The Issue Whether Respondent Vernon C. Linton's license number 20365 should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for teaching or attempting to teach barbering at a registered barber school without a certificate of registration as a registered barber teacher or a registered barber intern teacher issued by the Florida Barber's Sanitary Commission in violation of Section 476.01(2), F.S. Whether Respondent Leonard Nicholson's license number 18832 should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for violation of Section 476.01(4), for operating a school of barbering without providing the required supervision, direction and management as the registered barber teacher of the school.
Findings Of Fact Upon stipulation of the parties the hearing of these two dockets, docket number 76-1031, Florida State Board of Barber's Sanitary Commission, Complainant, versus Vernon C. Linton, and docket number 76-1079, Florida State Board of Barber's Sanitary Commission versus Leonard Nicholson were consolidated and heard simultaneously On two occasions, one on the 20th day of March, 1976 and the other on the 23rd day of March, 1976, Mr. C. L. Jones, Inspector for the Florida Barber's Sanitary Commission entered the American School of Barber Styling, located at the Tallahassee Mall, Tallahassee, Florida, and found that the school, owned and operated by Respondent Leonard Nicholson, was being used by the Respondent, Vernon C. Linton, for the instruction of a student in the art of barbering. Mr. Leonard Nicholson holds a certificate as a registered barber teacher, but was not present on either March 20th or March 23rd at the time of the inspection Respondent Vernon C. Linton did not at that time hold a certificate as a registered barber teacher or registered barber intern teacher. Mr. Linton was issued a license as a qualified registered barber intern teacher subsequent to the inspection.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, the Respondents were duly licensed by the Barbers' Board. Respondent Robert Finley owns A Cut Above Barber Shop. Warren Cervini began work at A Cut Above Barber Shop in 1977. At that time, he was duly licensed by the Board as a barber. Cervini worked at A Cut Above Barber Shop until approximately Easter of 1981. He failed to renew his license prior to July, 1980, at which time his license became inactive by operation of law. Respondent Finley asked Cervini if he had renewed his license, and Cervini told Respondent that he had but had left his license at his home. Cervini did not display his licenses at the shop. After Cervini had left A Cut Above Barber Shop, Respondent Finley reported to the Board that he suspected Cervini was not licensed and was working at an adjoining barber shop. Cervini paid his late fee and was relicensed on May 17, 1981. While at A Cut Above Barber Shop, Cervini was not paid directly by Respondent Finley but paid Respondent a percentage of what he collected. Respondent did not control the mode or method Cervini used to cut hair. Respondent did not set specific hours or days for Cervini to work and did not provide Cervini with any tools or equipment beyond a barber chair. The Respondent never filed a W-2 Form or Form 1099 for Cervini. Warren Cervini was an independent contractor while at A Cut Above Barber Shop.
Recommendation Having found the Respondents, Robert Finley and A Cut Above Barber Shop, guilty, of a technical violation of Section 476.194(3), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the Barbers' Board give Respondent Finley a letter of reprimand. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 11th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven I. Greenwald, Esquire 150 East Boca Raton Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Barbers' Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Joanne Fletcher answered the telephone the day Eddie Dingler called The Summit Men's Hair Barbershop (Summit I) asking for work. He said he was Roffler- and Sebring-trained and that he held barber's licenses both in Alabama and in Florida. Ms. Fletcher relayed this message to respondent Donald C. Allgood. At the time, Mr. Allgood was half-owner of The Summit IV, and respondent Don Pettis owned the other half. Mr. Allgood had no ownership interest in Summit I, which was licensed to Mr. Pettis. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Allgood acted as a sort of manager at Summit I the two or three days of the week he spent there, even though he was technically an independent contractor, working on commissions. Respondents had worked with each other for some seven years. The parties stipulated that respondent Donald C. Allgood "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0021833" and that respondent Don Pettis "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0011546." One Monday morning Eddie Dingler appeared in person at Summit I and talked to respondent Allgood about employment. Mr. Allgood called respondent Pettis, then took Dingler to respondent Pettis's house, where Ron Pettis was also present. Dingler told this group that he was licensed both in Florida and in Alabama and that he was conversant with the Roffler and Sebring tonsorial techniques. He was specifically asked whether he had a Florida license, and he answered affirmatively. He was not asked to produce the license certificate itself or the wallet-sized card that licensed barbers are issued. Barbers are under no requirement to carry this card on their persons. Respondent Pettis asked respondent Allgood to observe Dingler cutting hair and to hire him if he cut hair satisfactorily. Dingler was engaged as a barber on a commission basis. He proved to be a highly competent hair stylist, and "excellent barber," from a technical standpoint. Posted in is station at Summit I was what appeared to be a valid Florida barber's license with Dingler's name and photograph: he was wearing eye, glasses and a yellow shirt. Aside from the respondents, five witnesses saw this barber's license, which was counterfeit. