,17,23 24:13 26:9 45:12 46:7,16 66:19 72:19 75:4 supervisory 28:8 46:20 72:22 support 42:1 supporting 77:3 suppose 83:21 supposed 52:15 sure 13:24 14:16 16:2 20:5 24:2 30:2 30:23 31:7,8 32:14 36:5 37:3 39:13 45:21 51:9 58:14 78:16 80:18 suspect 14:22 83:22 suspended 69:22,24 70:4 70:5 suspension 41:8 41:16,22 swear 7:17 sworn 7:19 system 54:19 55:3 T t 1:4 5:1 6:1,1,1 85:1,1,1,1 87:1,1 tailored 15:17 take 26:20 32:12 37:1 69:25 73:4 77:21 78:1,13 82:20,24 83:12,20,25 taken 1:20 7:13 24:16,17 28:14 35:16 37:4 51:11,11 51:24 54:7 69:7 74:22 78:22 87:7 takes 41:3 talk 35:7 83:22 83:24 talked 35:13 talking 10:9 14:17 43:12 54:11 79:14 tanya 5:12 team 9:13 81:19 tell 24:11,12 33:7 34:6,15 34:16,18,19 34:24 49:5 50:15 64:22 67:23 69:8 80:6,6 telling 67:23 termination 40:15,18 41:8 41:17,23 42:2 42:6,6,11,14 terms 24:8 53:13 testified 7:20 24:18 82:19 testify 43:7,7,14 43:16 78:23 78:25 testifying 80:21 testimony 24:7 32:12 51:15 51:21 53:13 75:12 85:7 thanks 83:6 thats 17:2 18:4 20:18 22:18 24:19 26:2 29:4,14 36:9 36:15 38:3,14 42:3,24 44:1 45:5 47:21 49:12 50:10 59:19 60:23 63:6 65:19 68:13 70:24 73:25 78:6 79:19 80:14 80:24 81:17 82:11 83:6

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 37 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 100
84:9 theres 9:12 14:11,17,18 15:21 16:10 16:13 18:3 20:24 21:20 30:6 35:6 40:23 45:19 50:12 60:2 65:12 67:21 77:7 80:12 theresa 8:25 23:12,16,17 23:19,24 24:15,17 46:9 47:6,19 57:25 64:18,22 66:1 66:18 72:20 72:25 75:4 81:19 82:8,17 thereto 87:9 theyre 15:17,24 28:16 43:3 50:8 62:22 66:3 theyve 13:22 61:12 thing 27:20 34:13 35:14 43:25 55:18 things 15:21 16:8,14 17:2 43:12 54:24 57:17 think 10:20,21 17:1,13 19:9 19:20 22:15 22:16 24:17 24:19 30:3 35:1 37:24 39:1 45:9,15 47:5 53:16 55:20 56:17 57:5 59:22 66:6,12 67:20 68:21 71:22 72:10,13 78:24 80:2,14 80:17 81:24 thinks 66:18 third 21:19 82:18 thomas 3:3 65:2 thought 31:12 42:22 threatened 53:9 65:18,20 three 60:2,4 time 8:25,25 14:19 22:13 23:11 27:23 31:18 36:7 40:22 44:22 54:8,10 55:2 57:9 58:1 59:9 64:8 68:1,12 69:25 72:21 77:17 81:12 82:1 85:8 times 63:24 today 80:21 todays 81:11 told 33:10 35:4 69:23 tolerance 60:5 61:1 68:2 tom 6:13,17 tony 65:14 69:15,15,16 69:18 top 10:20 27:17 28:5 31:1 59:2 68:4 topics 28:20 29:7,16 60:8 totally 17:22,24 18:5 towercreek 2:8 town 69:25 track 46:3 train 29:5 training 28:7,15 28:20,21,21 29:7,15,16,20 29:23,25 30:6 30:21 60:7,9 64:3 66:2 transcript 85:4 87:7,12 transcription 85:7 travels 17:18 trial 80:9 true 43:18 47:21 78:11 85:6 87:12 truth 39:25 trying 59:12 tuesday 35:6 turn 73:6 turned 13:6 31:14 two 12:9 28:22 28:24,25 34:3 34:7 39:18 42:21 57:5 72:4 81:25 type 10:12 types 16:6 41:20 typewriting 87:10 typo 22:19 U u 5:1 6:1 uhhuh 22:6 38:8 47:7 60:25 62:20 63:20 unable 78:23 79:14 80:6 uncle 1:9,18 5:6 7:2 8:8 13:11 15:20 16:6 17:17 18:4 20:12 21:11 21:20 25:2 28:23 29:10 32:17 56:4 61:18,19 63:24 69:15 uncomfortable 66:8 undersigned 85:3 understand 7:7 33:15 understanding 23:7 27:23 38:20 52:14 81:1 82:13,23 undertaken 49:10 united 1:1 unlawful 26:22 77:11,19 upholding 28:17 usual 41:23 usually 29:4 37:18 V v 5:1 vacation 17:2 varied 23:6 32:17 various 13:9 16:16 17:8 81:20 vastly 70:7 verbal 25:25 32:7 41:7,14 46:14 66:8,9 verbally 25:19 version 14:16 35:17 versions 21:17 38:6 video 54:25 viewed 31:22 32:16,18,19 violent 56:14 vs 1:6 W w 1:9 walls 11:2,5,9 31:2 37:7,11 43:24 60:12 want 16:21 34:16 35:11 44:19 46:1 74:1 warning 37:23 41:2,7,7,14,15 wasnt 12:2 14:25 24:1 36:5 37:13 51:6 57:6 60:15 66:8,9 71:19 72:12 78:8 way 17:13 26:2 33:14 42:3 weakest 60:2,4 wed 79:1 wednesday 34:6 35:5 week 70:1 weeks 34:7 welcome 15:19 went 35:13 wesley 2:13 6:14 west 1:23 2:23 weve 55:3 78:18 78:18 79:12 whats 8:5 10:24 20:11 36:20 66:5 73:11 78:6 white 65:23 70:4 71:22 72:16 whoa 79:11 wildly 73:15 william 2:20 33:25 willy 33:25 34:7 34:16,18,23 35:2,3,4,14,18 36:1 62:8 wish 86:4 wishing 25:17

