The Issue Whether the salon license of Richard J. Payseur, No. 20140-OB should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn because he did not display a proper sign in his salon.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Mary Francis Pfeiffer, Inspector for the Board, testified that Respondent Richard Payseur had been the proprietor of the beauty salon under the name "Showplace Beauty Salon", New Port Richey, Florida. At her last visit, the salon was under a new proprietorship and that to the best of the Inspector's knowledge, Mr. Payseur does not operate a beauty salon in the State. The Respondent Mr. Payseur holds a Masters License No. 0083341. Mr. Payseur, the Respondent, had been issued a violation notice after a visit to the salon on January 17, 1976 and again on March 20, 1976.
Recommendation Dismiss the present complaint and warn Respondent that a violation of the State laws and regulations governing cosmetologists could jeopardize his personal license. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of August, 1976 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 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida Richard J. Payseur Box 667 Route 4 Brooksville, Florida 33512
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Women's Exchange, Inc., possessed a valid Florida license to operate a cosmetology salon at 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue, Miami, Florida, under License No. CE 0032221, which license was issued on September 16, 1982, and expires on October 31, 1984. On January 20, 1983, Steven M. Granowitz, an investigator for Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, entered Respondent's salon for a routine inspection. When he entered the salon, which was located in what appeared to be a home, he noticed it was quite busy. Customers were being waited on at all operator positions, and others were waiting their turn. Upon entering the salon, Mr. Granowitz tried to find the manager to identify himself and present his credentials, but no manager was present, so he talked to the receptionist, showing her his credentials and advising her he was going to do an inspection. At first, he looked at the salon license and went to examine the four operators and their licenses. These licenses are required to be displayed prominently in the shop. None of the four operator stations were displaying licenses. Two operators indicated they had licenses, but did not have them present. Mr. Granowitz made a phone call to his board and verified that these two individuals, Yvonne Eberhart and Clara Ann Edden, were in fact licensed. The two other individuals who he observed to be at operator stations with customers in the chairs, to whom they were applying curly perms, Jacqueline Dulippe and Jeanette Toussaint, were not licensed either by the Board of Cosmetology or Barbers' Board. He, admittedly, did not watch these two unlicensed operators during the entire period he was there. Consequently, it may well be that other licensed operators also worked on the same customers. There is no doubt in his mind, however, that what he observed these two do were cosmetology operations. Licenses are required to perform the work being performed by these two individuals, though not all functions in a cosmetology salon require a license. When Mr. Granowitz discussed this situation shortly thereafter that day with Antonia Gary, one of the officers of Respondent corporation, in the salon, she indicated she was not the manager of the salon, that none of the corporate officers were involved in the day-to-day operation of the salon, and that she did not know these two individuals were not licensed. However, there was no claim that either had misrepresented their license status. Joyce Ann Hanks-Knox, President of Women's Exchange, Inc., the corporation which owns the corporation which now owns Fingertips, the salon in question, admits that the license is in the name of Women's Exchange, Inc. There is no question, however, that Women's Exchange, Inc., holds the license in question for Fingertips and that the current Fingertips salon is that which is described in the license. She is not a licensed cosmetologist, and while she spends as much as 20 hours per week in the business of Women's Exchange, Inc., these duties do not include active management of the salon. She further relates, however, that it has never been the policy of either the parent corporation or the management of Fingertips to permit unlicensed operators to work, unsupervised, on customers. She admits that both women in question worked at Fingertips and, in fact, one was hired by her. Their duties were to be trained as operators and to perform other small tasks within the salon, such as moving patrons from one area to another, cleaning the salon, and insuring that supplies were at the work stations as needed. They were also allowed to wash hair, but, in this apprentice program, nonlicensed personnel were not to give permanents or do anything else that could be considered cosmetology. All of the licensed operators knew what the apprentice program consisted of, its limitations, and that these two individuals were not licensed. As such, they should have stopped them from performing unauthorized tasks. Neither individual was hired as a cosmetologist, nor was she paid as a cosmetologist. Since neither Ms. Knox nor Ms. Gary actively supervise the operation of the salon, since Mr. Granowitz could find no one there during his visit who admitted to being in charge, and since there was no evidence presented that there was any manager assigned to the salon, it is obvious that the salon was left, for the most part, to run itself without effective management supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent corporation be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $250 for each count proven -- a total of $500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 15th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Mr. Fred Roche Department of Professional Secretary Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce Hanks-Knox, Esquire President Women's Exchange, Inc. 