Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology pursuant to Section 20.30, Chapters 455 and 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Nadine Alice Walker d/b/a Nadine's Styling Salon, is licensed to practice cosmetology and to operate a cosmetology salon, having been issued license number CL 0102000 and CE 0032562. During times material hereto, Respondent Walker has been the owner/operator of a cosmetology salon named "Nadine's Styling Salon" located at 1014 East Cass Street, Tampa, Florida 33602. Respondent Hunt, during times material, was not a licensed cosmetologist in Florida. During a routine inspection of Respondent Walker's salon on June 16, 1990, inspector Steve Yovino, who is employed by Petitioner to conduct routine inspection of, inter alia, cosmetology salons to determine their compliance with Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, observed Respondent Hunt using an electric dryer to "blow dry" a customer's hair which she had shampooed. Respondent Hunt was compensated for her services. On the day of the inspector's routine inspection of Respondent Walker's salon, it was the first day that Respondent Hunt had assisted Respondent Walker at Walker's styling salon. Respondent Hunt is presently enrolled in a cosmetology school to become trained and licensed as a cosmetologist in Florida. Respondent Walker engaged the services of Respondent Hunt to assist her in those duties in which an unlicensed cosmetologist can engage in, to wit, performing routine maintenance around the salon to include sweeping and cleaning the booth areas. Respondent Walker's aim was to assist Respondent Hunt in gaining experience in those areas of cosmetology which did not require a license. Neither Respondent Hunt nor Respondent Walker have been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent Nadine Alice Walker in the amount of $100, payable to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the entry of its Final Order and issue Respondent Nadine Alice Walker a letter of guidance. Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent Tracy Hunt in the amount of $100, payable to Petitioner within thirty days of the entry of its Final Order and issue Respondent Tracy Hunt a letter of guidance. 1/ RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of February, 1991.
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent William L. Hamilton should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for violation of Section 477.27(5) and 477.17, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, to-wit: 21F-3.01 in that said Respondent was charged with operating a cosmetologist salon without a salon license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent William L. Hamilton received notice of this hearing and in his election of remedies stated that the violation notice did not constitute a violation of law and sent a letter of explanation as to the violation notice and stated that he would not attend this hearing. Inspector Madge Evans of the State Board of Cosmetology entered the salon operated by William L. Hamilton as Bill's Hair Shack in Palatka, Florida in which he was doing business without a salon license. Mrs. Evans notified the Respondent that he must apply for an obtain a salon license before operating a beauty salon and left an application form with Respondent. On several occasions the inspector for the Board entered a place of business in which William L. Hamilton was operating a beauty salon without a salon license. The salon license is not transferable from location to location and each location that is to be used as a beauty salon must be certified by the Board and a salon license issued. Respondent Hamilton is not now operating a beauty salon under a valid beauty salon license and salon license No. 22621, which Respondent holds is now invalid inasmuch as the location has burned. He holds personal license No. 62269 which entitles him to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Suspend the personal license No. 62269 of Respondent William L. Hamilton for a period of three months for violation of Section 477.15, Florida Statutes and 477.17(s). DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida William L. Hamilton Route 1, Box 30 East Palatka, Florida 32301 Mrs. Mary Alice Palmer Post Office Box 9087 Board of Cosmetology Winter Haven, Florida 33880 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not the Respondent operated a cosmetology salon without a current active salon license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, a post- hearing memorandum, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. Respondent, James F. Tobin, was at all times material herein licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology and has been issued cosmetologist license number CL 0096393. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) During December, 1980, Respondent purchased a cosmetologist salon then named Sisters Two which is located at 17036 W. Dixie Highway, North Miami Beach, Florida. Respondent thereafter renamed the salon "All About Hair" and at all times subsequent to December, 1980, owned and operated All About Hair as a cosmetologist salon. During July or August, 1981, Respondent submitted to the Petitioner an application for a cosmetology salon license for All About Hair enclosing therewith a check made payable to the Petitioner in the amount of $40. On August 13, 1981, Petitioner received the application and on the following day, August 14, 1981, Petitioner cashed the Respondent's $40 check. The Department did not approve the application and on August 19, 1981 returned the application to Respondent together with a cover letter stating the following three reasons: The application was not accompanied by a diagram of the salon, The lease was not in the Respondent's name, and The application failed to specify the type of dry sanitizer that Respondent was using in the salon. Upon receipt of the returned application from the Petitioner, the (Respondent) gave it to his mother for completion and for resubmittal to the Petitioner. A completed cosmetology salon license application form for All About Hair was not received by the Petitioner from Respondent until August 8, 1983. Upon receipt of the completed application, the Department issued its cosmetology salon license number CE 0035291 for All About Hair on September 10, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Respondent, by and through its business manager, acknowledged that it never received from the Petitioner a cosmetology salon license in the name of All About Hair prior to September 8, 1983. Although the Respondent assumed that his mother immediately re-submitted the returned application to the Petitioner, other than the finding herein that the returned application was re-submitted to Petitioner on August 8, 1983, there was no direct testimony offered in support of that assumption. On September 30, 1982, Petitioner's investigator and inspector, Dorsey Hayes, made a routine inspection of All About Hair. During the course of that inspection, inspector Hayes discovered a discrepancy between the salon named All About Hair and the license which it was operating under, Sisters Two. At no time prior to September 10, 1983, did the Respondent hold a valid current license for the cosmetology salon All About Hair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent shall pay an administrative fine to the Petitioner in the amount of $250 within thirty days of the date of the Final Order herein. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 December, 1983.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 477.14(1) & 477.17, Florida Statutes. Receipt of Administrative Complaint and Notice of Hearing was acknowledged by Respondent. (Exhibit 1)
