Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondents, Gary Smith and Brian Dobson, operated two businesses from the premises located at 4905 Sheridan Street, Hollywood, Florida. The first business, Scruples Hair Design, Inc. (Scruples) was a duly licensed cosmetology salon which employed licensed cosmetologists. The second business, Gary Smith and Brian Dobson, d/b/a Hair Replacement Systems (HRS) sold and serviced hairpieces. Neither Smith nor Dobson are licensed barbers or cosmetologists. Although operated from the same location, Scruples and HRS are physically distinct. Separate entrances admit customers to each business. Although an interior passage does permit access to each of the businesses, HRS's office space is clearly separate from that of Scruples. HRS's business consists primarily of the sale and servicing of hairpieces. In the course of that business Respondents take molds of customers' heads from which the hairpieces are designed, cut and fit the hairpieces, and provide incidental services such as cleaning and restyling the hairpieces. Although any actual cutting or styling of a customer's own hair is done by a licensed cosmetologist from Scruples, Respondents do shape and fit the hairpiece. The shaping or cutting of the hairpiece is done both on and off the client's head. Additionally, in fitting the hairpiece Respondents "occasionally" comb or brush some of the client's hair. Smith asserts that any such contact with the client's hair is unintentional. Smith's assertion is inherently improbable. Clearly, if a client has existing hair which the hairpiece is designed to match, the brushing or combining of the hairpiece on the client's head, during a "fitting," will necessarily result in the combing or brushing of the client's own hair where it meets the hairpiece. Dobson conceded that he worked the hairpiece into the natural hairline so the two blended, a technique he referred to as braiding.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Nancy Jo Gupton, allowed a non- licensed person to practice cosmetology in her beauty salon contrary to Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is doing business as Nancy Jo's Hair Stylist in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent was working in said salon and left the salon to take a customer to the hospital. Sue Dalton, a non-registered person washed and set the hair of one Mrs. Latham, a customer of said salon. Sue Dalton was not employed to serve as a cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in the state of Florida, holding license number CL-0167327. She makes her home at 882 Anita Avenue, Pensacola, Florida, along with her husband and children. Respondent works at a relative's beauty salon in another location. Respondent has been interested in hair weaving or braiding for several years. Hair weaving or braiding is done by hand, by intertwining strands of hair. No tools are used other than a needlelike instrument used for lifting up strands of hair and sewing in synthetic or human hair. An individual's hair is not treated with any type of chemical, nor is it cut or shampooed. Such manipulation of the hair is somewhat difficult and requires practice in order to weave hair well. On or about October 20, 1987, Lutrel M. Raboteaux, an investigator for the Board of Cosmetology, contacted Respondent regarding a complaint they had received about her from Denise Bryant. 1/ Mr. Raboteaux's investigation centered on whether Respondent was maintaining a cosmetology salon in her home. The only items Mr. Raboteaux found at Ms. Freeman's home were a broken chair type hair dryer and a couple of well used bottles of hair supplies for black hair. Ms. Freeman had been given the broken hair dryer. She had never used the dryer since it was not in working order. The bottles were for personal use and were only used by Ms. Freeman and her family. About two years ago, Respondent met Marie Smith. They became good friends. Through their friendship, Ms. Smith discovered that Ms. Freeman knew how to do hair weaving. Ms. Smith was interested in having her hair woven, and asked Respondent to weave her hair. Ms. Smith, in return for Respondent's weaving her hair, tutored one of Respondent's children. The hair weaving and tutoring took place at Ms. Freeman's home and consisted mostly of tightening the weave as Ms. Smith's hair grew. Ms. Smith viewed the hair weaving arrangement as more of a quid pro quo for tutoring Respondent's child. Respondent viewed the hair weaving arrangement on more of a friendship basis as a favor for a favor. Other than this one arrangement, Ms. Freeman would practice hair weaving on her family and some of her friends. They would ask her to weave their hair. As was the case with Ms. Smith, they would ask her to weave their hair and she would perform that task for them. Again as with Ms. Smith, Respondent would weave the hair of her friends at her home. She did