Susan Barfield:
Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining another episode of the Leverage Report. Really excited to be joined today and going to be talking all things hair relaxer with Danielle Ward Mason. Danielle, before we dive in, I’ve got a lot of questions about hair relaxer. Would love for you to give our listeners a little bit of a sneak peek about your background. I’ll stop there because there’s a lot. So tell us about your background.
Danielle Ward Mason:
Well, first, Susan, thank you so much for having me. My name is Danielle Ward Mason. I am based in Montgomery, Alabama. Born and raised here. I have been practicing law for 15 years and the majority of that time has been spent handling mass tort cases. And I think the one that probably predominated most of my life was the talcum powder litigation against Johnson & Johnson for the ovarian cancer it was causing in women. I now am the CEO and Co-founder of my own firm, Bullock Ward Mason, where we are continuing the fight in big mass tort cases, including hair relaxers. My partner, Tina Bullock, runs our single event practice and handles primarily med mal, and we’re just excited to be involved in the hair relaxer litigation. It is very important to me personally and I’m just really looking forward to where things go with it. It’s very exciting and very important.
Susan Barfield:
Yeah. Well, thanks for sharing a little bit about your background. One question I always ask because it’s interesting to hear when people share their response to the question about why, why the legal field? What was the purpose behind becoming an attorney? Were there any mentors or the deeper why behind where you are today?
Danielle Ward Mason:
Wow. I think being a lawyer has always been in my DNA. I had some twists and turns in my life. It wasn’t a very linear path, but it was one that when you ask a kid, what do they want to be when they grow up, for me it was always a lawyer. And my parents will probably say it was because I like to talk, but ultimately I’ve always just found an affinity with the law. I think the system, while it’s imperfect, is one that we as citizens of this country need to necessarily be able to rely on and have faith in. There’s so many good lawyers and sometimes we get overshadowed by the ones that don’t always handle things with the utmost integrity. But it’s important to me to be in this profession to try to maintain the high ideals of what it’s about, which is for the type of practice I have been in for the majority of my life, it’s been protection of people over the establishment.
Outside of law school, I was an assistant federal defender for the middle district, and that fight was very important to me because the life and liberty that we enjoy should only be taken away when it is significantly proven and those rights that we have still exist unless and until everything has been done by the book and those convictions are determined by a jury who has heard all of the facts. I think those rights and protections are important and I think the same is true today as citizens in the civil side of practice where we are at the mercy of big corporations who produce things and products that in their analysis of things it’s something that they know they’ll make a lot of money on, but on the flip side of that, how many people get hurt because they’ve cut corners or because they’ve chosen to go a cheap route or because they have just determined that the profits that they make are more important than ensuring the safety of the products that they’re putting out that we’re using?
And sometimes it’s products that we’re using every day so it’s very, very important. And I think more than ever, lawyers have become the watchdog of safety in our communities and I’m very proud of that. I’m very proud that we are holding people accountable for what they do, and hopefully each step that we take in each case that we bring, it gets us one step closer to that safety and that confidence that we can have in living our lives to the fullest.
Susan Barfield:
Well, Danielle, as you know, I’m grateful that you’re spending time today with us and with me talking all things hair relaxer, and I wanted to talk a little bit more about and ask you for listeners that may not have a deep understanding about this litigation, would you provide just an overview of the litigation and then provide some relevant updates that we should be aware of?
Danielle Ward Mason:
Sure. So the hair relaxer litigation is something that the practice of it, the practice of using hair relaxers is something that I am very familiar with. I’ve personally used the products from the time that I was a child all the way up to my mid-30. And these products contain chemicals within them that are known to disrupt the endocrine system. And our endocrine system is highly important for the regulation of hormones and processes in the body that help us naturally protect ourselves or defend us from outside agents and all these things. And so if you can imagine something that we get exposed to on a pretty regular basis, having chemicals like that particularly introduced to the body when you were a child and your body is still figuring out what its normal development mechanism is going to be, what we have learned is that the chemicals that are in these products have led to the kind of disruption that results in outcomes that are endocrine dependent, estrogen dependent, hormonally driven chronic conditions, and it affects the reproductive system.
This all got started and became to all of our collective knowledge around this time last year. I think the date specifically was October 18th. I woke up one morning to all of the news shows, all of the morning shows, digital reports, all kinds of things relative to a study that linked the use of hair relaxers to uterine cancer. And with more digging into that and getting a little bit more behind what that study entailed, you would come to find that there has been a lot of connection between the types of chemicals we know to be in hair relaxers and a wealth of different reproductive harms, including fibroids, including endometriosis, infertility problems, all of these types of things are and can be connected to the regular and consistent use of hair relaxers.