Findings Of Fact On May 20, 1975, Respondent was employed at the Elizabeth Arden cosmetology salon, 340 Miracle Mile, Coral Gables, Florida. This salon operates under Certificate of Registration No. 21626 issued by Petitioner on May 8, 1975. Petitioner's inspector had seen an ad in the Miami Herald to the effect that Respondent was employed at that establishment and she was aware of the fact that he did not hold a current cosmetologist license. She visited him on May 20, 1975 and he stated at that time that he had applied for a license. The inspector checked with Petitioner's records personnel and discovered that his license had not been renewed at that time. (Testimony of Padrick) Respondent submitted letters dated June 25, 1976 in which he stated that he had planned to attend his hearing but was unable to do so because of illness in the family. He further stated that he had been a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida for over 20 years, and previously one in Illinois for over six (6) years. He stated that he had severe medical problems and went out of the beauty field for approximately two years and when the job opportunity at Elizabeth Arden came along he forwarded a check for $35.00 to Petitioner to reinstate his cosmetology Certificate and that when Petitioner's inspector entered the shop on May 20, 1975, his new license had not yet been received. However, he did show her the check stub. They then jointly called Petitioner's Winter Haven office and he was advised that the check had not been received but that he should send a money order and his old license stub. He did so and his license was received on June 14, 1975. (Statement of Respondent)
Recommendation That the allegation against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Robert Wintermute c/o Elizabeth Arden 340 Miracle Mile Coral Gables, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should be sanctioned for providing services as a cosmetologist without holding an appropriate license as required by Subsection 477.0265(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Vega is a native of Puerto Rico and has been a hair stylist since 1984. She was employed at the Beauty Gallery and Spa Salon (the "Salon") as a shampoo girl and receptionist at all times relevant to this proceeding. English is a second language to Vega, and she does not speak, read, or write the language well. At the final hearing in this matter, Vega testified through an interpreter or translator, Carmen Rodriquez. DBPR is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, the licensure of cosmetologists and cosmetology establishments in Florida. Daniel Hogan, JD, LLM, is a regional program administrator for DBPR, a position he has held for three years. He received training from his employer in order to perform inspections of cosmetology businesses and barbershops as part of his duties. He is responsible for the Orlando office and supervises the inspections of cosmetology and barber establishments conducted by that office. The Orlando office conducts about 3,500 such inspections each year, of which Hogan has involvement in approximately 500. On or about March 29, 2005, Hogan conducted a routine annual inspection of the Salon. During the inspection, Hogan noted two individuals working at the Salon: Vega and a Mr. Torres. Torres was sitting at the front part of the Salon. Hogan identified himself to Vega and Torres as an inspector for DBPR. Neither Vega nor Torres could produce a cosmetology license for review by Hogan when asked. Hogan saw Vega at a workstation, actively engaged in cutting a customer's hair. His efforts to question Vega concerning this matter were thwarted by Vega's inability to converse in English. Vega did produce for Hogan a cosmetology license, which had been issued in Puerto Rico. She also produced a copy of a letter from DBPR wherein Vega's application for licensure had been denied. The purpose of showing those documents to Hogan was to show him that she was a legal resident. She had initially perceived him as an immigration officer. During the course of Hogan's inspection, Ms. Matos, owner of the Salon, appeared. She confirmed to Hogan that Vega had been employed at the Salon for about twelve months. Matos did not appear at the final hearing. There was no testimony by the owner as to Vega's employment position at the Salon. Upon completion of his inspection, Hogan issued an inspection report and a Citation against Vega for practicing without a license. He gave Vega a copy of the citation, which Vega signed in his presence. The citation states that Vega was practicing cosmetology without a license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation upholding the fine assessed in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 22nd day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Raquel Santiago Vega 523 Delido Way Kissimmee, Florida 34758 Drew F. Winters, Esquire Matt Yeager Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent should be fined for alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, occurring prior to her licensure.