not charge for her services. Any hair weaving that took place in Ms. Freeman's home was for free. She never received any money from the individuals she practiced on at her home. The only time she may have received anything was the tutoring swap described earlier involving Ms. Smith. Likewise, Ms. Freeman supplied no chemicals or other supplies necessary for her friends to get their hair woven. Her friends supplied those items at their own expense. Ms. Freeman's sole reason for weaving her friends' hair was to practice the art of hair weaving which she wished to specialize in. It is clear that Ms. Freeman never intended to operate a hair weaving business in her home and did not consider her home in anyway to be a beauty salon. Her home is not open to the public. Her home did not contain any equipment or chemicals used in a beauty salon. No evidence was presented that she keeps regular hours or appointments at her home. On the contrary, she in fact works at another beauty salon in Pensacola. Additionally, Ms. Freeman asked one of her teachers at a cosmetology school in Pensacola if it was all right for her to practice hair weaving at her home for free. She was informed that it was not against Florida Law and was otherwise completely unaware that there may be a problem with not having her home licensed as a salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: That the complaint against Ms. Freeman be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1988.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her national origin.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a subsidiary of Ratner Companies. Respondent operates a chain of salons, including the Cobblestone Hair Cuttery Salon (Cobblestone) in St. Augustine, Florida, and the Town Center Hair Cuttery Salon (Town Center) in Palm Coast, Florida. Petitioner was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, of Hispanic origin. She speaks Spanish as her first language and English as her second language. Petitioner has extensive experience as a hairdresser. She was licensed in Maryland in 1975 and in Florida in 1989. Petitioner has owned her own salons in Maryland and Florida. In the fall of 2007, Francesca Souza, Respondent's salon leader at Town Center interviewed Petitioner for a position as a hair stylist. Ms. Souza was impressed with Petitioner's experience as a stylist. Ms. Souza also believed that Petitioner's ability to speak Spanish would help improve service to the area's large population of Spanish-speaking clients. Because Ms. Souza did not have a position available at the time, she referred Petitioner to Cobblestone. The salon leader at Cobblestone hired Petitioner as a hair stylist. At Cobblestone, Petitioner had problems following Respondent's Fair and Equal Treatment Policies. The problems were based on allegations that Petitioner was taking customers out-of-turn, doing services that customers did not want, and being confrontational in the shop in front of clients. After Respondent was coached and counseled about not making clients or associates uncomfortable, Petitioner's ability to get along with other stylists improved. There were never any issues at Cobblestone with Petitioner’s speaking Spanish. In April or May of 2008, Petitioner transferred to Town Center because it was closer to her home. For approximately two months, Petitioner experienced no problems working at Town Center. Town Center was a multi-cultural salon. Ms. Souza spoke several languages in addition to English, including Spanish and Portuguese. Other bi-lingual stylists included the following: (a) Natalie, who was from Thailand and spoke Chinese and Cambodian; (b) Andrea, who was from Jamaica and spoke French; and (c) Maria, who was from Puerto Rico and spoke Spanish. Other stylists, who spoke only English, included the following: Courtney; Jessica; Monica; Jasmine; Stacy; Christine; Melissa; Eugenia; and Michael Ann. From the beginning, Petitioner believed that these stylists formed a clique that attempted to exclude other stylists. Respondent did not have a policy prohibiting stylists from speaking a foreign language to each other or to customers in the salon. Bi-lingual stylists usually spoke to their customers according to their national origin when necessary to make the customers feel comfortable. Initially, Petitioner sometimes spoke Spanish to Francesca and Maria. Some of the stylists in the "clique" complained that Francesca and Petitioner should speak English to each other in the salon because they were in the United States. Francesca then informed Petitioner that they should speak English to each other. Francesca explained to Petitioner that some of the stylists might feel as if Francesca favored Petitioner and that speaking English would make everyone feel more included. In June 2008, Petitioner was working at Town Center when two sisters of Hispanic origin came in for service. One sister was