The Issue Respondents' alleged violations of Section 477.02(6), 477.15(8), and 477.27, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation operates Aries House of Beauty, 9310 A1A Alternate, Lake Park, Florida, under Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon number 20754 issued by Petitioner on October 25, 1974. Respondent was advised of the hearing and acknowledged receipt of notice of same. (Exhibit 2) Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's place of business on January 14, 1976, and observed Van Thi Nguyen giving a patron a shampoo and set on the premises. She acknowledged to the Inspector that she had no Florida state license to practice cosmetology. (Testimony of Padgett) Respondents' Officers, Patricia J. Cantrell & Sharon J. Riseling, submitted a letter prior to the hearing in which it was conceded that they had employed a non-licensed beautician under the mistaken belief that she had a Florida license. The letter indicated that the employee had impressive credentials as a cosmetologist and had possessed an Illinois license. They did not see a Florida license. The employee now holds Florida license number 022943. (Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. 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 Patricia J. Cantrell & Sharon Riseling c/o Aries House of Beauty 9310 A1A Alternate Lake Park, Florida
The Issue Whether the Respondent did practice cosmetology in her home without a valid salon license in violation of Section 477.02(1)(3), F.S. and Rule 21F-3.10, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Brenda J. Lopsenzski is the holder of cosmetology license No. 0081729. Mrs. Margaret L. Boswell, Inspector for the Board of Cosmetology, entered the home of Respondent at which time Respondent was shampooing a lady's hair in her home. The home was not properly equipped as a beauty salon at the time of the inspection b Mrs. Boswell and there were no patrons in the home other than the lady upon whose hair the Respondent was working. The testimony of the Respondent which I believe to be the facts and which were not denied by the Inspector for the Board were as follows: Respondent held a junior license and in order to keep her skill and in order to do favors for a few friends, would style hair for these friends. She charged them no fee and "practiced" both for her benefit and the benefit of a few friends. The actions of Respondent as shown by the testimony and evidence are not a violation of Chapter 477, F.S. or Rule 21F-3.10, F.A.C.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of August, 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 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida Brenda J. Lopsenzski 406 North Boyd Street Winter Garden, Florida
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 consideration in this case was whether Respondent, Nikki Gamber, should be disciplined by the Board of Cosmetology for the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact On December 14, 1990, Frank Paolella, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, went to Booth 85 in a Flea Market in Fort Myers, Florida, to investigate a complaint of unlicensed activity purportedly going on there. When he arrived, he asked for the owner, Ms. Gamber, who was present with an employee. He told her why he was there and since she was then working on someone's nails, waited for her to finish. While he was waiting, he observed Respondent's employee, Nikkae Jurgens, applying false nails to another customer. This involved sanding and buffing the client's natural nails before applying the false ones. When he brought all this to the attention of the Respondent, she freely admitted she was engaged in unlawful activity but claimed she was not aware that Ms. Jurgens, who was only two feet away from her, was also doing it. When he brought it to her attention, Respondent said she would tell Ms. Jurgens to stop. Ms. Jurgens indicated that she did not have any identification on her but that Respondent had it all. When Mr. Paolella asked Respondent for it, she said she would provide it later. When she did do so later, by phone, she also said that Ms. Jurgens had been working for her for about 7 to 10 days. Mr. Paolella checked on the licensure status of both Respondent and Ms. Jurgens and determined that neither had a license to do this type or work, nor did either hold a salonlicense. The operation was a booth in a flea market - a counter with two chairs for clients. There was no sanitary equipment there, no disinfectant for implements, and no closed compartments for storing clean supplies and equipment. Mr. Paolella's investigation revealed that Respondent's booth is open for business only on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, but whenever he went there before December 14, 1990, she was never there. As of August 22, 1991, the owner of the Flea Market where Respondent had operated indicated she was no longer in business there. Records of the Department show that Ms. Gamber held neither a cosmetologist's license or a cosmetology salon license during the time in question, nor did Ms. Jurgens, her employee. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be issued by the Board of Cosmetology imposing a fine of $500.00 for each of the two violations established as outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of September, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 27th day of September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Harris Paralegal Specialist Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nikki Gamber P.O. Box 8155 Sarasota, Florida 34278 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee. Florida 32399-0792
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.
