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 Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.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 Based on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, the following facts are found. In 1980 Ruth Sinclair became interested in hair braiding and hair sculpture while she was studying the history of African art at the University of Miami. Since her initial interest in hair braiding and hair sculpture, Ruth Sinclair has made extensive efforts to study the subject and to learn and improve her skills in hair braiding and hair sculpture. Shortly after her initial interest in hair braiding and hair sculpture, Ruth Sinclair began practicing hair braiding and hair sculpture in Florida and she has continued to do so more or less continuously ever since then. Ruth Sinclair is predominantly self-taught in the field of hair braiding or hair sculpture, but she also obtained some training from others by going to California and Africa. The practice of hair braiding and hair sculpture originated in the Nok region on the west coast of Africa around 200-300 B.C. As used in Africa since that time, particular types of sculptured or braided hairstyles have served to identify the wearer's tribe or status in society. However, despite centuries of such hair braiding practices by African Blacks, the practice was virtually lost among Blacks who were brought to the United States as slaves. As practiced by Ruth Sinclair, hair braiding or hair sculpture consists of two basic categories or types of hair styles. These are the traditional styles and the contemporary styles. The traditional styles are patterned after styles that were used in the past in Africa and consist of hair braids that follow the same pattern as some forms of weaving. Sinclair ordinarily spends approximately 35 to 40 hours to produce a traditional style hair sculpture, and in more than ten percent of the cases in which Sinclair produces a traditional style hair sculpture, Sinclair charges a fee. The contemporary style involves the use of the same techniques as the traditional style but also involves the use of contemporary materials produced by modern technology such as synthetic or human hair and commercially-made ornaments or beads. In producing a contemporary style hair sculpture, Sinclair ordinarily spends approximately 8 to 20 hours, and she normally charges a fee. As practiced by Ruth Sinclair, hair sculpturing, whether of the traditional or the contemporary style, is produced primarily by hair braiding. The hair braiding is done by hand, by intertwining strands of hair. No tools are used other than a long, tapered instrument for lifting up strands of hair. The person's hair is not treated with any type of chemicals, nor is it cut or shampooed (although Sinclair requests that her patrons wash their hair before receiving any services), and Sinclair washes her hands in soap and water before, during, and after performing her services. The braided or sculptured hairstyles are normally worn for approximately 3 to 6 months. Nearly ninety percent of Sinclair's patrons were Black women. During the period from 1982 until sometime in 1984, Ruth Sinclair leased a storefront at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and there she conducted a business of performing hair braiding or hair sculpture. The name of the business was Uzuri Braid Shop, and the business had about twenty paying customers per week. At the Uzuri Braid Shop at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida, Ruth Sinclair employed Respondent Picala Simsa, and also Angela Powell or Powers as assistants. Picala Sims was employed as an assistant there from 1982 until 1984, and Powell or Powers from 1983 until 1984. Both were hired by Ruth Sinclair, and Ruth Sinclair paid them both a salary. Their duties were basically the same: to assist Ruth Sinclair in braiding and beading patrons' hair. On August 2, 1983, Joyce Sager, an inspector employed by the Petitioner, conducted an inspection of the Uzuri Braid Shop at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida. On that occasion, Picala Sims and Angela Powell or Powers were present and were performing hair braiding services for customers of the business. Ruth Sinclair was not present at the time, but Sager spoke with Ruth Sinclair on the telephone that day, and in the course of their conversation, Ruth Sinclair acknowledged to Inspector Sager that she was the owner of the business and that she was the employer of Picala Sims and Powell or Powers. During the period from November 1983 until November 1984, Ruth Sinclair leased space in an indoor flea market at 18200 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and there she conducted a business of performing hair braiding or hair sculpture. The name of the business was Uzuri Braid Shop, and the business had about 15 paying customers per week. On June 9, 1984, Dorsey Hayes, an inspector employed by the Petitioner, went to the Uzuri Braid Shop at 18200 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and spoke with Ruth Sinclair. During the course of the conversation, Ruth Sinclair acknowledged being the owner of the business and that she had been performing braided hairstyles there. None of the following people have ever been licensed to practice cosmetology or barbering in the State of Florida: Ruth Sinclair, Picala Sims, Angela Powell, or Angela Powers. Neither the Uzuri Braid Shop at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida, nor the Uzuri Braid Shop located at 18200 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, has ever been licensed to operate as a cosmetology salon or as a barber shop. There are certain conditions under which it would be inappropriate to give a person a braided hairstyle, even though the person wanted one. These conditions include the presence of a contagious scalp disease, abrasions of the scalp, hair that is not clean, or chemically treated hair that is very dry or damaged. The recognition of these conditions is a regular part of the curriculum currently being taught in schools of cosmetology in Florida, and someone not having received such training would be less likely to recognize them, which could lead to hair breakage or to the spread of contagious scalp diseases or parasites if a hair braiding service were performed when such conditions were present. The teaching of hair braiding has been a regular part of the curriculum of Florida schools of cosmetology at least since 1975.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order adopting the foregoing findings and conclusions and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1, 500.00 against Ruth Sinclair and an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 against Picala Sims. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Graham Williams, Esq. 18583 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Secret de Femme d/b/a Secret de Femme Hair Sculpture, operates a cosmetology salon at 65 Northwest 54th Street, Miami, Florida. It is the holder of cosmetology salon license number 0040317 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology (Board). Respondent, Gaston Eugene, does not hold any licenses issued by the Board. On or about November 5, 1987, a Board investigator, Frank Hautzinger, made a routine inspection of respondent's salon. 1/ When he entered the premises, he found a few persons in the salon, including one seated in a barber's chair. According to Hautzinger, respondent, Gaston Eugene, was "finishing up" the person seated in the chair. By this, Hautzinger meant that Eugene was brushing around the person's neck and collar as if he had just given that person a haircut. However, he did not actually see Eugene cutting hair, and Eugene received no compensation for his "services." Because Eugene speaks little or no English, Hautzinger was unable to carry on a meaningful dialogue with Eugene. He did learn that Eugene did not have a cosmetology license. A short time later, one of the owners, Amantha Jean-Joseph, returned to the salon. When questioned by Hautzinger about Eugene, she described Eugene as a temporary employee obtained through a local employment service. However, at hearing she denied making this statement. Both owners emphatically denied that Eugene was authorized to cut hair. Instead, they described his role as being limited to cleaning up the working area, cleaning barber tools, and opening and closing the shop. According to Amantha, on the day that Hautzinger visited the shop, Eugene had simply agreed to cut a nose hair of a friend and nothing more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges be DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of April, 1988.