And what that has done, particularly in a large population of women and particularly Black women who use this product to straighten their hair, you can’t really tell this story without talking about the whys of using the product. And a lot of us used hair relaxers because there was a societal pressure.
… Because there was a societal pressure to do so. Every magazine, every commercial, there’s this definition of beauty that is tied to straight hair, the kind that can whip and blow in the wind and look shiny and sleek. It’s a pressure, particularly for Black women whose hair doesn’t naturally grow that way.
Susan Barfield:
Sure.
Danielle Ward Mason:
But this product was put out there to allow us to be able to feel that and to be a part of that culture. It’s not just a societal thing, it’s professional. There’s a reason why there’s a CROWN Act that helps to prevent discrimination against Black women for the way they wear their hair.
Hair relaxers were just something that allowed us to feel like we could fit in and allowed us to feel like we could conform. What was not known is that use of the product could lead to what it’s leading to, which is a very high level of reproductive harms in women that, ultimately, are resulting in sterility. Black women tend to get fibroids and these hormonally chronic driven reproductive conditions more than any other race. But the correlation to that is also that we, in some cases, upwards of 90% of the entire Black female population has exposed themselves to these products, and that’s something that none of us contemplated. We didn’t know that the use of this product could lead to us, ultimately, having conditions that are so debilitating that it affects your daily life, your relationships, your marriages, your just ability to get up and go in the morning. The pain, the bleeding, the just incessant trying to have children, so many of us are finding ourselves in these problems that are very physically debilitating, but also very mentally and emotionally challenging. And so, that’s not anything we contemplated.
These suits are here to make sure that these products, if they must remain on the shelves, that they can contain a proper warning so that women can have informed choices about what they’re engaging in. If that can’t happen and these products can’t be reformulated to be safer, then they should not be sold.
Susan Barfield:
You talk about products. Who are the main manufacturers of these products?
Danielle Ward Mason:
The biggest one would be L’Oreal. We all have heard of them. Revlon is another huge defendant, although I speak of them a little bit differently because prior to this litigation beginning, Revlon had already engaged in a bankruptcy process. Those are probably the biggest.
The next one that I think in terms of the products that they make and how popular they are and how many women have likely used them would be Strength of Nature. That’s not a name that we hear every day in our households, but we certainly know the products. We certainly know the brands. That would include the very popular children’s brand Just For Me. It includes Motions, TCB, a few others. We have Namastay, which is a defendant that creates a very popular product called ORS Olive Oil. A lot of women use that, myself included. There’s really a very large number of defendants in these cases, but I would say that those are likely going to be named in about 90% of every complaint.
Susan Barfield:
Have any other attorneys talked about just the potential scale, how many people we think have been impacted by using these products?
Danielle Ward Mason:
Well, just doing a little bit of math. There’s approximately 21 million Black women in the country. If you assess the fact that about 90% of those women have exposed themselves to hair relaxers, we’re talking about millions of women. Now, are all of them dealing with reproductive harms that are symptomatic? No, but there is a very high correlation. I do think we’re talking about the predominance of Black women in this country who have exposed themselves and likely have some reproductive issue or infertility issue or have been diagnosed specifically with these conditions that are symptomatic enough to require some type of intervention, whether it be surgeries to remove the fibroids. Those are called myomectomies, if you’re just removing fibroids. Some women’s fibroids are so embedded that they cannot be removed without removing the entire uterus, therefore, we’re seeing hysterectomies. A good number of those hysterectomies are being performed on women who are still in their child bearing ages.
For the cancers, including perhaps even breast cancers. There are some studies that suggest breast cancers are related. These women are going through very extreme treatments with their chemotherapy, and those treatments are very aggressive. I mean, we’re talking about a great number of women here. All of them are not going to want to file suit. All of them, again, are not symptomatic to the point where they’ve had these types of damages. But I do anticipate that before this litigation is said and done, there likely will be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of women who may have a claim that would be filed.
Susan Barfield:
It’s a really large population. What new studies or updates about the litigation can you share with us?
Danielle Ward Mason:
Well, just recently, another uterine cancer study was released showing a statistically significant increased risk of women using hair relaxers connected with uterine cancer. That is just bolstering the previous study that came out about this time last year as well.
There has also been a proposed rule by the FDA to ban these chemical hair relaxers. Right now, their rule is centered mostly on banning the chemical formaldehyde from chemical relaxers or these hair relaxers, which is a great start. As I understand it, the FDA will be calling for a public comment period. I think it’s important that we all, if we’re involved in this litigation, lawyers, clients, scientists, researchers, anyone that has interest in this and a dog in the fight, we should weigh in on that because it’s not just the carcinogens that are problematic here. It is a host of the endocrine disrupting chemicals that I was referencing before that are directly tied to reproductive issues in women.