treating the other for a special occasion. Diane was due to take the next walk-in client. Therefore, Diane asked the sister being served to sit in her chair. After the sisters told Diane what service they wanted, Stacy made a comment in English to Diane that she was not competent to do the service. Apparently, one or both of the sisters understood Stacy's comment. The sister receiving the service became upset, stating, in Spanish, that she did not want Diane to do her hair. At that point, Petitioner intervened. Speaking in Spanish to the sisters, Petitioner assured them that Diane was competent to perform the service and that Stacy had made a childish comment. The incident grew worse when Petitioner overhead Courtney complaining to the "clique" about Petitioner’s speaking Spanish to Diane's customers. Petitioner also understood that members of the "clique" were being critical of her and the sisters. As the "clique" talked among themselves, the sisters became even more upset. Apparently the sisters and Petitioner believed that the other stylists were making fun of the sisters and Spanish-speaking people in general. Eventually, Petitioner called Ms. Souza, who was on vacation. Courtney also spoke to Ms. Souza. Courtney yelled that Petitioner should be fired, that she was a troublemaker, that she should not be speaking Spanish, and that she had caused the whole problem. Ms. Souza talked to the sisters on the phone. She made arrangements to compensate them for the incident. Ms. Souza later talked to Petitioner, asking whether she had caused the problem. Petitioner responded that the "clique" was jealous of her and were discriminating against her because she spoke Spanish. After the incident with the sisters, personality conflicts developed between the "clique" and Petitioner. They could not get along and did not trust each other. When Petitioner began working at Town Center, the salon had an honor system in place to determine which stylist would get the next walk-in client. Petitioner took advantage of the honor system by taking clients out-of-turn. Ms. Souza then instituted a walk-in list that the stylists signed when they came to work. As they took clients, they were supposed to scratch their name off the top of the list and write it at the bottom. Petitioner also took advantage of the walk-in list by not scratching her name off the top of the list after taking a client. The other stylists would then scratch off Petitioner's name or white it out and write it at the bottom. When this happened, Petitioner and the other stylists would bicker with each other. Petitioner never admitted she had done anything wrong and always complained that the other stylists were picking on her. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the "clique" resented Petitioner’s speaking Spanish to her clients when it was not necessary because they assumed that Petitioner was talking about them. There is no persuasive evidence that the "clique" resented Petitioner’s speaking Spanish because she was from Argentina of Hispanic origin. To the contrary, a member of the "clique" occasionally requested Petitioner's assistance in communicating with a Spanish-speaking client. The evidence also shows that Petitioner was very aggressive in soliciting clients and selling retail products. Her list of clients that would request her services grew quickly. She often had the highest sales per week and/or month of retail products. The members of the "clique" may have been jealous of Petitioner's rapid success but they also resented the methods she used to increase her commissions as set forth in Ms. Souza's testimony and the documentation memorializing her counseling and coaching conversations with Petitioner. On August 6, 2008, Ms. Souza had a conversation with Petitioner outside the salon. During the conversation, Ms. Souza informed Petitioner that she was creating an environment in the salon that was uncomfortable to stylists and others in the following ways: (a) arguing with Jasmine about a client; (b) bickering on the floor; and (c) intervening with Stacy's recommendations to a client by making derogatory remarks about the quality of Stacy's work. At the conclusion of this conversation, Petitioner agreed to stop that kind of behavior. On August 8, 2008, Ms. Souza had a conversation with Petitioner regarding the two technical complaints. First, a client was unhappy with an "updo" done by Petitioner. Additionally, Petitioner tried to charge the client $40 for the service after Monica had quoted the client a $25 price. Ms. Souza had to redo the hair style and charged the client $25. Second, a client came in with a very uneven hair cut. Petitioner refused to cut the client's hair the way she wanted it because it would, in Petitioner's opinion, look bad. On September 6, 2009, Ms. Souza wrote a letter to Stephanie Melstein, Respondent's district leader. The letter reviews the problems Ms. Souza was having with Petitioner as follows: (a) taking clients out-of-turn, then getting defensive when confronted by another stylist; (b) leaving the salon without cleaning up at closing; (c) not crossing her name off the walk-in list so that she remains at the top of the list; (d) talking to clients sitting in another stylist's chair, frequently saying things contrary to what the stylist and client have discussed; (e) walking to the front of the salon and striking up a conversation with a walk-in client, then putting the client's name in the computer as a "request" for herself, even though the client did not care who performed the service; (f) making derogatory comments about people's sexual orientation and/or religion; (g) walking away and pretending to be busy when presented with an ethnic client that she does not want to serve; and (h) claiming that the whole salon is out to get her because of jealousy. In the September 6, 2008, letter, Ms. Souza requested that Ms. Melstein let her know how much information is needed to terminate a person without repercussion to Ratner Companies. Ms. Souza did not want to be seen as a weak salon leader, but she also did not want to have the salon involved in a lawsuit by a disgruntled employee. On September 12, 2008, Ms. Souza gave Petitioner a verbal warning regarding the following: (a) not taking clients in order according to the walk-in policy by skipping over other names; (b) interfering with other stylists; and (c) leaving early without management approval. Ms. Souza advised Petitioner that her actions were creating an uncomfortable environment for clients and co-workers. Ms. Souza also stated that any future violations in these same areas will result in termination. Petitioner hand delivered a letter dated September 16, 2008, to Ms. Souza and Ms. Melstein at a monthly salon meeting. According to the letter, Petitioner had been picked on by the "clique" since her first week at work. In the September 16, 2008, letter, Petitioner's complaints included, but were not limited to, the following: (a) someone was scratching out Natalie's and Petitioner's names on the walk-in list when they had a request customer as if they had taken a walk-in client; (b) someone was telling Natalie's and Petitioner's request customers that they were scheduled to work on days they were off; (c) Ms. Souza warned Petitioner about Lynn and Melissa and advised Petitioner not to speak Spanish because the stylists would think Ms. Souza was favoring Petitioner; (d) Ms. Souza talked about some of the stylists behind their backs; (e) Michael Ann left work early one day without permission; (f) Monica was 45 minutes late one day, leaving a client waiting for her; (g) Lynn was 35 minutes late with no repercussions; (h) Michael Ann left the salon for an hour without clocking out, leaving a client waiting that Lynn had to service; (i) Lynn leaves the salon for coffee without clocking out; (j) the smokers take more breaks than non-smokers; (k) the "clique" discriminated against the two Spanish sisters and Petitioner; (l) Lynn falsely accused Petitioner of being a thief for hiding Lynn's lunch; (m) the "clique" members go to lunch then expect someone to check in the clients and have them wait until the "clique" members return; (n) Ms. Souza feels that Petitioner has a chip on her shoulder; (o) Petitioner cannot speak Spanish with her Spanish-speaking clients because the "clique" finds it offensive; (p) Monica refused to give Petitioner her paycheck, placing it on a high shelf; (q) Francesca falsely stated that Petitioner had four complaints on redo haircuts; (r) Lynn and the "clique" mistreated a person in training at the salon; (s) someone put a bag of bleach on Petitioner's lunch; (t) the "clique" is jealous that Petitioner has so many requests in such a short time; (u) someone erased some of Petitioner's chemical service appointments and put them under the name of other hairstylists; (v) someone scratched over Petitioner's initials on the chore list and placed another name there as if Petitioner did not do her chore, then told Ms. Souza that Petitioner left early without doing her chore; (w) Michael Ann wanted to smoke so she gave her walk-in to Jessica even though Petitioner was next in line; (x) Michael Ann leaves work early when Monica is on duty as assistant salon leader with no repercussion; (y) Stacy refused to cut the hair of a child on the walk-in list, asking Petitioner to cut the child's hair instead; and (z) the "clique" members get together to gossip about Petitioner getting a written warning report. After receiving the September 16, 2008, letter from Petitioner, Ms. Melstein went to the Town Center to investigate Petitioner's allegations. Ms. Melstein spoke to the Town Center staff, including Petitioner and Ms. Souza. Ms. Melstein reminded Petitioner and Ms. Souza that Respondent did not have a policy prohibiting speaking a foreign language in a