The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon not under the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977, against Barbara Hagan d/b/a Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B charging: "That you, said BARBARA HAGAN d/b/a Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B on January 11, 1977 did operate a cosmetology salon without the direct supervision of a master cosme- tologist; at Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B, Lakeland, Florida." The Respondent, Barbara Hagan, is a master cosmetologist who had left the beauty shop she operated to make a trip to the hospital. The cosmetologist who works in Respondent's shop and who was working at the time of the notice of violation had finished school but was not a master cosmetologist at the time of the violation. The Respondent admitted that he did not have a master cosmetologist license at the time of the violation but asserts that he now is a master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Suspend the license of the Respondent for a period of not more than thirty (30) days inasmuch as this was the second time the statute was violated. The first time no written violation notice was entered but the inspector orally warned the Respondent of the violation. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 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 Barbara Hagan Hair Fashion Wig Craft by B & B 1336 North Florida Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33802 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Marie J. Jeune, Respondent, owns an establishment known as Joset's Beauty Salon located at 341 N.W. 3rd Street, Pompano Beach, Florida. From January, 1984 until July, 1984 Respondent operated Joset's Beauty Salon as a cosmetology salon but at no time did she have a license from the Board of Cosmetology for the salon. During this time, she employed a licensed cosmetologist on the premises, and she testified that she did not know that the salon had to be licensed. She thought she was complying with the law by employing a licensed cosmetologist and obtaining an occupational license. In July, 1984 the licensed cosmetologist left her employment at Joset's Beauty Salon due to pregnancy. On October 9, 1984, Alexa Arachy, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation conducted an inspection of Joset's Beauty Salon. Inspector Arachy observed an unlicensed person, later identified as Respondent's sister-in- law, Ms. McPhaton Jeune, giving a shampoo to a woman in the salon. She also observed two shampoo sinks, a salon station, numerous open bottles of dyes and waving lotions, combs, brushes, towels, hair on the floor, and a trash container full of items which would normally result from the operation of a salon. At no time has either Respondent or Ms. McPhaton Jeune been licensed by the Board of Cosmetology or the Barber Board, nor has Joset's Beauty Salon ever been licensed by the Board of Cosmetology, or the Barber Board. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S. have been considered in making the above findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300). DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 2nd day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marie J. Jeune 341 N.W. 3rd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
The Issue Whether Respondent Joyce McClain practiced cosmetology without the presence and supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact Two inspectors from the Board of Cosmetology entered the premises of the Seligman & Latz, Inc. beauty salon, d/b/a May Cohen Beauty Salon, late in the evening of September 19, 1974 and observed the Respondent Joyce McClain combing out the hair of a customer. Joyce McClain was not a master cosmetologist at that time and there was no master cosmetologist directly supervising the work of the cosmetologist Joyce McClain. The inspectors for the Board of Cosmetology observed the Respondent working, discussed the work with her, wrote a violation, presented it to her and departed the premises having found no master cosmetologist in the area in which the Respondent Joyce McClain was working or in the area in which the customers were invited to come and in which the employees practiced the art of cosmetology on the customers. The act of combing out the hair of another person is practicing the art of cosmetology as defined in Section 477.03, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent cosmetologist Joyce McClain for a period of not less than one (1) and not more than thirty (30) days. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of January, 1976. 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 Counsel for Petitioner John R. Forbes, Esquire Counsel for Respondent ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 75-597 LICENSE NO. 0081516 JOYCE MCCLAIN, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a cosmotologist should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the Administrative Complaint filed on June 20, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This proceeding involves a complaint that Respondent, Timothy C. Troutman, a licensed cosmetologist since 1981, engaged in "misconduct" while employed as an instructor at Riverside Hairstyling Academy (RHA) in Jacksonville, Florida. When the events herein occurred, Respondent was licensed as a certified cosmetologist having been issued license number CL 0134716 by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology (Board). RHA is certified as a cosmetology school and has several campuses, including one on Beach Boulevard in Jacksonville, Florida. The school is owned by Respondent's father, Howard Troutman. Respondent was employed as a floor instructor at RHA. In this capacity, he supervised the activities of