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Catherine Shepherd, is the owner of a cosmetics studio named Merle Norman Cosmetics. The studio is located at 13275 South 14th Street, Leesburg, Florida 32748. Her primary business is the sale of cosmetics to the public. A very small portion of her business is nail sculpting. Except for the nail sculpting, Respondent is not otherwise subject to the strictures of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent, dba Merle Norman, is a licensed cosmetology salon in the State of Florida having been issued license number CE 0048712. Respondent obtained her license January 24, 1989, after Petitioner's investigator informed her that the law required her to have a cosmetology salon license in order to do nails at her establishment. Prior to January 24, 1989, Respondent was not licensed as a cosmetology salon. When the cosmetology statutes were last adopted, Respondent was informed by the Board's investigator that she would have to employ a licensed cosmetologist in order to do nails at her studio. Respondent thence forward employed a licensed nail sculptor to perform this service. However, the Board's investigator did not inform Respondent that she was also required to have a cosmetology salon license to employ a licensed nail sculptor. She was, therefore, unaware that the law required such a license. Respondent operated as a cosmetology salon without a license for approximately two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order fining the Respondent one hundred dollars ($100.00). DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 18th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-2445 The proposed facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are adopted, in substance, in so far as material. The proposed facts contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia Gelmine, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation North wood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 (904) 488-0062 Catherine Shepherd dba Merle Norman 1327 South 14th Street Leesburg, Florida 32748 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 Kenneth Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Women's Exchange, Inc., possessed a valid Florida license to operate a cosmetology salon at 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue, Miami, Florida, under License No. CE 0032221, which license was issued on September 16, 1982, and expires on October 31, 1984. On January 20, 1983, Steven M. Granowitz, an investigator for Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, entered Respondent's salon for a routine inspection. When he entered the salon, which was located in what appeared to be a home, he noticed it was quite busy. Customers were being waited on at all operator positions, and others were waiting their turn. Upon entering the salon, Mr. Granowitz tried to find the manager to identify himself and present his credentials, but no manager was present, so he talked to the receptionist, showing her his credentials and advising her he was going to do an inspection. At first, he looked at the salon license and went to examine the four operators and their licenses. These licenses are required to be displayed prominently in the shop. None of the four operator stations were displaying licenses. Two operators indicated they had licenses, but did not have them present. Mr. Granowitz made a phone call to his board and verified that these two individuals, Yvonne Eberhart and Clara Ann Edden, were in fact licensed. The two other individuals who he observed to be at operator stations with customers in the chairs, to whom they were applying curly perms, Jacqueline Dulippe and Jeanette Toussaint, were not licensed either by the Board of Cosmetology or Barbers' Board. He, admittedly, did not watch these two unlicensed operators during the entire period he was there. Consequently, it may well be that other licensed operators also worked on the same customers. There is no doubt in his mind, however, that what he observed these two do were cosmetology operations. Licenses are required to perform the work being performed by these two individuals, though not all functions in a cosmetology salon require a license. When Mr. Granowitz discussed this situation shortly thereafter that day with Antonia Gary, one of the officers of Respondent corporation, in the salon, she indicated she was not the manager of the salon, that none of the corporate officers were involved in the day-to-day operation of the salon, and that she did not know these two individuals were not licensed. However, there was no claim that either had misrepresented their license status. Joyce Ann Hanks-Knox, President of Women's Exchange, Inc., the corporation which owns the corporation which now owns Fingertips, the salon in question, admits that the license is in the name of Women's Exchange, Inc. There is no question, however, that Women's Exchange, Inc., holds the license in question for Fingertips and that the current Fingertips salon is that which is described in the license. She is not a licensed cosmetologist, and while she spends as much as 20 hours per week in the business of Women's Exchange, Inc., these duties do not include active management of the salon. She further relates, however, that it has never been the policy of either the parent corporation or the management of Fingertips to permit unlicensed operators to work, unsupervised, on customers. She admits that both women in question worked at Fingertips and, in fact, one was hired by her. Their duties were to be trained as operators and to perform other small tasks within the salon, such as moving patrons from one area to another, cleaning the salon, and insuring that supplies were at the work stations as needed. They were also allowed to wash hair, but, in this apprentice program, nonlicensed personnel were not to give permanents or do anything else that could be considered cosmetology. All of the licensed operators knew what the apprentice program consisted of, its limitations, and that these two individuals were not licensed. As such, they should have stopped them from performing unauthorized tasks. Neither individual was hired as a cosmetologist, nor was she paid as a cosmetologist. Since neither Ms. Knox nor Ms. Gary actively supervise the operation of the salon, since Mr. Granowitz could find no one there during his visit who admitted to being in charge, and since there was no evidence presented that there was any manager assigned to the salon, it is obvious that the salon was left, for the most part, to run itself without effective management supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent corporation be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $250 for each count proven -- a total of $500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Mr. Fred Roche Department of Professional Secretary Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce Hanks-Knox, Esquire President Women's Exchange, Inc. 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue 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
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. Counsel for Petitioner announced that he had been unable to serve Respondent with a copy of the Administrative Complaint and Notice of Hearing. He further stated that Respondent no longer holds a Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon because Tippie's Beauty salon which she formerly operated is no longer in business. He further stated that he had no objection to a dismissal of the charge.