salon. Ms. Melstein also reminded them that Respondent did have a policy prohibiting any conduct that created an uncomfortable environment for clients and staff. Finally, Ms. Melstein made it clear that if a stylist needed to speak a foreign language to make a client feel comfortable, the stylists certainly could do so. During her investigation, Ms. Melstein had conversation with all of the staff regarding the allegations in Petitioner's September 16, 2008, letter. Ms. Melstein concluded that there were personality conflicts among the stylists but that no one was being discriminated against. On or about October 1, 2008, Ms. Souza had a conversation with Petitioner regarding her failure to attend a mandatory salon meeting. Ms. Souza also instructed Petitioner to stop soliciting clients for a mortgage business by getting and/or giving out cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses and by giving mortgage company business cards to the clients. On October 18, 2008, Ms. Souza counseled Petitioner about taking clients out of turn. She also advised Petitioner about the importance of placing the names of clients in the computer. On or about November 3, 2008, Petitioner improperly charged a client for a foil service. At that time, the stylists were supposed to charge $3 per foil up to six foils and $45 for a partial foil of seven to twelve foils. Petitioner charged the client $3 per foil for eight foils, thereby undercharging the client $21. This is a terminable offense under Respondent's Fair and Equal Treatment Policy. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner did not have permission to charge the client $3 per foil for eight foils. On November 5, 2008, Ms. Sousa terminated Petitioner's employment at Town Center. According to the conference report form, Petitioner was terminated for the following reasons: (a) knowingly failing to charge clients properly by under- ringing sales and quoting incorrect prices; (b) creating an uncomfortable environment for clients and staff; (c) mistreating other associates by selling products to clients while other stylists are servicing those clients; (d) discrediting stylists with derogatory comments statement to clients; and (e) trying to coax clients into her chair while the clients were waiting for another stylist. The transaction detail report confirms that on November 3, 2008, Petitioner improperly charged for a foil service. Additionally, the transaction detail report reflects twelve instances of improper charging (over-ringing and/or under-ringing) by Petitioner prior to November 3, 2008. After being terminated, Petitioner complained to Naté Venkatesen, the human resources director for Ratner Companies. Petitioner stated that other associates in the salon also were improperly charging clients. As a result, Respondent performed an investigation and subsequently initiated coaching and counseling for all associates at the salon. There is no evidence that the stylists involved in the coaching had the same type of disciplinary history or problems following policies as Petitioner. In a letter dated December 5, 2008, Ms. Venkatesan agreed to reinstate Petitioner to her original position at full pay. Ms. Venkatesan also told Petitioner she would receive full back-pay from November 5, 2008, until December 12, 2008. According to the letter, Petitioner would be entitled to all benefits, including the company-paid trip to Cancun in May 2009. Finally, the letter stated that Petitioner needed to respond to the letter by December 12, 2008, or Respondent would assume she was not interested in returning to work. Petitioner declined to accept Petitioner's offer of reinstatement. She did not want to start all over in building her clientele and sales at another salon. Respondent never told Petitioner she could not return to Town Center. However, Ms. Venkatesan told Petitioner she did not think it would be a good idea for Petitioner to return to Town Center. After she was terminated, Petitioner looked for work for about three and a half weeks before finding a job at the Paradise Day Spa. Petitioner worked at the Paradise Day Spa for eight months until September 2009, when that company went out of business. A short time later, Petitioner found a job in a barber shop where she continued to work at the time of the hearing. When Petitioner worked for Respondent, she accrued a week's paid vacation after working for one year. She earned an average of $400 per week in commissions from services and an additional $300 per week in tips and retail sales. Up through the date of termination, Petitioner earned $18,763.07 gross pay and $15,312 net pay from Respondent. Petitioner earned $959.64 in 2008, working for the Paradise Day Spa. She earned approximately $129 per week at the Paradise Day Spa. Petitioner earns approximately $200 per week at the barber shop. Her earnings there are based on a 50 percent commission for each service she