The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for allowing students to work in his salon prior to the issuance of a work permit.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977 charging: "That you, said Anthony LaRoche on March 15, 1977 did allow students to work in your salon prior to the issuance of work per- mits Anthony's, Jacksonville, Florida." Anthony LaRoche, Respondent, was the owner of several businesses and has managers to operate his beauty salons. A young man was hired to work in the Respondent's beauty salon to report to work at a subsequent time when the school attended by the cosmetologist would have sufficient time to send his credentials to the office of the State Board and for him to receive his work permit from the State Board. The cosmetologist reported for work and began working and was working at the time of the inspection on March 15, 1977 and had not yet received his work permit although he had previously applied for it. Upon learning of the inspection and the violation, the Respondent immediately sent for the credentials but the work permit was not received for 22 days thereafter. After the Respondent learned that the cosmetologist did not hear from it he ceased doing the work of a cosmetologist until his work permit was received.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for failing to ascertain whether an employee was duly certified to work in the salon owned by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1971, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Haggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Anthony LaRoche, President Anthony LaRoche, Inc. 5566 Ft. Caroline Road Jacksonville, Florida 32211
Findings Of Fact Toni M. Farmer, presently holds an active cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, License No. CL0062662, for the period July 19, 1982, through June 30, 1984. Between May 6, 1980, and July 6, 1981, Farmer worked as a cosmetologist in a salon operated by Shear Pleasure, Inc., in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Shear Pleasure, Inc., is the holder of License No. CE0027634. Beginning July 13, 1981, to the present, farmer has worked as a cosmetologist in the salon, Josef and Charles, Inc., d/b/a Josef and Charles Styling Salon, License No. CE0022674, located in Orange Park, Florida. When Farmer began her employment with Shear Pleasure she had a current and valid cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, which license expired June 30, 1980. Around August 18, 1980, Farmer forwarded a cashier's check made payable to the Board of Cosmetology for purposes of renewing her delinquent cosmetology license. Subsequent to the action on the part of Farmer and in the course of a routine inspection, Jewel Walker, an inspector for Petitioner, noted the fact of expiration of Farmer's license. This took place in 1980. When told that Petitioner had not responded to the renewal request, Walker instructed Farmer to post the indicia of payment of fees, i.e., a copy of the cashier's check of August, 1980, at Farmer's work station in the interim and to check the post office for any return of that cashier's check, due to the fact that Farmer had changed her mailing address following the transmittal of the cashier's check. Farmer made other contacts with the Tallahassee, Florida, office of Petitioner to determine the status of her renewal in 1980. In the beginning of 1981, Farmer spoke with Walker about the renewal, having failed to receive any notification confirming license renewal. (In the course of these matters, Walker had indicated certain logistical problems that were taking place, reference license renewal for cosmetologists.) The owner of Shear Pleasure, Inc., Fontaine LeMaistre, was aware of the efforts on the part of Farmer to obtain license renewal and allowed her to continue as an employee during her tenure. When Farmer took a position with Josef and Charles, her employer was made aware of the fact that she did not have the license document and the employer was made aware of the efforts which Farmer had made to obtain the license. On August 11, 1981, Farmer requested the Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville, which had issued the August 18, 1980, cashier's check to stop payment on that check, based upon the fact that the payee, Petitioner, had not cashed the check. This request was honored and on August 13, 1981, a cashier's check was issued to Toni M. Farmer in the like amount of thirty-five dollars ($35.00), which check was subsequently cashed by Farmer. On May 12, 1982, Charles Coats, an investigator with Petitioner, made an inspection of the Orange Park business of Josef and Charles and discovered that Farmer was without a license. At that time, a copy of the original thirty- five dollar ($35.00) check written to the Board of Cosmetology was shown to Coats. Farmer related the circumstances involving efforts which she had made to obtain the license. Following this conversation, and specifically in June, 1982, Farmer maid the necessary fees and offered required credentials which allowed her license to be renewed, effective July 19, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the facts found, conclusions of law reached and being otherwise informed, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered authorizing the issuance of a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 29th day of December, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Toni M. Farmer, presently holds an active cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, License No. CL0062662, for the period July 19, 1982, through June 30, 1984. Between May 6, 1980, and July 6, 1981, Farmer worked as a cosmetologist in a salon operated by Shear Pleasure, Inc., in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Shear Pleasure, Inc., is the holder of License No. CE0027634. Beginning July 13, 1981, to the