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's license as a barber in the State of Florida should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 476, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated November 13, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing barbers, regulating licensure status, and enforcing the practice standards of licensed barbers within the powers granted by the Legislature in Chapter 476, Florida Statutes. At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Hernandez was a licensed barber in Florida, having been issued license number B 0013840. This license became inactive on June 19, 1987. The Respondent conducted business in a barbershop named Herbie's Barbershop which was located at 5810 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida. The business was located in the same building as the Respondent's living quarters. His residence address was 5810 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida. Originally, the building was designed to allow the Respondent to gain entry into his living quarters through the barbershop. After a fire, which occurred in the residential portion of the building in 1983 or 1984, the Respondent was required to place a fireproof wall between the shop and his living quarters. Once the fireproof wall was installed, the passage through the barbershop to the Respondent's residence was removed. A separate entrance in back of the building had to be used to gain access to the residence. The fireproof wall was installed and in use just prior to November 1985. D.M., a child, was employed by the Respondent in his barbershop for a period of five or six months during the year 1985. In addition to cleaning the barbershop and working the cash register, D.M. assisted in the cleaning and rehabilitation of the residence after the fire. During her employment, D.M. was fourteen years of age, just getting ready to turn fifteen. As her birthdate is November 16, 1971, a reasonable inference exists that her employment period was between June 1985 and November 16, 1985. During the term of her employment, while working in the Respondent's residence, the Respondent unsuccessfully attempted to grab D.M.'s left breast. She hit him, walked away, and informed another person who was in the barbershop of Respondent's misconduct. At no time during her deposition testimony did D.M. state that the Respondent cupped her right breast with his hand, squeezed it, and asked her if he could repeat this once or twice a week. On or about September 23, 1986, the Respondent was adjudicated guilty on two counts of sexual battery on a child less than twelve years of age in Pinellas County, Florida. The child, L.W., accused the Respondent of trying to put his finger down her vagina. The events allegedly occurred within the living quarters which were segregated and completely independent from the barbershop at the time of alleged incidents in December 1985. The child had arrived at Respondent's residence in order to obtain the address of a family that had previously resided there with the Respondent. The child's presence at Respondent's home was unrelated to Respondent's business activities. When the Respondent was convicted of sexual battery on the child L.W., he pleaded nolo contendere to charges involving D.M., D.Z., and R.Y. The charges involved the improper touching of the children on their genitals in Respondent's living quarters. The pleas were made with the express reservation of the right to appeal the denial of Respondent's Motion for Discharge under the speedy trial rule. Upon appeal, the trial court's denial of the discharge was reversed and the case was remanded for discharge of the Respondent on the charges involving D.M., D.Z., and R.Y. The Respondent entered the pleas solely for the purpose of obtaining his discharge. His appeal involved the mere calculation of 175 days of incarceration without a waiver of the Speedy Trial Rule.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That all of the charges set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed November 16, 1987, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 25th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2759 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected. See HO #3. Rejected. Contrary to facts established at hearing through Respondent's testimony. Conjecture and improper conclusion. Accepted. See HO #4. Rejected. Outside the scope of the pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Rejected. Outside the scope of the pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Outside scope of the pleadings, vague. Conclusionary. Inadmissible hearsay. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Outside scope of pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Arrest irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #6 and #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #2 and #3. Arrest irrelevant. The rest of the second paragraph is accepted. See HO #7. The rest of Respondent's proposed findings are rejected as irrelevant to these proceedings except for the statements surrounding the fireproof wall (See HO #3) and the factual finding that the incidents involving the molestation of children, as alleged by the children all took place within the residence and not the barbershop. See HO #5 - #7. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia Gelmine, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Calvin C. Campbell, Qualified Representative Glades Correctional Institute 500 Orange Avenue Circle, B123 Belle Glade, Florida 33430-5222 Herbert Hernandez Glades Correctional Institute 500 Orange Avenue Circle Belle Glade, Florida 33430-5222 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Barbers Board Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner holds a license to practice barbering which expired on July 31, 1978. At the time of the expiration of Petitioner's license Section 476.154, Florida Statutes was in effect which permitted licensees who retired from the practice of barbering to have their licenses restored upon the payment of a required restoration fee. Pursuant to Rule 21C-7.01, Florida Administrative Code, "retirement was defined to require written notification to the Barber Board and acknowledgement by the Board of said retirement. Rule 21C-7.01, Florida Administrative Code was promulated in conjunction with Rule 21C-7.02, Florida Administrative Code. rule 21c-7.02, Florida Administrative Code, encountered difficulties when questions were raised by the staff of the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee concerning the statutory authority of the Board to enact the rule. Both rules were filed with the Secretary of State on October 23, 1978, but never published in response to a request by the Board. Subsequent to the filing of the rules, the Board attempted to resolve the conflict between the Committee and the board over the rule. As a result of the Board's inability to resolve the conflict, the rules were repealed in June, 1980 without having been published in the Florida Administrative Code. At the time of the expiration of his license, Petitioner was of the belief that if he retired he could have his license reinstated upon payment of a restoration fee. The Petitioner did not notify the Board of his retirement nor did he receive notification from the Board that subsequent changes in Chapter 476, Florida Statutes would be interpreted by the Board to require reexamination of barbers holding expired licenses. The Petitioner has been a practicing barber for approximately 20 years and desires to again actively pursue his profession.