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. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent plead guilty of the charge of operating a beauty salon without a certificate of registration. She stated that she lad height the salon known as Styles by Stallone believing that it was a licensed cosmetology salon, but in fact the owner of the salon was barber and the salon was licensed as barber salon. The salon is now licensed and the name has been changed top Male Ego.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for operating a beauty salon without the proper registration. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Eileen Warren 601 B. Northlake Boulevard North Palm Beach 33408
The Issue The Respondent is charged in a two count amended administrative complaint. Count I alleges a violation of Section 477.029(1)(a) F.S., practicing cosmetology without a current active license. Count II alleges a violation of Sections 477.029(1)(i) and 477.0263(1) F.S., engaging in cosmetology services in areas other than in a licensed cosmetology salon.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology. Respondent Cathy Runkle has never been a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida. She has learned her hair cutting/trimming skills from books and video tapes borrowed from the public library. At all times material hereto, Cathy's Place, Cathy Runkle, and Cathy's Hair Design have been unlicensed as cosmetology salons. Sometime during "the Christmas holidays" (between December 25, 1990 and January 1, 1991) Respondent, her daughter, and two women friends, one of whom was Mildred Schwarz, were gathered socially at Respondent's home in Daytona, Florida. Because Respondent had just given her daughter an attractive "home permanent" and hair trim, the subject came up of whether or not the four women could start a business doing the same thing for others in their own homes and in the homes of prospective customers. Respondent prepared a sample advertising flyer in pencil on an 8 1/2 by 11-inch piece of paper that read, "Cathy's Hair Designs, Perms $40.00, Cut $10.00, Hair styling in your home." Respondent's name, home address, and telephone number were also on the sample flyer. Mildred Schwarz traced over some of the pencilled lettering on the sample flyer. The next day, Respondent gave a copy of the sample flyer to each of the three other women who had been part of the discussion. She did this so that they could decide if they wanted to be involved in such a project with her. Later during the holiday period, Respondent and her daughter visited another friend, Pam Rendon, in Mrs. Rendon's home, also in Daytona, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Rendon had been friends of Mr. and Mrs. Runkle for at least two years prior to this occasion. Mrs. Rendon runs a motel which is attached to her home. The office of the motel is also in the home. During this particular visit, a copy of the sample flyer was shown to Mrs. Rendon. Mrs. Rendon cautioned against any such business venture because it was too much hassle for Respondent, a housewife. Mrs. Rendon explained some of the pitfalls of running one's own business, including the need to purchase insurance. When Respondent and her daughter went home, the copy of the flyer brought by Respondent and her daughter was inadvertently left on Mrs. Rendon's office desk. It was never re- copied or distributed at the motel, and it was never even posted on the motel bulletin board. Mr. and Mrs. Rendon testified that it must have been thrown out in the trash. Respondent thought about the proposed project and decided against going into business. Mildred Schwarz confirmed that the business idea was never seriously considered in the first place and that Respondent never approached her about it again. Ms. Schwarz does not know what became of her copy of the flyer. There is also no evidence as to what became of the remaining two copies of the flyer. Respondent never created or distributed any more copies. Petitioner received a copy of the flyer in the mail as part of an anonymous complaint and presented no evidence that other copies were ever publicly circulated by anyone. On one occasion either before or after the creation of the original flyer but still at a time material to the period of March 1, 1990 through March 6, 1991, the dates alleged in the amended administrative complaint, Respondent had a prearranged date for lunch with Mildred Schwarz. When Respondent arrived to pick up Ms. Schwarz at Ms. Schwarz' Daytona, Florida home, Ms. Schwarz asked Respondent to trim her hair. Respondent complied with the request. Later, Ms. Schwarz picked up Respondent's lunch check, but not as a quid pro quo for the hair trim. There is no reasonable monetary correlation between the price of this particular shared meal and the cost of a hair cut as listed on the flyer. In fact, Ms. Schwarz testified that she had "owed" Respondent the meal before and apart from the hair cut. On another occasion, Respondent used a home permanent kit on Ms. Schwarz in Ms. Schwarz' home. Later, Ms. Schwarz also administered a home permanent to Respondent at Respondent's home. Both women apparently followed the directions for laymen included in the kits. These events were a courtesy exchange of favors between the two women without any disparity of cost in the permanent wave kits, which were not purchased from a cosmetology supply house. Neither Respondent nor Ms. Schwarz was ill or incapacitated at any material time. Respondent never held herself out to be a licensed cosmetologist, and Ms. Schwarz never thought she was one. Either before or after the creation of the original flyer, but still at a time material to the dates alleged in the administrative complaint, Respondent trimmed the hair of Pam Rendon and of her husband, Frank Rendon. She did this for each of them on several occasions. The Runkles and the Rendons play tennis together regularly and regularly visit in each others' homes. Respondent often invites herself or is invited by Mrs. Rendon to have coffee and sun herself beside Mrs. Rendon's motel pool. Respondent frequently babysits for Mrs. Rendon. No witness remembers exactly when or how the hair cutting occasions arose but each was spontaneous. Sometimes they occurred during a pick-up lunch when the families were gathered in the Rendons' kitchen. Sometimes they occurred when just Respondent and Mrs. Rendon were together and Mrs. Rendon asked Respondent to "do something" with Mrs. Rendon's hair. Once, at Mrs. Rendon's request, Respondent left what she was doing in her own home and came to Mrs. Rendon's house and "finished" a bad haircut Mrs. Rendon had started on herself. Respondent did not expect to be compensated for her helpfulness. Mrs. Rendon never offered Respondent compensation for her services. Mr. Rendon offered to pay Respondent on at least four separate occasions when she trimmed his hair, and Respondent consistently refused to take any money. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Rendon was ill or incapacitated during any of these events. Respondent never held herself out to be a licensed cosmetologist, and the Rendons never thought she was one. Neither the Schwarz home nor the Rendon home is a licensed cosmetology salon. Petitioner also established that on a single occasion within the time frame of the amended administrative complaint Respondent's husband took her out to dinner at a Daytona, Florida restaurant in exchange for her stopping what she was doing (presumably preparing their dinner) so as to cut and permanent his hair. Respondent's husband knew she was not a licensed cosmetologist. On one other occasion, Respondent had a prearranged social visit with an old friend elsewhere in Florida. The friend telephoned and asked Respondent to buy a home permanent kit on the way. Respondent bought the kit at a Pic'N'Save for approximately $7.00 and used it on the friend when she visited with the friend. After Respondent refused the friend's offer to reimburse her for the permanent wave kit and her gas, the friend secretly slipped a $10.00 bill into Respondent's purse to cover the monies expended by Respondent. The Respondent did not return the $10.00 because she did not look in her purse until she got home. This event occurred during the time frame alleged in the amended administrative complaint. Petitioner also established that at a social luncheon Respondent and other women guests, mostly Respondent's relatives by marriage, did various things to one another's hair. As a result, the bottle of wine and the food which were already on the hostess' table were dedicated to Respondent for her skill and efforts. Petitioner did not affirmatively prove that this event took place in Florida, and therefore jurisdiction of it has not been proven. Petitioner also established that while in New Mexico, Respondent gave her mother a home permanent and trimmed her mother's hair and that Respondent's mother bought Respondent lunch on a quid pro quo basis. New Mexico is outside Petitioner's jurisdiction. Neither of these incidents clearly occurred during the time frame alleged in the amended administrative complaint.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 26th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-3, 5-7, 9 Accepted. 4, 8, 10, 15, Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. 11-14, 17-19 Rejected as stated because not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole or rejected as containing legal argument. Covered in FOF 5-11. 16 Accepted that this is a direct quotation from an exhibit but it is out of context and misleading from the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. Respondent's PFOF: COUNT I 1-2, 4 Rejected as legal argument. 3 The first sentence is rejected as legal argument. The second sentence is accepted. 5, 10-15 Accepted in substance but otherwise is rejected as incomplete or subordinate or as mere recitation of testimony. Legal argument is also rejected. 6-9 What is not legal argument on credibility issues or is not subordinate to the facts as found has been accepted. COUNT II 1-2 Rejected as legal argument but covered in substance. Copies furnished to: Herbert Runkle 2075 South Halifax Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Lois B. Lepp, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent, a cosmetology salon, permitted an unlicensed person to perform cosmetology services as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, dated April 24, 2007, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as a cosmetology salon owned by Immacula Evans. Respondent is a licensed cosmetology salon, license number CE9966208, whose address of record with Petitioner is 11329 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33612. At all times material hereto, John R. Miranda was employed by the Petitioner as an Inspector. On or about March 8, 2006, Miranda conducted an inspection of Respondent's establishment located at 11329 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Miranda observed that an unidentified male was practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was personally issued to Respondent's owner. On or about March 17, 2006, Miranda conducted a re- inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of this inspection, Miranda observed that Pierre Elionze was practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was issued to Respondent. On or about March 24, 2006, Miranda conducted another inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of this inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet, Christine Marc, and Moveta S. Swalters were each practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was issued to Respondent. On or about June 7, 2006, Miranda conducted a further inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet was again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. On or about July 29, 2006, Miranda conducted another inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet yet again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. On or about August 11, 2006, Miranda conducted an inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet was again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. Respondent has engaged in the unlawful and repeated violations of Subsection 477.0265(1), Florida Statutes, between March 8 and August 11, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order revoking Respondent's cosmetology establishment license number CE 9966208, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 11th day of September, 2007.
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