present, Farmer has worked as a cosmetologist in the salon, Josef and Charles, Inc., d/b/a Josef and Charles Styling Salon, License No. CE0022674, located in Orange Park, Florida. When Farmer began her employment with Shear Pleasure she had a current and valid cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, which license expired June 30, 1980. Around August 18, 1980, Farmer forwarded a cashier's check made payable to the Board of Cosmetology for purposes of renewing her delinquent cosmetology license. Subsequent to the action on the part of Farmer and in the course of a routine inspection, Jewel Walker, an inspector for Petitioner, noted the fact of expiration of Farmer's license. This took place in 1980. When told that Petitioner had not responded to the renewal request, Walker instructed Farmer to post the indicia of payment of fees, i.e., a copy of the cashier's check of August, 1980, at Farmer's work station in the interim and to check the post office for any return of that cashier's check, due to the fact that Farmer had changed her mailing address following the transmittal of the cashier's check. Farmer made other contacts with the Tallahassee, Florida, office of Petitioner to determine the status of her renewal in 1980. In the beginning of 1981, Farmer spoke with Walker about the renewal, having failed to receive any notification confirming license renewal. (In the course of these matters, Walker had indicated certain logistical problems that were taking place, reference license renewal for cosmetologists.) The owner of Shear Pleasure, Inc., Fontaine LeMaistre, was aware of the efforts on the part of Farmer to obtain license renewal and allowed her to continue as an employee during her tenure. When Farmer took a position with Josef and Charles, her employer was made aware of the fact that she did not have the license document and the employer was made aware of the efforts which Farmer had made to obtain the license. On August 11, 1981, Farmer requested the Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville, which had issued the August 18, 1980, cashier's check to stop payment on that check, based upon the fact that the payee, Petitioner, had not cashed the check. This request was honored and on August 13, 1981, a cashier's check was issued to Toni M. Farmer in the like amount of thirty-five dollars ($35.00), which check was subsequently cashed by Farmer. On May 12, 1982, Charles Coats, an investigator with Petitioner, made an inspection of the Orange Park business of Josef and Charles and discovered that Farmer was without a license. At that time, a copy of the original thirty- five dollar ($35.00) check written to the Board of Cosmetology was shown to Coats. Farmer related the circumstances involving efforts which she had made to obtain the license. Following this conversation, and specifically in June, 1982, Farmer maid the necessary fees and offered required credentials which allowed her license to be renewed, effective July 19, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the facts found, conclusions of law reached and being otherwise informed, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which suspends the license of Respondent for a period of fifteen (15) days based upon the violation found in Count I and dismisses Count II. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 29th day of December, 1982.
Findings Of Fact A copy of the Administrative Complaint with an attachment of Ms. Rolling's Salon License No. 10810 and receipt of certified mail was entered into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1 without objection. Ms. Rolling's Election of Remedies form was entered into evidence and marked Exhibit 2 without objection. The Respondent holds License No. 10810. Respondent admitted that she did allow two (2) cosmetologists to work in her salon while she was absent. Respondent is a master cosmetologist who ordinarily works in the salon which she supervises and manages. The Respondent, Frances Rolling, has been in ill health and did leave the salon to visit a doctor's office and during the time she allowed cosmetologists to work without the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact A complaint and Notice of Hearing to show cause was issued against Respondent, Mary Jorge, and a copy of notice of violation was served upon her citing her for operating a cosmetology salon without direct supervision and mangement of a master cosmetologist. The complaint was dated May 24, 1974. The Respondent was renoticed to appear at the subject hearing inasmuch as she failed to appear or moved for a continuance at the original hearing date The Respondant testified and presented witnesses to show that although there was no master cosmetologist in the shop at the time of the inspect ion by the Petitioner there was no work being done in the shop during the time the master cosmetologist was out of the shop at the lunch period. There is insufficient evidence to show that the Respondent was performing the business of cosmetology at the time that the violation notice was written.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. 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 Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mary Jorge 7742 W. Hillsborough Tampa, Florida 33615