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact An advertisement in the December 6, 1989 edition of the Beaches Shopping Guide indicated that "sculptured nail" services were available through "Debbie's Designer Nails". The advertisement contained a telephone number. In response to the advertisement, Eileen Thomas, an investigator for the Petitioner, on February 23, 1990, called "Debbie's Designer Nails" at the phone number listed in the advertisement. Ms. Thomas spoke with a woman identified as "Debbie". During the conversation, Debbie informed Ms. Thomas that manicure services were available in either the customer's home or in Debbie's home, at a cost of twelve dollars. Debbie stated that she had been offering her services for approximately three months. At the close of the conversation, Ms. Thomas, using the name "Brenda", made an appointment for a manicure at Debbie's place of business on February 27, 1990. On February 27, 1990, Geraldine Johnson, an employee of the Petitioner, arrived at the Respondent's residence and identified herself as "Brenda". The Respondent performed a manicure on Ms. Johnson, who paid the Respondent thirteen dollars for her services. While the Respondent performed the manicure on Ms. Johnson, another woman arrived at the Respondent's home. The Respondent told Ms. Johnson that the woman had an appointment for nail sculpturing. Before Ms. Johnson left the Respondent's home, the Respondent gave Ms. Johnson ten business cards and requested that Ms. Johnson distribute the cards to potential customers. The cards include the Respondent's name, the name of the business, the slogan "My House or Yours", the telephone number, and the types of manicure services available. The Respondent is not a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida. The Respondent's business, "Debbie's Designer Nails", is not licensed as a cosmetology salon in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine of one thousand dollars on the Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAWM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-4761 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. The evidence did not establish that the Respondent actually placed the advertisement in the Beaches Shopping Guide. Respondent The Respondent submitted no proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Debbie Holcomb 5856 Wiltshire Street Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 477.15(8)(9), Florida Statutes, and Regulation 21F-301, Florida Administrative Code, by operating a cosmetology salon without a salon license.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was attempted by mail and notice was left at the proper address. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the proceeding. Respondent holds a current cosmetologist license No. 18927. Respondent is or has been practicing the art of cosmetology in her home without first having secured a certificate of registration for a cosmetology salon.
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for allowing two unlicensed persons to practice cosmetology in the beauty salon licensed as May Cohen's Soul Sissors.
Findings Of Fact A joint motion to consolidate the above styled cases was made for the reason that the charges grew out of the same incident. The motion was granted. A motion was made requesting permission for the Respondent to file affidavits late and the permissions was granted without objection by the Petitioner but with a reservation to file objections when the affidavits were filed. The affidavits were filed July 26, 1977 and are a part of the record. No objection has been filed by Petitioner and the thirty days from date of hearing allotted by the Hearing Officer has expired. The statements in the affidavit are consistent with the evidence and testimony at the hearing and with the findings of facts herein. The Administrative Complaints were issued on May 31, 1977 against John S. Kubie, President of Seligman & Latz, Inc., and against the salon May Cohen's Soul Sinners charging: "That you, said SELIGMAN & LATZ, INC. d/b/a May Cohen's Soul Sissors on January 7, 1977 did allow two unlicensed persons to practice in your salon, at May Cohen's Soul Sissors, Jacksonville, Florida." On January 7, 1977, the inspector for the Board entered the May Cohen's Soul Sinners Beauty Shop and found therein two unlicensed persons. One person, Willie Dock, who is an employee of Nay Cohen's Soul Sinners, had not secured a Florida license and was working without a license in the subject salon and without a license or permit posted as required. He had not informed the manager that his permit had expired on December 30, 1976. The other person, Margaret Florence, was working although her license had been altered to appear as if it were current. It was of a different color than the current licenses of other cosmetologists in the shop and in fact it had expired. The manager should have ascertained whether these people were duly licensed and knew or should have known they were not properly licensed.