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of barbering and the inspection of barbershops in the state of Florida pursuant to chapter 476, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Archibald was licensed as a barber in the state of Florida under license number BB8890016. At all times material hereto, Fresh Cut Barbershop ("barbershop") was licensed as a barbershop in the state of Florida under license number 1077801. At all times material hereto, Archibald was an owner and operator of the barbershop. On February 9, 2012, the barbershop was located within a shopping plaza at 6574 Northwest Selvitz Road, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On February 9, 2012, a routine inspection of the barbershop was conducted by Ms. Yvonne Grutka, a trained and experienced inspector employed by Petitioner. Ms. Grutka has been employed by Petitioner as an Environmental Health Specialist for approximately 17 years, performing approximately 1,200-1,400 annual inspections. Due to the nature of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, the physical layout of the barbershop, including the specific locations of the front entrance, work stations, and waiting area, is important to a clear understanding and resolution of the issues. However, insufficient evidence was presented at hearing in this regard. Moreover, insufficient evidence was presented as to the number of barbers who worked at the barbershop (and thus number of personal licenses); the identities of the barbers; where specifically within the barbershop they worked; and whether the barbers who worked at the barbershop were independent contractors or employees of the business. The scant evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that on February 9, 2012, the premises upon which the barbershop was physically located was leased from the owner of the shopping plaza. A separate beauty supply business, which was owned by Archibald's ex-wife, was located at the front of the leased premises. The barbershop was located in a smaller area at the back of the leased premises. Both businesses were accessible to customers through a single entry door at the front of the leased space where the beauty supply store was located. Petitioner failed to clearly and convincingly establish that the barbershop was open for business during the February 9, 2012, inspection. During Ms. Grutka's February 9, 2012, inspection, the only persons present at the barbershop were Archibald and another unidentified barber. No evidence was presented that this "other barber" was affiliated with the barbershop in any way. No physical description of this person or his/her clothing was provided. It could be that this barber was just visiting, and was unaffiliated with the barbershop. No customers were present. The time of commencement and duration of the inspection is unknown. On the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, the property upon which the barbershop was located was in foreclosure. As a result, Archibald was planning to vacate the premises and move the barbershop to another location. During the inspection, boxes of items were on the floor, and other items were removed from walls, evidencing Archibald's intent to vacate the premises. Archibald was present on the date of the inspection. Archibald testified he is unsure whether the barbershop was open for business on February 9, 2012, because of his intent to vacate the building. On rebuttal, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" whether she "saw boxes or not." When asked specifically whether she recalled Archibald saying that he was in the process of moving, Ms. Grutka merely replied: "No. He may have. I really don't recall."1/ With respect to the allegation regarding the improper display of personal licenses, Ms. Grutka testified on direct examination that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe personal licenses posted with both the photograph and lamination. She testified that the licenses had the photograph or the lamination on "it, but one of the items was missing." However, no evidence was presented by Petitioner on direct examination as to the specific location of the alleged lack of personal licenses, or the number or identities of the licensees for which personal licenses were purportedly not properly displayed. It was only on cross-examination that Ms. Grutka referred to Archibald's personal license, at which time she testified merely that she recalled seeing his personal license located in the "back" of the premises. Archibald testified that he believes the license was displayed in the barbershop area, which was located in the "back end" of the building. Importantly, Ms. Grutka never testified specifically that Archibald's license was improperly displayed in any way. In sum, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's personal license, or, for that matter, the personal licenses of any other barbers who worked at the barbershop were improperly displayed. With respect to the issues of the display of the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, and most recent inspection report, Ms. Grutka testified that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe a barbershop license displayed visibly within view of the "front door," or the rules of sanitation, health, and safety visibly within view of the "front door" or "waiting area." Nor did Ms. Grutka observe the most recent inspection form prior to the February 9, 2012, inspection displayed within view of the "front entrance" or the "waiting area." According to Ms. Grutka, she did not observe the barbershop license and rules of sanitation, health, and safety, anywhere at the barbershop on the day of the inspection. However, Ms. Grutka's testimony is unreliable and cannot be credited because of insufficient evidence of the physical layout of the premises. In fact, Ms. Grutka testified that she could not recall whether the "waiting area" was in the front of the building, the back of the building, or in both areas. Moreover, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" if the most recent inspection report was posted anywhere else in the barbershop. The unreliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is further demonstrated through the following exchange, which occurred during Archibald's cross-examination of her: Q: Questions for - - You said you never seen any of our license or anything in the back end? A: Yes, they were up - - not in the back. Your personal licenses I remember, you know, were in the back, but I don't recall the inspection sheet and stuff being moved to the back of the shop " Further undercutting the reliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is her statement that the rule regarding the display of a barbershop license requires that the license be visibly within view of the front door. Contrary to Ms. Grutka's testimony, rule 61G3-19.009(2) states that "[t]he shop license shall be displayed within view of the front entrance or in the waiting area." Apparently, Ms. Grutka did not even consider whether the license was displayed in the "waiting area," because she could not identify the location of the "waiting area." Moreover, Ms. Grutka testified that she wrote in the report that the shop license was not "anywhere to be found in the shop." However, a review of the inspection report does not support her testimony. In fact, a section within the inspection report titled: "Remarks," was left blank. Nothing was written in the inspection report indicating that the shop license was nowhere in the barbershop. In sum, there is insufficient clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, or most recent inspection report were not properly displayed. Finally, during the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka testified she did not observe a recent sticker on the portable fire extinguisher indicating that it had been inspected. According to Ms. Grutka, portable fire extinguishers must be inspected on an annual basis, "as per the Fire Marshall, and they would have a sticker on them indicating that they had been inspected." At hearing, Archibald did not admit to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rather, Archibald persuasively explained that if personal and business licenses and the rules of sanitation and most recent inspection report were not displayed during the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was because the property was in foreclosure, items had been removed from the walls, items were placed in boxes, and he was planning on moving the barbershop to another location. In fact, the barbershop vacated the premises sometime in 2013, and relocated to another shopping plaza. At the conclusion of the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka prepared and signed an inspection report indicating the violations noted in the report, and she informed Archibald of the alleged violations. Archibald acknowledged his receipt of the report. No evidence was presented indicating that a follow-up inspection of the barbershop was ever scheduled or occurred. No citation has ever been issued for the February 9, 2012, inspection. No evidence was presented establishing a prior history of persistent or flagrant violations of the same nature as those alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The evidence at hearing established that even if personal and business licenses, the rules of sanitation, and the most recent inspection report were not properly displayed on the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was an isolated incident.2/ Importantly, the facts adduced at hearing do not clearly and convincingly establish that Archibald personally engaged in any misconduct resulting in the five charges which are the subject of the Administrative Complaint. The evidence failed to establish, clearly and convincingly, that Archibald personally committed, or is personally culpable for, a disciplinary offense which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty on all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 26th day of February, 2014.
The Issue Whether the Barbers' Board should discipline the Respondent (a licensed barber and barbershop) for permitting a person in his employ to practice barbering without a license in violation of Sections 476.204(1)(a) and (h) and 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Bruce Heineman, holds a valid Florida barber license, license number BB-0018489 which was originally issued on May 8, 1968, and has been continuously licensed as a barber since that time. No record of prior disciplinary action appears in Respondent's file. Respondent, Bruce Heineman operates a barbershop under the business name of "Cuttin Corners," located at 3107 South Orlando Drive, #7B, Sanford, Florida 32771. Said barbershop operates under a current valid barbershop license which was originally issued to Respondent on September 9, 1986. Sara Kemmeck, an inspector with the Department, testified that she personally observed an employee of Respondent, Tina Prescott, giving a customer a haircut on August 31, 1988, at his barbership. Upon demand, the employee was unable to produce a valid barbers license. The unrebutted evidence demonstrated that Tina Prescott was engaged in the practice of barbering without a valid license for a minimum of two weeks, while an employee of Respondent. Tina Prescott was issued a cosmetology license on November 7, 1988, license number CL-0174999, which permits her to practice barbering in a licensed barbershop.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent violated Section 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995), 1/ by hiring an unlicensed person to practice barbering and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to barbers. Petitioner is also responsible for regulating the practice of barbering on behalf of the state. Respondent is licensed as a barber. Respondent holds license number BS 0008619. On or before October 15, 1994, Respondent hired Mr. Eric A. McClenton to practice barbering in Respondent's barber shop. Mr. McClenton is not licensed as a barber. 2/ Respondent hired Mr. McClenton to perform barbering services as an independent contractor. Mr. McClenton paid Respondent $75 monthly for the use of one of the barber chairs in Respondent's shop and paid for his own equipment and supplies. Mr. McClenton performed barbering services within the meaning of Section 476.034(2). Mr. McClenton cut hair for approximately four months. He cut approximately 100 heads of hair for a fee of $6 or $7 a head. Respondent knew or should have known that Mr. McClenton was not licensed as a barber. Respondent allowed Mr. McClenton to cut hair before seeing Mr. McClenton's license. When Respondent hired Mr. McClenton, Respondent asked to see Mr. McClenton's license. Mr. McClenton verbally represented that he was licensed but used various excuses over time to delay or avoid showing his license to Respondent. Mr. McClenton never displayed a license by the chair he operated in Respondent's shop. Petitioner issued separate citations to Respondent and Mr. McClenton. Petitioner issued a citation to Respondent imposing a fine of $250. Respondent did not pay the fine.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 476.194(1)(c) and imposing an administrative fine of $250. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY, 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 14th day of August, 1996.