The Issue The issue in this case is whether any disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent for alleged non-compliance with the graduate exemption provision of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and the Rules pertaining to graduates of cosmetology schools as contained in Chapter 61G5, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Miriam Viera, is of Hispanic origin. Her native language is Spanish. Ms. Viera and her children are the recipients of welfare in Escambia County. Specifically, Ms. Viera and her family receive money from Aid to Family with Dependent Children and food stamps. She has always wanted to be a cosmetologist and in 1994 was able to pursue her goal of becoming a licensed cosmetologist and also attempted to get off welfare. In order to become a licensed cosmetologist Ms. Viera was required to, (1) be 16 years of age, (2) graduate from an approved school of cosmetology, (3) have completed 1200 hours of training in cosmetology, (4) complete an application for licensure thereby applying to the Board of Cosmetology to sit for the cosmetology exam and, (5) pay the required licensure and examination fees. The application to the Board of Cosmetology required that Ms. Viera's 1200 hours of training be certified by the school where she took her training and that a certificate of completion of an approved HIV/AIDS training course accompany the application. Failure to meet any one of these requirements would cause Ms. Viera to be ineligible to take the cosmetology examination, as well as ineligible for licensure. On January 29, 1994, Respondent graduated from RTI Technical Institute in Pensacola by completing 1200 hours of training in cosmetology. RTI is a State approved cosmetology school. However, RTI does not offer an HIV awareness course. The course was offered at one of the local Pensacola hospitals. After graduation Respondent decided to take approximately two weeks off. On February 17, 1994, Respondent completed her training for HIV/AIDS awareness. During this time period, Respondent had also picked up an application to take the cosmetology examination and licensure from RTI. The form the school supplied to Ms. Viera did not contain the cover letter/instruction sheet for the application. As a consequence Ms. Viera was told that the application fee would be $75.00. On February 17, 1994, Respondent secured a $75.00 money order and presented a completed application to the office of Larry Bryant, the president of RTI Cosmetology School. The application was left with Mr. Bryant so that he could certify to the Board of Cosmetology, on behalf of RTI that Ms. Viera had completed 1200 hours of cosmetology training at the school. After Mr. Bryant completed the school's part of the application, he was to send the application and the money order on to the Board of Cosmetology. Respondent indicated on her application that she wanted to take the examination in Spanish. Such a request is authorized by the Board. There was no evidence that this request was fraudulent. The fee to take the examination in Spanish was an additional of $30.00. However, Respondent was unaware of the requirement for additional money because she had not received the applications's cover letter/instruction sheet with her application. Until Respondent paid the additional $30.00 she was not eligible to take the cosmetology examination. Likewise, the cosmetology examination was not available to Ms. Viera until the additional $30.00 application fee was paid. For unknown reasons over which Ms. Viera had no control, Mr. Bryant did not complete the school's part of the application until about March 2, 1994. Consequently, Ms. Viera's application was not mailed to the Board of Cosmetology until March 2, 1994. Ms. Viera had assumed that Mr. Bryant had completed and mailed her application within a couple days of her leaving it with him. She was unaware that Mr. Bryant had not done so. Again, Ms. Viera was not eligible to take the cosmetology examination until the certification from the school was accomplished and the application received by the Board. Likewise the cosmetology examination was not available to her until the application was completed by the school and received by the Board. In the meantime, around March 1, 1994, Respondent had begun practicing cosmetology at Lee's Family Affair Studio in Pensacola, Florida. Ms. Viera had been referred to the salon by the school. Ms. Viera needed to work because, being on welfare her funds were extremely short and she had to make up the money she had used to pay the $75.00 application fee. Normally, applicants who have met all the requirements for taking the cosmetology examination are admitted to take the examination scheduled approximately 10 to 15 days after the Board of Cosmetology has received and reviewed the application. The application of Respondent was received by the office of the Cosmetology Board on March 9, 1994. Based upon this date, the next examination was offered on April 21, 1994 had the entire examination fee of $105.00 been paid. Except for the fee, Respondent's application was complete in all respects as required by Rule 61G5-18.002, Florida Administrative Code. The Board sent a letter to Respondent dated March 15, 1994, advising her that her application was not complete because she did not pay the additional $30.00 fee for the Spanish version of the cosmetology examination and that she was not eligible to sit for any examination until the fee had been paid. The letter was received by Respondent around April 6, 1994. The Board's deficiency letter was the first indication Respondent had that she owed the Board more money and that she was not eligible for the examination scheduled for April 21, 1994 and that the examination was not available to the Respondent. Lutrel Raboteaux, an inspector for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, conducted a routine inspection of Lee's Family Affair Studio, on April 6, 1994. During the course of the inspection, the salon was open to the public, employees were present, and cosmetology services were being performed on customers. Inspector Raboteaux discovered that the Respondent was an employee of the salon, and asked the salon owner to see her license. Respondent was not initially at the salon when Mr. Raboteaux began his inspection. She arrived shortly thereafter. Respondent admitted to Inspector Raboteaux that she was employed by the salon, had been working there since around the first week of March and had charged about $20.00 for a haircut. Respondent