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent Pettis remembered noticing a number of plaques on the wall at Dingler's station in Summit I, including something that looked like Dingler's license. Mr. Allgood was unable to say that he had specifically seen Dingler's barber's license at any time before Dingler gathered up his things to leave after being discharged from employment. After Dingler had worked at Summit I for about three months respondent Allgood asked him if he would like to work Mondays (when Summit I was closed at Summit IV. Dingler was Interested and reported for work at Summit IV the following Monday. Michael NcNeill let him in the barbershop ,and noticed what appeared to be an official Florida barber's license among Dingler's effects. After Mr. McNeill had left the Summit IV premises, Dingler allegedly sexually assaulted a 17-year-old patron. When respondent Allgood learned of this, he told victim's father that he would fire Dingler and do what he could to see that Dingler's barber's license was revoked. Dingler was discharged the day after the alleged assault. In discussing the matter with a law enforcement officer, respondent Allgood suggested that the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) be notified so that proceedings to revoke Dingler's barber's license could be instituted. On November 24, 1980, Mr. Allgood voluntarily presented himself for an interview by Charles Deckert, an investigator for DPR. He assumed Mr. Deckert was developing a case so that action against Dingler could be taken. He learned in the interview for the first time that Dingler had never been licensed in Florida as a barber or a registered barber's assistant, according to DPR's records. In preparing the foregoing findings of fact, petitioner's proposed findings of fact and memorandum of law and respondents' proposed order have been considered, and the proposed statement and findings of fact have been adopted in substance.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner refrain from taking action against respondents on account of this technical violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 28th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Grinsted, Esquire Post Office Drawer 915 Shalimar, Florida 32579 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Barbars Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly determined that Petitioner did not pass the February 2003 Restricted Barber Practical Examination.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 17, 2003, Petitioner completed the Restricted Barber Practical Examination. He received a score of 69 on the examination. A total score of 75 was required to pass the examination. A maximum of 45 points was available on the haircut portion of the test. Petitioner received 28.5 points for that portion. Two examiners, who are licensed barbers, observed Petitioner performing the haircut on a live model. They are not supposed to begin grading and evaluating the haircut until it is complete. Therefore, it was not necessary for the graders to watch every move that Petitioner made during the haircut in order to properly assess his performance. Petitioner specifically challenged the following test sections related to the haircut: (a) the top is even and without holes, C-1; (b) the haircut is proportional, C-4; (c) the sides and back are without holes or steps, C-5; (d) the sideburns are equal in length, C-7; (e) the outlines are even, C-8; and (f) the neckline is properly tapered, C-11. Regarding section C-1, Examiner 106 found that the top of Petitioner's haircut was uneven. Examiner 501 did not find fault with the top of the haircut. As to section C-4, Examiner 106 found that the haircut was proportional. Examiner 501 determined that the haircut was not proportional because the sides were unequal; the left side was shorter than the right side. Examiner 106 did not give Petitioner full credit for C- 5 because the examiner saw holes/steps in the back and the right side of the haircut. Examiner 501 did not observe these problems and give Petitioner full credit for C-5. Examiner 106 did not give Petitioner credit for C-7 because the sideburns were unequal in length, i.e. the right sideburn was shorter than the left sideburn. Examiner 501 did not observe a problem with the sideburns. As to C-8, Examiner 106 determined that the outlines of the haircut were uneven on the left and right sides. Examiner 501 found that the outlines of the haircut were even. Regarding C-11, Examiner 106 found that the neckline was properly tapered. Examiner 501 determined that the neckline was improperly tapered, i.e. uneven. Both examiners have served in that capacity for several years. They have attended annual training sessions in order to review the exam criteria and to facilitate the standardization of the testing process. They are well qualified to act as examiners. The examiners evaluated Petitioner's performance independently. They marked their grade sheets according to what they actually observed about the completed haircut. The scores of the two graders were averaged together to produce a final score. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the examiners accurately recorded their individual observations regarding Petitioner's performance on the haircut. If one of the examiners did not observe a particular part of the haircut, Petitioner was given credit for that section. The examiners do not have to reach the same conclusion about each section of the test in order for the test results to be valid and reliable. Petitioner did not offer any persuasive evidence to dispute the manner or method by which Respondent accrues and calculates examination points. Petitioner would have failed the test based on either grader's independent scores. Therefore, Petitioner would not have passed the examination even if Respondent had not used one of the grade sheets in calculating Petitioner's final score.