I hope that the FDA, as they are looking at this, decides to look at it very comprehensively as a product that is a conduit of some very toxic things that are entering our system as we use these products…
… our system as we use these products, and use them in a way that… The product itself has a tendency to burn the scalp. And a lot of women sometimes, as they’re using this product, there’s some women whose scalp burns every single time, whether you’re… And this is, you’re doing everything right, but it’s a process that is pretty harsh to the hair to help break down all of the bonds that are necessary for you to ultimately have straight hair. And it naturally heats. That interacts with the scalp. And so many times after the product is used, you’ve got open wounds in the scalp. And if you’ve got all this toxicity in the product that just not only is being absorbed through the scalp, which is probably the most absorbent part of our bodies, you’re also sort of facilitating it even further because that scalp is opening up when the product is being used.
And so it’s getting directly into your bloodstream, your lymphatic system. And nobody uses a hair relaxer just once. These are products that are designed to be used anywhere from every four to eight weeks, and many of us have used these products from the time we were children. Some still use it today and haven’t stopped, but we’re talking about decades of exposure. And so when the studies come out and talk about heavy use or frequent use, they’re literally defining that as being more than four applications a year. And most of us are well above that because of the amount of time. Once you start using this, it’s very difficult to stop.
It’s called creamy crack in the streets for a reason because there’s sort of this addictive component to it that you’re used to your hair being a certain way. And when it starts to grow back out, especially at the root, and you’ve got hair that is more kinky at the root, but then the rest of it is straight, now you don’t have uniformity in your head. And so in order to cut the ties completely, it requires a lot of big decisions about women and how they feel about themselves relative to their hair. Some are relegated to do what’s called the big chop and just chop it all off and start over. That’s a very hard thing for women to do.
Our hair really is a crown, and to have to cut it all out just to sort of try to find what your normal hair patterns are again can be a very difficult step, both psychologically and how you feel about your own self, but also in terms of how do I care for hair like this? It’s a process, and it’s not a difficult decision for any woman to make. But certainly, it would be an easier decision to make about our hair if we didn’t feel the need to be so forced into the product in the first place.
Susan Barfield:
Yeah. It all goes back to what you were saying initially about how we’re ingrained about, from a society perspective, what we’re shown is what beauty is. Different torts as have different and unique challenges, depending on the demographics. Anything with this litigation and with the cases that you currently have? Any unique challenges?
Danielle Ward Mason:
Really, I think one of the bigger ones is just the sheer volume of parties involved, a number of manufacturers. Within those manufacturers, you’ve got different brands of hair relaxers. And then under each brand, like Dark and Lovely, or Motions, or just for me are even more different variants of particular products that are formulated differently, that have different strengths. These products can come in mild or regular formulas, super formulas. So they come with all different types of things infused in them. So just sort of narrowing down the client’s product use, the periods of time when they might’ve used it, that’s particularly challenging. In the talcum powder litigation, we had one defendant, one main defendant, and really one product that is more recognizable, I think, as a product than anything else. Everybody knows baby powder, it has looked virtually the same in terms of packaging for so many years. We don’t have that same ease of this is the one product that I used.
It’s going to be a number of products that women use over the course of their lifetime. And sometimes it’s hard for me to remember what I ate yesterday, much less what was the product that I used in my head when I was eight years old. But there’s some parts of it though that I think are very sort of set in the mind. And for me, I used to examine those boxes a lot. A lot of times when I’d be with my mom and we’d pick up the kit we were going to use, a lot of it, I was drawn to the model on the box, what the kids looked like, what their hair looked like. So looking at the actual product themselves, those models are very distinctive. And remembering that, it all comes flooding back.
But outside of that, I think just the number of people that are involved, the number of defendants that we’ve got to deal with, the number of different products, the client development on how to tell that story and to be as credible and as comprehensive with the products that have been used, all of those things, I think will be a challenge, but they’re not insurmountable. I think ultimately, because of the practice and because of just how pervasive the use of these products are, it’s not as difficult as you might think once you really start talking to these women and they’re telling their stories and what they remember. And of course, there are other people that may know hairstylists and…
For example, for me, all I had to do is call my mother because she knows exactly what she put in my head. So having witnesses and some of those things are also very helpful in this litigation. And I just think it’s a lot of moving parts to corral. But at the end of the day, I think that this litigation is very strong litigation. I think it is extremely worthy for us to be pursuing. And regardless of the challenges, we’ll meet them because it is just that important for us to.
Susan Barfield:
Yeah. For sure. For any of our attorneys that are listening that either, one, are new to mass tort, or two, interested in this litigation, and I’m sure folks have come to you asking for your advice, what feedback or any suggestions, advice you would give to them if they’re wanting to get this litigation?
Danielle Ward Mason:
Sure. There’s a lot of really good projects that are going on right now. And as someone who’s in a new firm, or at least a newer firm, decisions about getting into mass torts can’t be made lightly.
But for this litigation in particular, my advice would be it’s something to definitely consider If you’re looking to be involved in a mass tort and you’re not sure which one, I think this one is definitely worth the attention and the time and the resources that would have to go into successfully litigating it.
For me in particular, as a Black woman who’s been practicing law, it’s rare to find the type of case that is so personal. I’ve walked in our client’s shoes. I totally understand what their stories are because I dealt with quite a few of these issues myself. And this is how we start trying to narrow some of the disparate gaps we have in terms of a population that really has never really felt as though there’s been much attention placed on their issues. And so this is the time for that. This is the type of litigation that allows us to not only focus on the matters at hand, but the outside factors too.
The disparities in healthcare that Black women deal with and the lack of preventative or diagnostic care that a lot of times we look for and can be overlooked or dismissed or just sort of told you have a painful period, okay, so do a lot of women, take this NSAID and go lay down. And then you kind of let things fester to a point that ultimately by the time this woman comes back and is dealing with blood transfusions and all of this, then the remedy is okay, this has gotten so out of hand our only recommendation to you is to have a hysterectomy. And Black women experience hysterectomies more than any other race as well. I mean, there’s just a disproportionate outcome for Black women in these conditions, both in how they’re diagnosed and their treatment options just all across the board. And so we want to highlight all of that. We want to highlight also the narrative that Black female beauty is its own beauty. It doesn’t have to be defined by or conform to any other type of way to be.
And I think as we examine all of the harshness and the harms that go along with what we’ve had to do to chase that beauty, it’s time for us to now see that we can pivot from that and be more comfortable in ourselves and in the way that our hair naturally grows and that we don’t have to chemically straighten it. Even if you want to straighten it, there are other ways to do that than to just rely upon chemical induction of this into our heads.
So for any lawyer that’s on the sidelines on this one right now, don’t be. It is going to take all of our collective fight against very big, very influential corporate actors who I believe have known about this for a very long time. And if they didn’t know, there’s no reason for them not to have. And that is part of the negligence part of this, it is their job to have known. It is their job to have tested. It is their job to substantiate the safety of not just the overall product that they’ve made, but the individual components that also make it up. And so this is one to not sit on the sideline for because there’s a real public health issue going on here that will help save generations of young Black girls if we can stop the practice now and also start changing the narrative about what is beautiful and what’s acceptable.
Susan Barfield:
Yeah, exactly. I think that’s key. Danielle, this has been fantastic. I really appreciate… Of course, I always get excited when I have an opportunity to connect with other women leaders in the industry. So I’m just grateful again that you took time to give us insight updates on this litigation. And I know that just having talked with you and Tina, that your firm is partnering with other firms and maybe an attorney wants to get involved, but they don’t really know all the nuances, but you guys are there to be able to come alongside them and partner with them and help them make those decisions and work with them on those cases.
Danielle Ward Mason:
Absolutely. In addition to what’s going on in the MDL, our firm is involved in the leadership for the state court cases in Cook County, Illinois. I’ve recently been appointed to that plaintiff executive committee. So there’s litigation that is underway in state court there. Also in Chatham County and DeKalb County, Georgia there’s an appeal that is currently pending in the Georgia Court of Appeals, and that’s pursuant to a motion to dismiss that our firm was able to win on behalf of a very deserving client. The defendants then decided to appeal a couple of narrow issues, and that’s being briefed right now. As the litigation develops and as discovery starts to come forward, we are looking at a number of potentially different venues in state courts that we can continue to bring these cases.
And I’ve been doing them since the beginning. I’ve been involved in this from the beginning. So if anybody is looking for where to start or needs a little bit more about this than what we’ve been able to get to on this webinar, please feel free to reach out to me. I’m always very happy to share what I know. But, I also know that I’m in this for the long haul. I will not give up on these ladies. I will not give up on these clients. I will not give up on representing all of the potential conditions that are at issue here. I think it’s very, very important that we’re comprehensive about this and that we protect women’s reproductive health at all costs.
Susan Barfield:
Well, we certainly can hear your passion come through.
Danielle Ward Mason:
Thank you so much.
Susan Barfield:
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Danielle. I really appreciate it again. And we will have your information so if folks want to reach out, they know how to get in touch with you.
Danielle Ward Mason:
Thank you so much. I appreciate your having me.
