The Issue Should the Petitioner be licensed in Florida as a barber as a result of the examination for licensure given in December of 1987?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner took the examination for licensure as a barber in December of 1987. Although she achieved a passing score on the written portion of the examination, she did not obtain a passing score on the practical portion of the examination. The practical portion of the examination is divided into five parts. The Petitioner challenges the grade she received in the scoring of the haircut. The maximum number of points a licensure candidate can receive on a haircut is 45 points. A review of Respondent's Exhibit B shows that the Petitioner received 18 points for her performance on Sections 2-k, 2-o, and 2-p of the exam. She does not contest the examiners' ratings on Sections 2-j and 2- m. She is concerned only with the scores she received on Sections 2-l and 2-n. When the Petitioner took the examination, John E. Lewis was the model she used to demonstrate her ability to give a "styled" haircut. During the hearing, John E. Lewis explained the following characteristics of his head and scalp line: Mr. Lewis' ears are not symmetrically located. One ear is placed significantly higher on his head than his other ear, which gives them different heights in relation to his facial features. In addition, the hair on the left side of his head grows much thicker than the hair on the right side of his head. As a result of these characteristics, an optical illusion is created which makes hair of identical length on both sides of the head appear to be longer on the left side. During the barber examination, two examiners checked the style line of the haircut under Section 2-l. On the criteria rating sheets, they commented that the left side of the style line appeared longer. In rating the hair on each side as to evenness and balance (Section 2-n), the examiners each noted that the left side was either longer or fuller. Because of these evaluations, the Petitioner did not receive any points in categories 2-i or 2-n in the examination. Cathy Maynard Frank, a Florida licensed barber who was awarded a silver medal in the 1986 World Championship of Barbers and who has placed second nationally, testified as an expert witness on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. Frank had an opportunity to observe and professionally review the haircut a few hours after the examination. In her opinion, the hair on both sides (under Section 2-n) was as close as a barber could get them. If the Petitioner had cut the left side shorter to avoid the optical illusion of unevenness, the thicker hair on the left side would have stuck straight out. Ms. Frank generally agreed with the examiners' evaluations in the other categories which contributed to her credibility as an expert witness. Ronald Max Young testified as an expert witness on behalf of the Respondent. Mr. Young is a barber who has been licensed in Florida since 1972. He is a lead examiner for the state and has participated in the examination process for the last five years. Mr. Young testified that the examination contains the standard criteria necessary to meet the minimum requirements for licensing. The examiners look for an even haircut, evenly balanced all the way around. If a model is not fitting, that is the candidate's problem, not the examiners' problem. Mr. Young did not have an opportunity to examine the haircut given by the Petitioner during the practical examination. He was unable to comment on the specifics which had been commented upon by Ms. Frank. However, he did vouch for the qualifications and abilities of the two examiners who independently rated the Petitioner's performance.
The Issue The issue in the proceeding is whether Respondent, Felix Robaina, violated provisions of the "Barbers' Act", Chapter 476, Florida Statutes, by operating a barbershop without a current active barbershop license. Background and Procedural Matters This proceeding commenced with an Administrative Complaint by Petitioner on September 18, 1985, and by Respondent, Robaina's timely request for a formal hearing. At the hearing Petitioner presented its evidence through the testimony of investigator, Jean Robinson, Felix Robaina and three exhibits. Respondent submitted one exhibit. All exhibits were admitted without objection. By stipulation of the parties, Vivian Lerma served as translator for Mr. Robaina. She was placed under oath for this purpose in accordance with Section 90.606, Florida Statutes. The parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. These have been considered and, where appropriate, have been incorporated into this Recommended Order. Specific rulings on each proposed finding of fact are found in the Appendix attached hereto.
Findings Of Fact Felix Robaina was born in Cuba and came to the United States in May, 1980. He cannot read, write or speak English and understands English very little. He took the barber's exam in Spanish and has been continually licensed as a barber by the Florida Barber's Board since June, 1983. On July 15, 1983, he opened his shop, Chosen Barber Shop, in Belle Glade, Florida. The shop had previously been owned by Antonio Garcia but was closed when Mr. Garcia died in 1982 or early 1983. Mr. Robaina has continually worked alone in the shop since he opened it and regular hours are 9 am to 7 pm, Tuesdays through Saturdays. Jean Robinson, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, noticed that the shop was reopened on a trip through the area and on June 1, 1985, she conducted an inspection. She found Mr. Robaina's barber license and occupational licenses were displayed on the wall. With a customer serving as interpreter, Jean Robinson asked Mr. Robaina for his shop license. de was confused and showed her the occupational license. Ms. Robinson explained the requirement of the law regarding a separate shop license and left an application for. Respondent, Robaina, promptly applied for a shop license, and has held license number BS0008668-since July 1985. Although part of the Barber exam course includes the legal requirement for licensing, Mr. Robaina said he did not know his shop required a separate license until Ms. Robinson visited and informed him. She confirmed that his confusion when she asked for the license was consistent with that ignorance. According to Ms. Robinson people commonly feel that the occupational license is all that is needed for a shop. Between July 1983 and July 1985, Felix Robaina operated his barbershop without a shop license.