Recommendation Suspend the license of May Cohen's Soul Sissors for a period of seven (7) days. DONE and ORDERED this 26th 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: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee,, Florida 32302 Charles A. Sorenson, Esquire Forbes and Meide 400 Guaranty Life Building 137 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for allowing an unlicensed person to practice cosmetology in his salon.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977 against Joel Garber charging: "That you, said JOEL GARBER on February 4, 1976 did allow an unlicensed person to practice Cosmetology in your salon at House of Glamour, Jacksonville, Florida." At the hearing the Respondent pled "no contest" but made the following statement: "There was a young man that worked in the area for some time, I think. It's been over a year and a half ago, so the exact times may not be familiar to me. But he worked there for about seven months un- licensed. He came to me and said, 'I would like to work for you.' I said, 'You get a license first.' He told me he made application for license and came to work for me, and in fact he did work and I could be mistaken, it may be on the violation notice, how long he did work, but he did in fact work for me two or three days without a license, and then at which time he went and took his exam, came back, waited until he received license, and continued to work for me. He is at this time licensed. All I can ask is I guess the Court's mercy that I did in fact violate the law, but it has since been remedied and corrected." The Respondent allowed an unlicensed person to practice in his salon for a short time.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for violating Section 477.02(7), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 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: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joel Garber 5660 University Boulevard, West Jacksonville, Florida 32216
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Section 477.02(4) & 477.15, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates Kemp's Beauty Salon, 404 N.E. 10th Street, Boynton Beach, Florida, under Certificate of Registration Number 16286 to operate a cosmetology salon issued by Petitioner on November 18, 1971. (Stipulation). On May 22, 1975, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's salon and observed a man styling the hair of a patron. On May 23, the Inspector returned and observed the same man doing the same thing. He informed her that he did not have a state license. Respondent was not present on either occasion. (Testimony of Jennings) Respondent testified at the hearing that he had had no idea that the individual in question, who was a patron of the shop, was going to work on customers. On May 23rd Respondent had left the shop to have lunch. (Testimony of Kemp).
Recommendation That Respondent's salon license 16286 be suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Thomas Kemp Kemp's Beauty Salon 404 N.E. 10 Street Boynton Beach, Florida
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Sections 477.15(8), 477.231(c) & (2), Florida Statutes, Rules 21F-3.01 & 21F-3.10, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent was furnished notice of hearing and acknowledged receipt of said notice and the administrative complaint. (Exhibit 2)
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a certificate as a master cosmetologist 0048790 issued by Petitioner on an unspecified date. He also holds a certificate of registration to operate a cosmetology salon license #22903 issued by Petitioner on February 2, 1976. The salon is called Mister Andrew Coiffure, and is located at 1259 East Los Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On January 28, 1976, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's place of business, but Respondent was absent. The inspector had visited the shop on previous occasions at which time the Respondent had told him he was in the process of buying the salon, and the inspector had left an application for a state certificate of registration for a cosmetology salon. The inspector noticed there was no sign near the front door indicating that the premises were occupied by beauty or cosmetology salon. There was a card in the window which read "Mister Andrew Coiffure" (Testimony of Rubin). Respondent submitted a letter on his behalf dated June 9, 1976, which stated that he had not owned the salon at the time Petitioner's inspector had provided him with application forms for a state license. He claimed that he had had a card attached to the sign in his window which read "Beauty Salon" on January 28, 1976, but that since the inspector had not been satisfied with the card he has since changed the sign and put up 1 inch decal letters on the door spelling "Beauty Salon" (Exhibit 1). Respondent's application for a salon certificate was executed on January 29, 1976 and received by Petitioner on February 2, 1976.
Recommendation That the allegations against the Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-8675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P. O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Charles R. Gannon c/o Mister Andrew Coiffure 1259 East Las Olas Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