further admitted that she had sent in her application to sit for the next available examination sometime in early March, 1994, but did not have a license. Mr. Raboteaux conferred with the manager of the salon, Daniel Lee, as to the location of Respondent's license, if any. Mr. Lee informed Inspector Raboteaux that Respondent was working under the graduate exemption from cosmetology licensure. Mr. Raboteaux asked to see documentation which would prove that the Respondent was a cosmetology school graduate i.e., the application for licensure, copy of the money order or check to pay for the exam, and a copy of the receipt indicating payment that the Board of Cosmetology sends to the graduate. No documents were posted at Respondent's workstation nor were any documents produced for Inspector Raboteaux. Inspector Raboteaux completed his inspection of the salon, and noted on the salon's inspection report that Respondent's graduate exemption was subject to further investigation. Later, Inspector Raboteaux contacted the Board of Cosmetology in Tallahassee and spoke with Ms. Stacy Merchant, and employee of the Board whose duties for the Board include processing and determining eligibility of cosmetology school graduates to sit for the cosmetology exam. Ms. Merchant informed Inspector Raboteaux that the Respondent was not eligible for the graduate exemption. Ms. Merchant based her conclusion on her understanding of Chapter 477 and the Rules promulgated thereunder. Based on Ms. Merchant's representation, Inspector Raboteaux completed a Uniform Citation and served it on the Respondent by United States Mail -- Restricted Delivery. The Uniform Citation served on the Respondent indicated she was charged with practicing without a license for which the Board's fine was $500.00. Because Ms. Viera was a welfare recipient she did not have the money to pay the additional $30.00 fee, let alone a $500.00 fine which she disputed. As a consequence, Ms. Viera could not take the April 21, 1994 cosmetology examination.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found not guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993) through a violation of Section 477.0135(g), Florida Statutes (1993) and the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1996.
The Issue Whether the certificate of registration of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for the reason that Respondent, Arguster Jackson, did work as a master cosmetologist without a valid certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact A copy of the Complaint with attached license, the certificate, and receipt for certified mail were entered into evidence as requested and marked Exhibit 1 without objection. Respondent entered a guilty plea, a copy of which was entered into evidence as requested without objection and marked Exhibit 2. Respondent Jackson did operate without a current registration required by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent secured her master cosmetologist certificate within a time laps after the filing of this Complaint.
Findings Of Fact On February 2, 1989, an inspector from the Department of Professional Regulation visited the Main Street Salon in Tampa and observed Patricia Shields, Respondent, alone in the salon practicing cosmetology. When he asked to see her license, Respondent presented the application for licensure which she had previously submitted to the Petitioner on September 2, 1988, and which was stamped received September 6, 1988. This application was returned to Respondent with notation that she had to get a confirmation from the state officials in Massachusetts that she held a valid cosmetology license in Massachusetts. After two attempts, Respondent received confirmation from Massachusetts that she held a valid cosmetology license in that state, and after November 15, 1988, Respondent submitted this information to the Department. This completed her application, including prescribed fees. Subsequent to November 15, 1988, Respondent inquired of a local cosmetology school if she could work as a cosmetologist after submitting a completed application, but before receiving a Florida license, and was told that she could. She was told that graduates from the beauty school could lawfully work as cosmetologists after graduating and applying for license, but before receiving a valid Florida license. Since Respondent had more training (1000 hours) than did graduates from this cosmetology school and had actually practiced cosmetology since 1984, she did not deem it necessary to contact Petitioner to confirm her qualifications to work as a cosmetologist--and did not do so. On February 3, 1989, license CL-0160553 was issued and mailed to Respondent licensing her to work as a cosmetologist in Florida (Exhibit 1). She received this license February 6, 1989, four days after the inspector had visited the Main Street Salon. At the time of the inspector's visit, February 2, 1989, Respondent, at the instigation of the investigator, signed a Cease and Desist Agreement in which she agreed to cease and desist from any future violations of Chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes (Exhibit 3). No evidence was presented that Respondent violated the Cease and Desist Agreement. Respondent frankly admitted that she had worked as a cosmetologist some five or six weeks before February 2, 1989, under the misapprehension that she could legally do so. Her primary objection here is to Petitioner's insistence that she pay a $500 penalty to retain her license.
Recommendation It is recommended that Patricia Shields be found guilty of practicing cosmetology without a valid license and that she be issued a written admonition. ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 30th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patricia Shields 5607 21st Street Tampa, Florida 33610 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