The Issue The issues in these cases concern several administrative complaints brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against Respondent. In DOAH Case No. 89-4454/DPR Case No. 0093417, Respondent is alleged to have employed a number of individuals to practice as barber instructors who have not been licensed by the State of Florida. In addition, allegations were placed that Respondent had not met sanitation standards required by law; that barbering students and instructor trainees were not under the constant supervision of a licensed instructor; that insufficient numbers of instructors were provided based upon the preceding months' average daily attendance; that a current inspection rating sheet, as well as a copy of the sanitation rules were not displayed; that a full-time instructor statement of employment was not available; that students/school contracts were not available and that a drinking fountain of bottled water needed to be refilled, as revealed in an inspection of January 7, 1988. In DOAH Case No. 89-4453/DPR Case No. 0097551 pertaining to an inspection of April 8, 1988, Respondent is said to have employed a Calvin Gates to practice as a barber instructor without Gates having been issued a license from the State of Florida. Finally, DOAH Case No. 89- 4452/DPR Case No. 0108179 alleges that by inspection of November 17, 1988, it was revealed that Joseph Kaufmann had been employed to teach barbering by Respondent and was operating on an expired barber instructor's license, which had expired approximately August 1, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed barber school in the State of Florida which operated at 5863 University Boulevard W. and 4416 Brentwood Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida, at times significant to these administrative complaints. On January 7, 1988, Gail Hand, an inspector for Petitioner, inspected the Brentwood Avenue facility. This inspection was a routine quarterly inspection. The Jacksonville, Florida, operations of the Roffler Hair Design College are 50% owned by Stewart Arnett Smith, Sr. and 50% owned by Stewart Arnett Smith, Jr., his son. On January 7, 1988, Hand was accompanied in her inspection by Cheryl Baker, whom she understood to be the manager based upon Baker's remarks. In fact, Baker was a secretary; and the actual manager of the facility was an individual named Mattz, who was out ill on this date. Mattz, at that time, was a licensed barber instructor. Neither of the owners were in attendance at the commencement of the inspection. Arnett Smith, Jr. had left to go to his other facility on University Boulevard. He was summoned back to the Brentwood Avenue barber school to participate in the inspection. He arrived approximately 20 to 40 minutes later. During the inspection, Velma Chambers was observed by Hand to be seated in a classroom while a student spoke to the class. At this time, Chambers was an instructor trainee. She had entered into a contract with Respondent on May 14, 1987 to be completed by November 14, 1987 pertaining to 600 hours of course instruction directed toward her becoming a barber instructor. Nonetheless, beyond the date of November 14, 1987, she was still at the school in a capacity, which was other than a licensed instructor in Florida, and under these facts is found to have been a barber instructor trainee on this date. In addition, a work schedule for instructors at the facility, be they licensed barber instructors or instructor trainees, showed Chambers to be filling the role of instructor at the school. Although this schedule had not been prepared by the owners, it was provided to Hand by the younger Smith upon his arrival at Brentwood Avenue on the inspection date. Baker had also pointed Chambers out as being one of the instructors in the facility. Calvin Gates, who was on the floor in the Brentwood Avenue facility, was pointed out by Baker as the instructor on the floor. The floor is where services are given to the public, as distinguished from the classroom, where theory is taught. Gates was not a licensed barber instructor in Florida on the date in question. He, too, had entered into a contract to receive course work toward his instructor's license. His contract with Respondent commenced on September 15, 1987 to be consummated on March 15, 1988. A Dave Dison was found in a room where mannequins are kept and the students are allowed to practice. Dison was pointed out by Baker as being certified for the new students, and Baker commented that Dison's license was at the University Boulevard facility. This is taken to mean that Dison was a licensed barber instructor, whose license was not available at the Brentwood Avenue facility. Having considered the remarks of Baker made to Hand and the testimony of the younger Smith at hearing, it is unclear whether his employment was that of licensed instructor or as instructor trainee waiting a license examination to