performs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Glasser, Esquire Glasser & Handel 116 Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Bradley J. Hansen, Esquire Ratner Companies, LC 1577 Spring Hill Road, Suite 500 Vienna, Virginia 22182 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the licenses of A Dazzles Hair Designers and Noris Quintana (Respondents) based upon violations of Sections 477.029(1)(a) and (h), and 477.0265(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondents in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Nicholas Montano has been the owner and operator of a cosmetology salon named A Dazzles Hair Designers located at 7317 Miami Lakes Drive, Miami Lakes, Florida, which has been issued license number CE-0041059. Noris Quintana has been employed, at all times material hereto, at A Dazzles Hair Designers. She is not licensed as a cosmetologist in the State of Florida, but has been issued specialty license number FV-0510891 under the provisions of Section 477.013(6)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the holder thereof to perform manicures and pedicures, but not facial services as described in Section 477.013(6)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondents do not dispute this limitation on Quintana's specialty license. The Department is the state agency with responsibility to file and prosecute administrative complaints alleging violations of Chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes, in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. There is no evidence in the record of any prior license disciplinary action involving Respondents. On or about September 22, 1989, the Department's investigator, Richard J. Braun, conducted an inspection of A Dazzles Hair Designers and observed Noris Quintana, an employee at A Dazzles Hair Designers, remove wax or some other facial compound from a customer's face. Nicholas Montano and Noris Quintana admitted that Quintana did remove wax from the customer's face on the day when Braun conducted his inspection. Therefore, it is clear that Quintana was performing facial services for this client. Subsequent to the facts involved in this case, all facial chairs have been removed from A Dazzles Hair Designers, and wax facials are no longer performed at this salon. On or about July 28, 1990, an inspection of the salon was conducted by another inspector of the Department, and at that time it was found that all cosmetologists and specialists were properly and currently licensed for the activities in which they were engaged.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine of $200 on the Respondent A Dazzles Hair Designers, and an administrative fine of $125 on Noris Quintana. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of February 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mone', Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Nicholas Montano A Dazzles Hair Designers 7317 Miami Lakes Drive Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Noris Quintana 7060 West 2nd Lane Hialeah, FL 33014-5314 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the alleged violations occurred and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Great Expectations Precision Haircutters, is a cosmetology salon located in Melbourne, Florida. Its owner, Twin Towers Hair Stylists, Inc. is a New York corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Sharon Bross manages the salon and is the corporate owner's resident agent in Florida. The amended administrative complaint in this proceeding was served, by certified mail, on Sharon Bross. In August 1987, Sara Kimmig, an inspector for various boards within the Department of Professional Regulation, visited the Respondent salon in Melbourne. She found the salon open and conducting business, with three persons in the waiting area and four operators engaged in performing services. She found that the salon's license number CE 0038872 expired in October 1986. The salon opened for business in April 1986. All licenses expire on October 31st of even-numbered years, therefore the license expired shortly after it was obtained. Ms. Bross was informed of the violation and she immediately applied for and obtained a renewal license. At the hearing, Ms. Bross conceded that the license had expired, but that she had not received a renewal notice and the expiration was an oversight. The license on its face, however, indicates the October 31, 1986, expiration date. There was no evidence of past or other concurrent violations by this salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of the violations, as charged, and fined $500.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Sharon Bross, Resident Agent Twin Towers Hair Stylists, Inc. Great Expectations Precision Haircutters 1525 West New Haven West Melbourne, Florida 32904 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