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Case 4:12-cv-00139-WTM-GRS Document 154-7 Filed 04/30/13 Page 38 of 38
30 (b)(6) Deposition of Paula Deen Enterprises, LLC, et al., by Jody Farmer Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen, et al. November 20, 2012

Page 101
withers 3:3,4 4:9 7:16 19:18 20:8 52:16 53:6,12,24 56:22 68:17 68:20 70:15 72:2 73:12,15 73:21,24 74:15 76:1 80:1,14 81:3,6 83:4,6 witness 7:7,17 19:13,16,20 19:25 20:2,5 31:9 36:13,16 39:2 49:1 53:19 54:18 55:17,17 56:25 68:7,25 70:19 72:8 74:9 78:23 79:14 83:5 84:2 85:15 witnessed 22:25 34:13 40:3 67:10 witnesses 39:4 wolmsley 65:5 woolf 2:13 6:14 31:14 word 30:3,4 35:17 38:12 wording 16:4 words 34:20 44:21 78:8 81:12 work 10:12 59:19 61:2 70:4,6 71:24 80:9 82:9 working 8:10 21:16 50:9,22 56:20 61:13 workplace 49:17,21 56:15 wrath 44:19 write 47:3 77:20 writing 50:14 written 12:9,14 18:12 20:25 25:23 33:1 40:7 41:2,7,15 42:1 50:12,15 60:15,17,17 61:7,15 78:8 wrong 74:15 80:4 wrote 14:21 15:11 39:16 47:2 70:13 71:13 wynn 7:24 X x 4:1 Y y 5:1 yall 79:9 yeah 19:12,18 38:10,14 51:3 53:15 63:13 72:13 73:21 75:9 79:20 year 11:9,13 29:3 years 9:1 61:13 yelling 34:23 youre 14:17 24:3 32:11 38:25 40:1 42:3 48:20 49:19 53:16 54:11 62:9 63:11 64:13 67:5 70:16 79:19 youve 46:25 78:9 80:5 Z 0 03 37:4 06 78:17 1 1 18:17 87:11 10 1:24 5:3 6:5 41:1 11 35:5 41:5 64:18 11th 60:18 12cv0139 1:7 14 7:9 78:17 79:9 15 5:3,14 7:9 10:22,25,25 35:5 51:14 52:4 60:22 79:9 15th 65:7 16 5:6,6 7:9 20:9,12 46:4 79:9 17 5:3,9,16 7:9 36:12 79:10 18 5:11 7:10 36:18,21 57:4 79:10 19 5:11,13 47:13 47:16,17,21 190 2:9 19th 53:2 1st 20:21 2 20 1:24 5:15 47:14,16,17 47:22,24 2000 28:13 2005 14:19 18:17 20:19 20:21 21:14 28:13 2007 64:17 2009 21:1 64:18 64:23,25 65:2 65:5 2010 5:3,10,11 8:12 21:8,15 21:17 24:18 28:14,19 29:22 30:6,20 34:11 56:2,19 57:4 59:17 65:7,12 82:9 82:12 2011 29:6 2012 1:24 6:20 29:13 30:9,19 87:20 2013696 2:16 21 5:17 59:6,8 84:11 218 1:23 2:23 23 64:18 2363311 2:25 26th 8:12 27th 65:5 2807 87:24 28th 64:23,25 29th 64:17 3 30 1:16 5:10 7:6 51:14 72:5 73:17 30339 2:10 30th 34:11 3101 2:8 31401 2:15,24 3:6 36 5:9,11 3rd 65:2 4 4 1:7,24 7:9 19:6,6,8 22:21 37:4 401 16:25 17:22 17:24 18:4 408 2:14 4478400 3:7 47 5:13,15 5 5 7:9 37:4 57:4 57 37:4 59 5:17 5th 6:20 87:20 6 6 1:16 7:6,9 20:6 51:14 72:5 73:17 78:17,17 84:11 7 7 4:3,8 7:9 770 2:11 8 8 3:5 7:9 81 4:9 85 4:14 8590753 2:11 86 4:15 87:11 87 4:16 9 9 60:1 91128 6:12 912 2:16,25 3:7

Tom Crites &

Associates International, Inc. critesintl.com

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful