STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 78-461

) THE HALLMARK BEAUTY SALON, INC., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter came on for hearing in Coral Gables, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Robert T. Benton, II, on June 5, 1978.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Daniel J. Wiser, Esquire

Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Ms. Betty Lerner

By administrative complaint dated March 10, 1978, petitioner alleged that respondent "on December 22, 1977, did allow an unlicensed person, one BERTHA R. HIDALGO, to practice cosmetology in its salon . . ."

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On December 22, 1977, Jacob Rubin, an inspector in petitioner's employ, entered the Hallmark Beauty Salon. He asked a woman who was doing manicures to produce her license. Even though she did not have a current, valid license from the Florida State Board of Cosmetology she said she had left her license at home. When asked to go home to get her license, she left the shop. She did not return to the shop that day. On behalf of respondent, Betty Lerner had hired this manicurist, whose name is Norma Bertha Ruiz de Hidalgo, in November of 1977. At the time she was hired, Ms. Hidalgo told Ms. Lerner that she had previously worked two or three blocks away and showed Ms. Lerner what seemed to be a current, valid license. In Ms. Lerner's hearing, customers greeted Ms. Hidalgo, recognizing her at respondent's shop as somebody they had known at a nearby shop earlier. The license which Ms. Hidalgo had shown Ms. Lerner was not displayed in the shop.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

2. At the final hearing in this matter, petitioner was granted leave to amend the administrative complaint to allege a violation of Section 447.02(7), Florida Statutes (1977), which makes it unlawful

. . . for any person, firm, or corporation to hire or employ any person to engage in the practice of cosmetology as hereinafter defined, unless such person holds a valid, unexpired, and unrevoked certificate of registration to practice cosmetology or

a certificate of registration as a registered master cosmetologist, registered cosmetologist, registered manicurist and pedicurist, or specialist or a permit to work issued by

the board to graduates of Florida cosmetology schools after requirements for examination have been filed with the board . . .

Section 447.15(8), Florida Statutes (1977), makes "commission of any of the offenses described in Section 477.27" grounds for suspension or revocation of a certificate of registration. Among the offenses so described are violations of "any of the provisions of Section 477.02," Section 477.27(1), Florida Statutes (1977), and "[p]ermitting any person in one's employ . . . to practice as a . .

. manicurist . . . unless that person has a certificate of registration." Section 447.27(2), Florida Statutes (1977). In short, the Cosmetology Law makes an employer absolutely liable for an employee's failure to obtain appropriate cosmetological licensure.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:

That petitioner reprimand respondent.

DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida.

ROBERT T. BENTON, II

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Daniel J. Wiser, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

The Hallmark Beauty Salon, Inc. 3800 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida

Docket for Case No: 78-000461

Orders for Case No: 78-000461