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order confirming Petitioner's examination score and dismissing his challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2004, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Smith, III 5603 Silverdale Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Gus Ashoo, Bureau Chief Bureau of Education and Testing Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0791 Julie Malone, Executive Director Board of Barber Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the Petitioner's witness and his demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: During times material herein, Respondent was a licensed barber and the holder of license number BB 0006222. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2) During November of 1982, Petitioner's inspector, Steven Granowitz, made a routine inspection of barbershops with delinquent licenses. During the course of these routine inspections, Inspector Granowitz inspected the Broadway Barbershop which was being operated by the Respondent, Mary E. Smith. During the course of his inspection, Inspector Granowitz identified himself and asked to inspect the Respondent's current-active barber's license. Initially, Respondent related to Inspector Granowitz that her license had either been stolen or misplaced and that she could not keep track of the license. During the course of Inspector Granowitz's inspection, there were approximately four customers present and Inspector Granowitz's observation led him to believe that the Respondent had been continuously operating the barbershop without a license. It is so found. An examination of the documentary evidence introduced reveals that during 1979 Florida barbershop license number BS 0005766 was issued to the Respondent to operate the Broadway Barbershop located at 1133 NW 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The Respondent did not timely renew Florida barbershop license number BS 0005766. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Following the inspection during November 30, 1982, by Inspector Granowitz, Respondent applied for a new barbershop license for the Broadway Barbershop and on December 13, 1982, Florida barbershop license number BA 0005766 was issued to the Respondent for the Broadway Barbershop. (Testimony of Granowitz and Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6 and 7).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board impose an administrative fine of $500.00 on Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 8th day of February 1984.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Martin Rosales1/ (Respondent), engaged in the practice of barbering without a license and displayed as his own the barbering license of another, and, if so, what administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed as a barber by the Department's Board of Barbers for the State of Florida. John Miranda, during all times relevant to this proceeding, was employed by Petitioner as an inspector. Mr. Miranda's job responsibilities include conducting inspections of barbershops. On September 13, 2014, Petitioner, through its employee, Mr. Miranda, inspected the premises of Sanchez Barbershop/Salon (Barbershop). During the inspection, Mr. Miranda observed, and photographed, Respondent performing barbering services on a customer. Specifically, Respondent was cutting a customer's hair. During the inspection on September 13, 2014, Mr. Miranda briefly exited the barbershop in order to retrieve something from his vehicle. As Mr. Miranda was returning to the shop, he observed Respondent fleeing the premises. Mr. Miranda did not give chase, and Respondent did not return to the Barbershop prior to Mr. Miranda completing the inspection. Upon re-entry to the Barbershop, Mr. Miranda saw, at the work-station where he observed Respondent, a barber’s license displaying Respondent’s photographic image and the name Joseph Garcia. Respondent and Joseph Garcia are not the same person. Respondent publicly displayed the barber’s license of another as if it were his own. Respondent does not challenge the merits of the Administrative Complaint but instead defends against the action on the ground that he is the victim of mistaken identity. According to Respondent, he is not the person appearing in the photographs taken by Mr. Miranda on September 13, 2014. Mr. Miranda testified, without hesitation or reservation, that Respondent is the person that he observed in the Barbershop on September 13, 2014. His certainty as to Respondent’s identity is bolstered by the fact that he had dealings with Respondent prior to September 13, 2014, and, at the time of the inspection, was familiar with Respondent’s appearance. During the final hearing, Mr. Miranda, while sitting approximately five feet from Respondent, affirmed that Respondent is the person that he observed providing barbering services on September 13, 2014. Additionally, the person depicted in the photographs taken during the inspection by Mr. Miranda bears a definite physical resemblance to Respondent. The undersigned is convinced that Respondent is the person that Mr. Miranda observed performing barbering services at the Barbershop on the day in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Martin Rosales: Engaged in the unlicensed practice of barbering, an act proscribed by section 476.204(1)(a); Displayed as his own the barber’s license of another, an act proscribed by section 476.204(1)(d); and Imposing an administrative fine of $500 payable to Petitioner within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 22nd day of May, 2015.