become a barber instructor. In either case, he had not been licensed by the State of Florida as a barber instructor on the date of the inspection. His name does not appear in the schedule of instructors; but on the date of inspection, he was observed instructing new students using mannequins. According to the investigative report, which comments are credited, the younger Smith admitted to Hand that Dison did not have a Florida license and that Dison had commented to Smith that he, Dison, was having problems with his license in Mississippi. Subsequent to the time of inspection, Dison was dismissed as an employee of Respondent. Terry B. Collier and Patricia Frances Wilson were shown on the schedule to have instructor duties related to the floor duty for Collier and classroom duty for Wilson. Shirley Johnson was shown as having unspecified duties from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Thursday. None of these persons were in attendance on the date of inspection, nor did they have barber instructor licenses at that time. It can be fairly inferred that they were considered by Respondent to be instructor trainees. It cannot be fairly inferred that any knowledge which they might impart on some date other than the inspection date would be in a setting in which the ratio of students to licensed instructors was not in keeping with legal requirement or that they were allowed to pursue their duties as trainee instructors without appropriate supervision from licensed instructors. The process of teaching people to become instructors contemplates the opportunity for those persons to also instruct while undergoing their training. To be successful in an allegation of impropriety by Respondent, proof has to be offered that these persons were, on some date, allowed to instruct without appropriate supervision and in a situation in which the ratio of licensed instructors to students was inadequate. That was not shown as it pertains to the three trainee instructors not in attendance at the time of inspection. The fact that the younger Smith told Hand that he thought the instructor trainees could teach students and be counted as part of the required number of instructors does not change this impression. In addition to Mattz, who was out ill, an individual whose name is Parks was scheduled to work at the Brentwood Avenue facility on the inspection date. Parks was a licensed instructor at the time. He had left the building for some undisclosed reason before the time of the inspection. A Mr. Lewis was also a licensed instructor, who was scheduled to work at the Brentwood Avenue facility on that date; but he was not due in the facility until 1:00 p.m. and had not arrived at the time of the inspection. Although the younger Smith has an instructor's license, he was not performing the function of instructor on the inspection date and was not listed on the schedule of instructors. Effectively, this meant that although students were undergoing instruction, that instruction was being provided by persons who were not licensed instructors and under the supervision of licensed instructors. On the date of the inspection, Baker calculated the average daily attendance to be 105 students. She had some difficulty in arriving at this figure. The younger Smith spoke to Hand on January 11, 1988 by telephone in which he suggested that that figure of 105 should be corrected to 56, based upon some mistake made by the secretary. On January 15, 1988, a letter bearing the signature of Cheryl Baker was written concerning the average daily attendance in which it was reported that she had stated the attendance as 90 and that the correct daily attendance should be 59. Whatever the true figure, students were in attendance and they were not receiving instruction from licensed barber instructors. The inspection also revealed that the current inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules had not been posted or displayed. The explanation by Smith was that the facility had been recently painted and that they had not been put back in their usual place. Hand asked for a copy of the missing inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules but does not recall whether she was shown a copy of these items. The reason why the items pertaining to the current inspection rating sheet and sanitation rules were not produced, based upon Hand's recollection, was that they could not be found. On April 8, 1988, Hand returned to the Brentwood Avenue facility for further inspection and observed Gates teaching. On that occasion, he was introduced by Mattz as the other instructor on duty, with Mattz being one of the two instructors. Seventeen students were present at that time. Two instructors would have been needed to offer instruction to that many students. The average daily attendance on that date was 72 students. On that date, Gates was not licensed by the State of Florida as a barber instructor. On a later date, Hand spoke to the younger Smith about the inspection. On this occasion, Smith changed his point of view from the situation in which he had commented at the first inspection of January 17, 1988. In that earlier inspection, he had stated that he thought that trainees could teach students and be counted as the required number of instructors. In the discussion regarding the April 8, 1988 inspection, he indicated that he did not count instructor trainees as instructors and that Hand must have misunderstood his comments during the previous inspection. On the occasion of the inspection of April 8, 1988, Hand was provided confirmation of Gates' employment, which stated that he was employed as an instructor at the school. The younger Smith tried to explain the circumstance with Gates on the basis that Gates had already taken his barber instructor test and that he had been notified that he had failed and that he had to retake the test and had appealed it with success. All of this information is hearsay and not subject to use for fact finding. Regardless of the true situation of Gates' attempt to gain his barber instructor license, he did not have a license on April 8, 1988 and should not have been allowed to instruct and be counted in the census of licensed instructors. On November 17, 1988, Hand conducted a routine inspection of the University Boulevard West facility. She found Joseph Kaufmann practicing with an expired instructor's license which was displayed. Kaufmann told Hand that he had renewed his license in August of 1988 but that it was returned with a request for an additional $50.00 late fee. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence is a form dated August 2, 1988 pertaining to this license and states that the renewal and fee had been postmarked after the expiration date of July 31, 1988. As a consequence, the basic fee of $50.00 was being returned with the expectation that the request for relicensure should be resubmitted with a total amount of $100.00 being paid, $50.00 for the basic license and $50.00 for a penalty and for reinstatement. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3A admitted into evidence is another form dated December 1, 1988 from Petitioner which states that the renewal and check in the amount of $100.00 was being returned because the request was being processed and the enclosed check was, not required. Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence is a copy of postmarks of August 1, 1988 purportedly from Kaufmann, and November 29, 1988, again, purportedly from Kaufmann. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence is a letter from Mr. Tunnicliff, as chief attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation, addressed to Kaufmann, in which it is indicated that any action against Kaufmann was being dismissed associated with the complaint that Kaufmann was practicing with an expired instructor's license. It indicates that although probable cause was believed to exist, that Kaufmann had violated practice standards, in light of the circumstances, it was determined to dismiss the action. This is said to have been based upon the perception that while Kaufmann was practicing with an expired license because of miscommunication between Kaufmann and the Barbers Board, there had been a delay in the renewal of the license. Respondent was notified by telephone on November 22, 1988 concerning the Kaufmann situation. The younger Smith told Hand in that telephone conversation that Kaufmann had renewed his license and had shown Respondent's representative, the younger Smith, a copy of a money order received. Kaufmann had told Hand that on August 1, 1988, he had resubmitted his basic fee with an additional $50.00. Kaufmann showed Hand a copy of a money order receipt with no date. He did not have any correspondence available that he had received from Petitioner concerning his renewal. Hand checked with the office of the Barbers Board on November 21, 1988 and was told that the license had not been renewed and no money had been received. Kaufmann told Hand on the inspection date that because of some problems with mail, they received his money and sent it back because it was late and said that he owed another $50.00 which coincides with the remarks of Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. By contrast, in the conversation of November 21, 1988 between Hand and the Barbers Board, Hand was being told that the Barbers Board had received no money. The younger Smith, with the indication of a money order being sent by Kaufmann to renew his barber instructor license and a remark that he had sent his money in and that he had not received the license renewal back, assumed that things were acceptable. The younger Smith also took solace in the fact that there are problems at times with license renewals, which have to be rectified. Nonetheless, it is evident that Kaufmann was operating as a licensed instructor on November 17, 1988 without having received his license renewal and under the auspice of a license that was being displayed and clearly showed that it was no longer in effect.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts and the Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which fines Respondent in the amount of $1,250.00 and entering a letter of reprimand in the disciplinary file associated with DOAH Case No. 89-4452/DPR Case No. 0108179. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 31st day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 89-4452, 89-4453, 89-4454 The following disposition is made of the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is subordinate to facts found, except for its reference to the inspection date as being April 13, 1988. The inspection date was April 8, 1988. Paragraph 5 is subordinate to facts found as far as it is stated in the unnumbered page 4. It appears that some of the Proposed Recommended Order is missing to include the balance of the fact finding at an unnumbered page 5. Respondent's Facts The facts pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4452 are subordinate to facts found. The facts pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4453 are rejected. The documented information related to the Calvin Gates contract, which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence, shows the conclusion of his training on March 15, 1988, before the inspection of April 8, 1988. The relevant fact is that Gates was not a licensed instructor on April 8, 1988. The comments pertaining to DOAH Case No. 89-4454, which refer to a letter of September 