Recommendation That the allegation against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Barbara Spence c/o Tippie's Beauty Salon 209 S.W. 27 Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's licenses as a cosmetologist and cosmetology salon owner in the State of Florida, should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for the alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. The Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida, holding license number CL 141038. From April 13, 1987 until October 31, 1990, Respondent also held a license as a cosmetology salon owner, license number CE 0044081. The salon license expired on October 31, 1990 and was not renewed for the 1990-1992 period because the check submitted for payment of the renewal fee was dishonored by the bank for insufficient funds. This case is related to a separate administrative proceeding brought against Veronica Bonani, DPR Case Number 90-4671. In that case, Ms. Bonani was found by the Florida Board of Cosmetology to have been employed by the Respondent as a cosmetologist without a Florida license from January 3, 1990 to March, 1990. After conceding the allegations in that case, Ms. Bonani was fined one hundred dollars ($100). Petitioner has suggested that the complaint against Veronica Bonani was initiated by Respondent, apparently in retribution for Ms. Bonani's terminating her employment with Respondent to take another job. At the hearing in this cause, the Respondent denied that she reported Ms. Bonani to the Department. While this dispute has little bearing on the main issues in this proceeding, the more persuasive evidence was that Respondent reported Ms. Bonani to Petitioner after Ms. Bonani left her employment. The evidence established that the Respondent employed Veronica Bonani as a cosmetologist without a Florida license from January 3, 1990 to March, 1990. Veronica Bonani began seeking licensure by endorsement in Florida sometime in the Fall of 1989. Because of some problems in obtaining the necessary documentation, she experienced delays in obtaining a license. Her formal application for licensure in Florida is dated February 6, 1990 and was filed with Petitioner on February 15, 1990. Veronica Bonani did not receive authorization to practice as a cosmetologist in Florida until April 13, 1990. However, as indicated above, Ms. Bonani began working for Respondent in early January, 1990. Prior to beginning work for Respondent, Ms. Bonani advised Respondent that she was in the process of obtaining a Florida license, but was not yet licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent encouraged her to begin work anyway. When an inspector employed by Petitioner entered the Respondent's salon on February 22, 1990, the Respondent instructed Ms. Bonani to hide. However, Ms. Bonani openly revealed her status to the inspector. The inspector indicated during his February 22, 1990 visit that there was no problem with Ms. Bonani's employment since her application was pending and approval seemed imminent. This conclusion was erroneous. Respondent contends that she believed Ms. Bonani was entitled to begin work in Florida since she was in the process of obtaining licensure. However, there was no justifiable basis for Respondent to believe it was legal to employ Ms. Bonani in January, 1990. Indeed, the evidence and circumstances in this case indicate that Respondent was well aware that Ms. Bonani should not have been practicing prior to issuance of her Florida license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 477.0265(1)(b)(2), 477.0265(1)(d), 477.029(1)(c) and 477.029(1)(h), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of three hundred dollars ($300) and allowing the Respondent to pay this amount in three (3) payments. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 18th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Only Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact. The following constitutes my rulings on those proposals. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 1. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4, 5, 6 and 7. Copies furnished: Renee Alsobrook, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Steven Lulich P.O. Box 1390 Sebastian, Florida 32978 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Cosmetology Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