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon without a certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against licensee, Virginia Jarnecke, who holds License No. Salon 24158, on the 31st of May, 1977, alleging that she did operate a cosmetology salon without a valid certificate of registration after having been warned and supplied with the proper form in July of 1976 at the La Petite Coiffures in Daytona Beach, Florida. The Respondent filed an Answer on the 24th day of June, 1977, entering a plea of not guilty to the Administrative Complaint. The inspector for the board inspected the Respondent shop in July of 1976 and found that there had been a change in ownership of the salon. She informed the Respondent new owner that the salon registration was nontransferable and that a new registration would have to be applied for and obtained. At that time she left a form designated BC-7 for use of the Respondent. On September 24, 1976 no license had been obtained and a violation of notice was written by the inspector. A license was obtained thereafter in November of 1976. The owner of the shop, Respondent Virginia Jarnecke, had waited to send in her application for registration of said shop until one of the employees obtained a license as master cosmetologist. She did not obtain a registration for the salon until November of 1976 although an application form had been' left by the Petitioner, State Board of Cosmetology, to change the registration from the former owner in July of 1976.
Recommendation Write a letter of reprimand to Respondent for the reason that there was unnecessary delay between the time the Respondent bought subject beauty salon and the time in which application for registration of the salon. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. David McFadden, Esquire 100 Seabreeze Boulevard, Suite 210 Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex (Salon), a cosmetology salon located at 1442 Northeast 163rd Street in North Miami Beach, Florida. The Salon was first licensed by the Department on December 19, 1990. Respondent has never been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Her application for licensure is currently pending. Charles E. Frear is an inspector with the Department. On May 16, 1990, Frear went to 1442 Northeast 163rd Street with the intention of inspecting a licensed cosmetology salon operating under the name "Hair to Hair." When he arrived at the address, Frear noticed that the sign outside the establishment reflected that Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex now occupied the premises. The Salon was open for business. Upon entering the Salon, Frear observed Respondent removing curlers from the hair of a customer who was seated in one of the chairs. 1/ Frear asked Respondent to show him her license to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent responded that she did not have such a license yet, but that she was scheduled to take the cosmetology licensure examination later that month. After learning from Respondent that she was the owner of the Salon, Frear asked to see the Salon's license. Respondent thereupon advised Frear that the Salon had not been licensed by the Department. Although she told Frear otherwise, Respondent was aware at the time that a Department-issued cosmetology salon license was required to operate the Salon. Frear gave Respondent an application form to fill out to obtain such a salon license. Respondent subsequently filled out the application form and submitted the completed form to the Department. Thereafter, she received License No. CE 0053509 from the Department to operate the Salon.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violations of law alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 for having committed these violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of April, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in the practice of cosmetology without a license, a legally prohibited act which, if performed, would warrant the imposition of sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Reyna I. Guzman ("Guzman") is an individual who, at all relevant times, was employed as a cashier or administrative assistant at Koko Cuts Hair and Color Salon ("Koko Cuts") in Miami, Florida. Although Koko Cuts is a Florida-licensed salon, Guzman herself is not licensed in Florida as a cosmetologist. On February 2, 2006, two investigators of Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department") entered Koko Cuts to perform an inspection. They observed Guzman "working on" a woman's hair. The woman was sitting in a stylist's chair and appeared to be a regular customer. In fact, however, the "customer" was Guzman's sister. Guzman's boss had granted Guzman permission to color her sister's hair, using the chemicals and supplies on hand at the salon. Guzman was performing this service for her sister for free. Guzman testified credibly, and the undersigned finds, that Guzman was not paid any money for coloring her sister's hair. There was, moreover, neither clear and convincing, nor even merely persuasive, evidence that Guzman received any other service or thing of value in consideration for the work that she performed on her sister's hair. Based on the instant record, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Guzman received no "compensation"— —as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G5-18.00015——in exchange for performing the service of coloring her sister's hair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order acquitting Guzman of the charges that the Department brought against her in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2006 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Reyna I. Guzman 2257 Southwest 3 Street Miami, Florida 33135 Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0790 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