1, 1988 from Robert C. Kent, Esquire, have been taken into account in the fact finding in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Stewart Arnett Smith, Jr. 5110 University Boulevard West Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Samuel L. Ferguson, Executive Director Department of Education State Board of Independent Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Trade and Business Schools 209 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Barbers Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert C. Kent, Esquire 1532 Atlantic Boulevard Post Office Box 10174 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Donald H. Kirkby, is and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed barber in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. BB0018162 on September 16, 1965. The Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, licensed to operate a barber shop in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. BS0006701. The Respondent owns and operates a barber shop which operates under the trade name, Mr. K's Groom Room, located at 88 East Blue Heron Boulevard, Riviera Beach, Florida. On April 27, 1984, Jean Robinson, an inspector for DPR, visited Mr. K's Groom Room for the purpose of performing an inspection. During the inspection, Ms. Robinson noted several conditions which she believed to be sanitation violations. Because there had been an organizational change in the manner in which barber shops were inspected, and because barber shops went uninspected for a period of approximately three years, Ms. Robinson chose not to note the violations on a departmental inspection form but explained the Barber Board sanitation rules and requirements to the Respondent, left Respondent a copy of the sanitation rules and instructed Respondent to post the rules. On April 17, 1985, Ms. Robinson once again visited Mr. K's Groom Room for the purpose of performing an inspection. During the inspection, Ms. Robinson noticed several deficiencies and violations. At the conclusion of her inspection, Ms. Robinson completed an "inspection form" wherein she specified the deficiencies and violations which she noticed. Ms. Robinson indicated that on the form that implements were being used from one patron to another without hair being removed, improper implement sanitation procedures were used and current rules of sanitation were not properly posted for the public. Both Ms. Robinson and the Respondent signed the inspection form. On February 18, 1986, Ms. Robinson returned to Mr. K's Groom Room to conduct a reinspection. While there, Ms. Robinson noticed that proper implement sanitation procedures were not being used. In particular, Ms. Robinson observed Paul Poma, one of Respondent's barber employees, use hair cutting implements on a customer that he had used on a previous customer without cleaning or sanitizing them in any way. Although Mr. Poma had an ultraviolet ray sanitizing device at his station, it was not being used. When Ms. Robinson inspected the sterilizer by flicking the on/off switch, the machine did not come on, even though the electrical plug was properly placed in the wall socket. Ms. Robinson further observed the Respondent use hair cutting implements on a new customer that he had used on a previous customer without sanitizing or cleaning the implements. During the inspection, Ms. Robinson looked around for the licenses, but could not find them. When Ms. Robinson asked Respondent where the licenses were, he pointed to a table in the corner of the shop. Ms. Robinson went over to the table but still did not see the licenses. The Respondent then went over to the table moved some magazines and telephone books around and pointed to the licenses, which were beneath a glass covered tabletop. Ms. Robinson looked around for the sanitation rules and noticed that they were posted on a wall but were partially obstructed from public view by other papers and announcements which were posted adjacent to them. At the conclusion of her inspection, Ms. Robinson completed another inspection form listing the violations and deficiencies observed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months and that an administrative fine of $500 be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 29th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4, 5 and 7. 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Although Ms. Robinson observed a great deal of hair on the floor, that point was not alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Adopted in substances in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald H. Kirkby 88 East Blue Heron Boulevard Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Barbers Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Michael Harris is a licensed cosmetologist having been issued license number CL 0104278. However, respondent's license has not been current from July 1, 1982 through at least July 24, 1984. Prior to April 13, 1983, respondent acquired and began operating Northwood Barber Shop, a cosmetology salon located at 513 Northwood Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. However, respondent never obtained a cosmetology salon license to operate at the location and did not obtain a barber shop license from the Florida Barbers Board to operate at that location until December 2, 1983. On or about April 13, 1983, respondent was operating Northwood Barber Shop. In addition, on or about April 13, 1983, respondent himself was practicing cosmetology and holding himself to be a cosmetologist without being duly licensed as a cosmetologist. After December 2, 1983, respondent was lawfully operating the Northwood Barber Shop, having been issued a barber shop license by the Florida Barbers Board. However, on June 14, 1984, respondent again was practicing cosmetology and holding himself out to be a cosmetologist without being duly licensed. Respondent did not raise or prove as a defense that he was licensed as a barber by the Florida Barbers Board on either April 13, 1983 or Jun 14, 1984. On the contrary, respondent's admissions to petitioner's inspector on those dates and other occasions affirmatively suggest that respondent was not licensed as a barber.