approximately twenty students at any given time, as they performed cosmetology services. The underlying charges in this matter are that: (a) Respondent improperly touched Neva A. Choulat, a former student; (b) he made threatening telephone calls to, and improperly touched, Joanna Flowers, a customer; and (c) he made sexually explicit remarks to, and inappropriately touched, Nora Maszey, a former student. As to Maszey, it is also alleged that Respondent threatened to "affect her school credits if she made trouble for him." Each set of charges will be discussed separately below. Count I In this count, it is alleged that, while giving a facial to Choulat, Respondent "proceeded to massage her bare breasts underneath [her] smock," "directly touched her nipples and rubbed her breasts," and "rubbed his hands up and down her sides to include the sides of her breasts." On December 5, 1995, when she was sixteen years of age, Choulat enrolled at RHA in order to pursue her goal of completing RHA's 1200-hour cosmetology course and ultimately obtaining a cosmetology license. At that time, she was a full-time high student and attended RHA as a night/weekend student in addition to her high school studies. Prior to August 24, 1996, Choulat had no problems of any kind with Respondent, and they had a normal student-teacher relationship. On August 24, 1996, Choulat was performing cosmetology services on four clients. Throughout the morning, Respondent repeatedly asked Choulat if she wanted him to give her a facial. She agreed, and after lunch, Respondent took Choulat to a small room that was used for the giving of facials. The room had no windows, and the door was closed during the giving of the facial. Respondent instructed Choulat to remove her shirt and bra and don a smock. He left the room while she did so. When he returned to the room, he closed the door and told Choulat to lie down and close her eyes. Respondent then took Choulat's arms out of the smock. At that point, she had nothing covering her torso, except for a large towel that Respondent had placed over her chest. Respondent started performing the facial, but he quickly moved beyond the acceptable scope of a facial. Without asking Choulat's permission, Respondent rubbed his hand down her lower back, touched her breasts and nipples, and rubbed his hands down her sides, touching the sides of her breasts. At first, Choulat was too frightened to cry out or protest. However, Respondent asked her if she wanted him to stop, to which she replied "yes." Respondent then left the room, and Choulat put her clothes back on. After dressing, Choulat went to the beginner's room and began crying. She then told another student, Cynthia Summers, that Respondent had touched her breasts in the facial room. Summers advised Choulat to tell her mother. Later that afternoon, Summers confronted Respondent and told him that she was aware of his actions with Choulat and that this was a stupid thing to do with a seventeen-year-old student. In response, Respondent stated that "it was stupid of me." When Summers asked Respondent what would happen if Choulat went to the police or his father, Respondent replied "I hope she don't." At approximately 2:30 p.m. the same day, Choulat filed a complaint with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office regarding Respondent's conduct. Choulat reported that Respondent had touched her breasts without her permission. She followed up by telling her parents, filing a complaint with the Office of the State Attorney, and reporting the incident to Respondent's father. Choulat disenrolled from RHA a few weeks later, despite having invested more than $2,400.00 in tuition payments. She stopped her course of studies and is now employed in another field. Although Choulat has a pending civil action against Respondent and RHA, her testimony is found to be credible. This finding is based on Choulat's consistent account of the incident over time, her actions immediately after the incident occurred, the corroborating testimony of Summers, an impartial witness, and the admissions made by Respondent to Summers immediately after the incident. Respondent's contentions that Choulat had initiated the subject of getting a facial, that the smock was never removed, that nothing improper occurred during the fifteen- minute demonstration, and that he made no incriminating admissions to witness Summers have been rejected. The evidence established that while a facial may extend below the neck, at no point does it include massaging of breasts and nipples, nor should it extend below the upper portion of the shoulder blades in the back, or below the armpit level on the front of the body. Further, it is not an acceptable teaching practice to give a private facial to a student outside of a classroom setting. Therefore, Respondent's conduct with student Choulat equates to misconduct in the practice of cosmetology. Count II The second count alleges that while giving a hair cut to Joanna Flowers in 1995, Respondent "placed her long hair over her breasts" and "stroked her breast under the pretext of stroking her hair." The complaint also alleges that he "rubbed his penis up against Ms. Flowers' hands and/or arms while they were resting on the arms of the chair," and that he thereafter telephoned Flowers "numerous times at her home" and she "felt threatened by [the calls]." Flowers, who is now twenty-two years of age, occasionally went to RHA in 1992 or 1993 for hair cuts. RHA records show that she went only twice. On both occasions, a receptionist would assign a staff member to cut her hair. On her second visit in the fall of 1993, Respondent was assigned by the receptionist to cut her hair. Flowers had long hair which went over her upper chest and fell to a length that was below her breasts. Following the initial haircut, Respondent checked the cut to determine whether it was even. While checking the length of the cut, Respondent pulled the hair down in front of Flowers and his hand may have accidentally touched her breasts. However, if such touching occurred, it was not intentional, and it was not inappropriate to check the length of the cut in this manner. At the same time, Respondent's "crotch area [was] at the same level that the arm rest is on the chair," and while leaning over the chair, Respondent may have accidentally come into contact with Flowers' arm. Again, however, if a touching occurred, it was unintentional. Finally, there was no testimony to support the allegation that Respondent called Flowers on numerous occasions at home in a threatening fashion. Count III The last count alleges that "on numerous occasions" between 1995 and 1996, Respondent "touched the chest and buttocks [of Norah Homan, now Norah Maszey] in an inappropriate manner." The complaint also alleges that Respondent made "sexual references and innuendos regarding her," and that Respondent "implied" to her that "he could affect her school credits if she made trouble for him." Based on Respondent's alleged misconduct, Maszey subsequently filed a civil action against Respondent and RHA. Maszey, now twenty-seven years of age, was a cosmetology student at RHA between March 1995 until her graduation in March 1996. During her tenure at RHA, Respondent was one of her instructors. In September 1995, while in a floor setting learning how to cut and style hair, Maszey went to the supply room to "get a tube of color off the shelf." As she was bending over with her back to the door, Respondent came up behind her and placed "his hands right on the inside of [her] buttocks." Although Respondent did not touch the vaginal area, "he was as close as he could have been without" actually touching it. Maszey jumped up and Respondent "just smiled and acted kind of scared" and said he was "sorry." By inappropriately touching Maszey in this fashion, Respondent committed misconduct in the practice of cosmetology. Except for this incident, however, there was no other credible evidence that Respondent inappropriately touched Maszey "on numerous occasions," as alleged in the complaint. During Maszey's tenure as a student at RHA, Respondent occasionally told her that she "was pretty." But this remark alone does not rise to the level of constituting "sexual references and innuendos," as alleged in the complaint. Indeed, Maszey simply described these comments as being "way too much complimenting," but nothing more. Finally, there is less than clear and convincing evidence to support the allegation that Respondent threatened to take away her credits if she "made trouble for him." Mitigating and Aggrevating Factors Mitigating factors Respondent has been licensed as a cosmetologist for seventeen years. Except for the two inappropriate touchings of Choulat and Maszey, which occurred more than two years ago, he has an unblemished record. Respondent has worked in his father's school since the age of twenty. The loss of a license will deprive him of working in his life-long profession and cause financial harm to Respondent and his family. Contrary to Petitioner's suggestion, Respondent is not found to be a "grave danger to the public" should he retain his license. Aggrevating factors Respondent improperly touched two young women, each on one occasion. By doing so, he breached the position of trust he held as an instructor. After being inappropriately touched in 1996, Choulat lost her desire to pursue a career field in cosmetology and left the school. She also lost approximately $2,463.00 she had invested in the school. In addition, she sought counseling from a social worker. Although Maszey eventually graduated from RHA, she no longer works in the profession and now prefers to work alone at home. At the same time, however, she stated that "Tim is [not] responsible for absolutely all of that, but he sure did not help."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 477.028(1)(b) and 477.029 (1)(h), Florida Statutes, by inappropriately touching students Choulet and Maszey, and that Respondent's license number CL 0134716 be revoked. All other charges should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth C. Masters, Esquire 7960 Arlington Expressway Suite 230 Jacksonville, Florida 32311 Michael R. Yokan, Esquire 204 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Joe Baker, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0790 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Seligman and Latz, Inc., d/b/a May Cohen Beauty Salon did operate a cosmetology salon without the presence and supervision of a master cosmetologist in violation of Sections 477.27(1), 477.15(8), and 477.02(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was duly served on Respondent and Counsel for both parties were present. The Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration has jurisdiction over the proceedings. Respondent holds a current cosmetologist salon license Number 7150. Two inspectors from the Board of Cosmetology entered the premises of the Respondent Seligman and Latz, Inc. late in the evening on September 19, 1974 and observed the Respondents' employee Joyce McClain practicing the art of cosmetology, to wit: combing out the hair of a customer. The employee, Joyce McClain, was not a master cosmetologist at the time. The inspectors for the Board observed the employee, discussed the violation with her and wrote a violation, presented it to her and left the premises, having inspected the area which was used as the public space in which the customers were invited and which the employees performed services for and on the customers. No master cosmetologist was in the room in which the employee, Joyce McClain, was arranging the hair of a customer and no master cosmetologist was in direct supervision of the salon at the time the inspectors were inspecting the salon as a part of their employment by the Board of Cosmetology. The Hearing Officer further finds upon consideration of all the facts and the evidence that the violation by the employee, Joyce McClain, to wit: combing and arranging the hair of a customer while a master cosmetologist was not present and was not directly supervising the operation is contrary to the requirements of Section 477.04, F.S. The Hearing Officer further finds that the time of the inspection was late in the day; that the Work being done by the cosmetologist, Joyce McClain, was not an inherently dangerous procedure; that the salon had master cosmetologists in its employment although said master cosmetologists were not in direct supervision of the cosmetologist at the time of the inspection; that the comb-out or combing and arranging of the hair of a customer is the practice of cosmetology as defined in Section 477.03(e), F.S.: "(e) Hairdressing or the arranging, waving, dressing, curling, cleansing, thinning, cutting, singeing, bobbing, bleaching, tinting, coloring, steaming, straightening, dyeing, brushing, beautifying or otherwise treating by any means the hair of any person."
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent or not less than one day and not more than thirty (30) days. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of January, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. LaFace, Esquire Counsel for Petitioner John R. Forbes, Esquire Counsel for Respondent ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 75-594 LICENSE NO. 7150 SELIGMAN & LATZ, INC., d/b/a May Cohen Beauty Salon, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Adelina Portuondo, is the holder of License Number CL 0089302 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida State Board of Cosmetology. The license authorizes Respondent to perform cosmetology services. She has held the license since 1976. On or about December 24, 1982, a Department inspector visited the premises known as Delores Beauty Salon, located at 2214 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. The visit was prompted by the fact that the Delores Beauty Salon was delinquent in renewing its license with Petitioner. While conducting the inspection, the inspector observed two apparent employees working with customers in chairs. Before the inspector was able to check the license of one of them, a Latin male, who was performing cosmetology services on a client, the Latin male quickly departed the premises. The inspector was told the male's name was either "Jorge" or "Jose," but that no other information regarding that individual was available. Respondent was not on the premises when the inspection was made, but, after being called from her other shop, she arrived a short time later. Portuondo advised the inspector that the male's name was "Jose," that he was there for a "tryout," had just arrived from Cuba and had been referred by someone at her other beauty salon. She also advised that she had just purchased the salon and was in the process of transferring ownership to her name. At the time the inspection was made, Delores Beauty Shop held no current licenses to provide either cosmetology or barber services to the public. The inspector then visited Respondent's other salon, Lena's of New York, and learned that the Latin male's name was actually Jose Bahamonde. Respondent told the inspector that Bahamonde was only a manager of the salon, whose duties included opening and closing the shop, cleaning and the like, but that he performed no professional services. Lena's of New York was apparently licensed by the Board as a cosmetology salon. On April 5, 1983, a Department inspector again visited the beauty salon operated by Respondent at 2214 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach. Respondent had signs indicating the business was now being operated as Lina Beauty Salon II, Inc. The inspector found Bahamonde on the premises and told him it was illegal to practice cosmetology and barbering without appropriate licenses. Bahamonde told the inspector he had taken the examination and was awaiting the results. The inspector returned the next day, April 6, and found Bahamonde cutting a customer's hair. The Respondent was not present on the premises. After being called by telephone, Respondent arrived shortly thereafter and denied that Bahamonde was providing professional services. Instead, she claimed he was working as a cashier and cleaning up the premises. At that time, she also produced records to show she had purchased the salon on October 5, 1982. Official Department records reflect that Bahamonde was issued cosmetology License No. CL 0141942 on July 26, 1983. Those records also reflect that as recent as October 20, 1983, Lina Beauty Salon II, Inc., held no active cosmetology or barbershop licenses. The records do indicate, however, that Respondent applied for a cosmetology salon license for the establishment in April, 1983, but the application was denied on May 9, 1983, on the ground it was incomplete. No license has been issued to Delores Beauty Salon, Inc., since its purchase by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in December, 1982, and April, 1983; violating Subsection 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in December, 1982; and violating Subsections 477.028(2)(b) and 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in April, 1983. It is further RECOMMENDED that a $250 administrative fine be imposed on Respondent for each violation, for a total of $1,000, and that such fine be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the final order entered in this cause. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of November, 1983.