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology impose upon respondent Michael Harris an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. Recommended this 4th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 4th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Michael Harris 513 Northwood Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myrtle S. Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s barbershop license, based on violations of s. 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CL-0135324. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of a barbershop which operates under the name Olga’s Beauty and Barber Shop. It has been issued license number BS-0009349 and is located in Ft. Pierce, Florida. Leonard Baldwin is an inspector for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. As part of his statutory duties, he conducts routine inspections of barbershops. As part of his statutory duties, he conducted a routine inspection of Olga’s Beauty and Barber Shop on April 20, 1996. During the course of that inspection, Olga’s Beauty and Barber Shop was open for the business of performing barbering services to members of the public. The time of inspection was approximately 11:30 a.m. He observed an elderly man getting out of the barber’s chair with a fresh haircut. The customer paid Respondent for the service. The person behind the chair was given a tip. He also observed a man, subsequently identified as Javon Stewart, Respondent’s husband, standing behind the chair and placing the clippers in a drawer. The clippers were later determined to be warm. Javon Steward is not licensed to cut hair in Florida. During the course of the inspection, Mr. Baldwin prepared and presented a “Cease and Desist Agreement” to Javon Stewart. Javon Stewart signed the Cease and Desist Agreement and agreed not to engage in the practice of barbering until and unless he was licensed. On May 23, 1996, a reinspection was conducted. During the course of that inspection, Baldwin observed a customer seated in a barber chair inside the barbershop. He saw Javon Stewart with a pair of clippers in his hand standing directly behind the seated customer using the clippers on the customer’s neck. He observed the person “finishing up his customer, cleaning off the bottom of his neck.” The phrase “cleaning off the bottom of a neck” is a barbering term that refers to a person using a set of hair clippers to cut or trim a person’s hair from the back hairline to below the collar line. In this instance, “cleaning off” actually means “cutting or trimming” the hair. During the course of the second inspection, Baldwin observed the customer getting out of the chair, paying the Respondent for the haircut and giving Stewart a tip. Javon Stewart then put the clippers into a drawer. Baldwin immediately walked over to the drawer where the hair clippers were placed and picked them up. The clippers were warm, having just been used.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by employing an unlicensed individual to engage in barbering services. It is further recommended that the Respondent be fined $500.00 (five hundred dollars) and issued a Cease and Desist Order. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of September, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Manning, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Barbers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Olga Gibb Olga’s Beauty & Barber Shop 1236 Avenue D Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Joe Baker Executive Director Board of Barbers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Antonio Castellano has been a master barber for more than 30 years and has been continuously licensed as a barber in Florida since 1970 (Exhibit 1). The International Inn Barber Shop is located on the ground floor of the International Inn at 3705 Henderson Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, which is owned by William A. Watson. There are three barber chairs in this shop, and all fixtures in the barber shop are owned by Watson. The barber shop has been licensed by Watson since 1982. The last license issued to Watson for this shop was issued December 4, 1986 to expire September 30, 1988 (Exhibit 3). Since 1982, Watson has hired barbers to operate the shop on commission. However, this has not proved satisfactory, and Watson concluded to lease the shop and have the lessee responsible for the various licenses required. In carrying out this plan, a LEASE (Exhibit 5) was entered into between Watson and Respondent on July 31, 1987, which provided Castellano would be totally responsible for the operation of this shop and would obtain the necessary city and state licenses required. The lease commenced August 1, 1987. This barber shop was inspected on or about November 18, 1987, by Judy Denchfield, an inspector from the Department of Professional Regulation. When told by Respondent that he was the lessor, Denchfield, without looking at the lease and aware that the shop license issued to Watson was posted in the shop and had not expired, assumed Respondent was the owner of the shop for licensing purposes and cited Respondent for violating Sections 476.204(1)(b) and 476.194(1)(e)1, Florida Statutes. These proceedings duly followed.
