Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in the state of Florida, holding license number CL-0167327. She makes her home at 882 Anita Avenue, Pensacola, Florida, along with her husband and children. Respondent works at a relative's beauty salon in another location. Respondent has been interested in hair weaving or braiding for several years. Hair weaving or braiding is done by hand, by intertwining strands of hair. No tools are used other than a needlelike instrument used for lifting up strands of hair and sewing in synthetic or human hair. An individual's hair is not treated with any type of chemical, nor is it cut or shampooed. Such manipulation of the hair is somewhat difficult and requires practice in order to weave hair well. On or about October 20, 1987, Lutrel M. Raboteaux, an investigator for the Board of Cosmetology, contacted Respondent regarding a complaint they had received about her from Denise Bryant. 1/ Mr. Raboteaux's investigation centered on whether Respondent was maintaining a cosmetology salon in her home. The only items Mr. Raboteaux found at Ms. Freeman's home were a broken chair type hair dryer and a couple of well used bottles of hair supplies for black hair. Ms. Freeman had been given the broken hair dryer. She had never used the dryer since it was not in working order. The bottles were for personal use and were only used by Ms. Freeman and her family. About two years ago, Respondent met Marie Smith. They became good friends. Through their friendship, Ms. Smith discovered that Ms. Freeman knew how to do hair weaving. Ms. Smith was interested in having her hair woven, and asked Respondent to weave her hair. Ms. Smith, in return for Respondent's weaving her hair, tutored one of Respondent's children. The hair weaving and tutoring took place at Ms. Freeman's home and consisted mostly of tightening the weave as Ms. Smith's hair grew. Ms. Smith viewed the hair weaving arrangement as more of a quid pro quo for tutoring Respondent's child. Respondent viewed the hair weaving arrangement on more of a friendship basis as a favor for a favor. Other than this one arrangement, Ms. Freeman would practice hair weaving on her family and some of her friends. They would ask her to weave their hair. As was the case with Ms. Smith, they would ask her to weave their hair and she would perform that task for them. Again as with Ms. Smith, Respondent would weave the hair of her friends at her home. She did not charge for her services. Any hair weaving that took place in Ms. Freeman's home was for free. She never received any money from the individuals she practiced on at her home. The only time she may have received anything was the tutoring swap described earlier involving Ms. Smith. Likewise, Ms. Freeman supplied no chemicals or other supplies necessary for her friends to get their hair woven. Her friends supplied those items at their own expense. Ms. Freeman's sole reason for weaving her friends' hair was to practice the art of hair weaving which she wished to specialize in. It is clear that Ms. Freeman never intended to operate a hair weaving business in her home and did not consider her home in anyway to be a beauty salon. Her home is not open to the public. Her home did not contain any equipment or chemicals used in a beauty salon. No evidence was presented that she keeps regular hours or appointments at her home. On the contrary, she in fact works at another beauty salon in Pensacola. Additionally, Ms. Freeman asked one of her teachers at a cosmetology school in Pensacola if it was all right for her to practice hair weaving at her home for free. She was informed that it was not against Florida Law and was otherwise completely unaware that there may be a problem with not having her home licensed as a salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: That the complaint against Ms. Freeman be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 12th day of April, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent has been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida since August 13, 1979. He currently holds license number CL 0110182, which has an expiration date of June 30, 1992. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Best Cuts, Inc. (Best Cuts), a licensed cosmetology salon located at 5331 West Atlantic Boulevard in Margate, Florida. In late October, 1990 or early November, 1990, Luis Villate applied and interviewed for a hair stylist position at Best Cuts. During the interview, Respondent asked if Villate was licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. In response to this inquiry, Villate showed Respondent a completed State of Florida application for licensure by examination. The application contained a certification, dated January 6, 1990, and signed by the Educational Supervisor of the cosmetology school Villate had attended, that Villate met the educational and training requirements for eligibility to sit for the cosmetology licensure examination. Following the interview, Respondent telephoned the Department's offices in Tallahassee to find out if there was any legal impediment to his hiring Villate to work as a hair stylist at Best Cuts. Respondent explained to the Department representative with whom he spoke that Villate had "all his hours" of schooling and training and that he had applied for a cosmetology license. The representative told Respondent that, if such were the circumstances, it would be permissible for Respondent to employ Villate at his salon. 1/ Respondent shortly thereafter hired Villate to work at Best Cuts. The representations made to him by the Department representative did not play a role in his decision to hire Villate. Because he desperately needed a competent hair stylist to work at the salon, he would have hired Villate even if he had been told that Villate's unlicensed status rendered him ineligible for lawful employment. Villate remained an employee of Best Cuts for approximately two months, until December 4, 1991. During the period of his employment, Villate cut, washed and blow dried customers' hair. At no time during this period was he licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. The termination of Villate's employment with Best Cuts was precipitated by an inspection of the salon made by Louis Morganstern, an inspector with the Department, on December 3 and 4, 1990. During the first day of his inspection, Morganstern observed Villate cutting the hair of a customer. Upon his return to the office, Morganstern ran a computer check on Villate, which revealed that Villate had taken and failed the licensure examination and therefore was still unlicensed. The following day, at Morganstern's request, Villate signed a document agreeing to "cease and desist" from the practice of cosmetology in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violation of law alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $100 for having committed this violation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of August, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of August, 1991.
The Issue The central issue in this cause is whether or not Respondent is guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes which prohibits the operation of a cosmetology salon without a current license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Before & After, Inc. d/b/a Design of Miami, is not licensed as a cosmetology salon. Respondent does business at 8200 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. Bernard R. Gaeta is the secretary/treasurer of the Respondent corporation and was present at the business location on or about January 9, 1986. On or about January 9, 1986, Providence Padrick went to the business location (8200 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida) in response to an advertisement for cosmetology services. The purpose of the visit was to inspect the premises regarding the services claimed by the ad. An individual known as Jerry Schrank shared space with Respondent and had been responsible for the ad in question. When Ms. Padrick made the inspection she was attended by Mr. Gaeta who showed her the area used by Mr. Schrank. Additionally, Mr. Gaeta furnished Ms. Padrick with a brochure which outlined the services offered by Respondent. During her inspection of the Respondent's premises Ms. Padrick observed three or four shampoo bowls of the type normally used in cosmetology salons. As a result of her inspection of Respondent's business premises, Ms. Padrick interviewed Carmen Cannizzo to determine what services were being performed by Respondent's employees. Ms. Cannizzo is a licensed cosmetologist employed on a salaried basis by the Respondent. According to Ms. Cannizzo, Respondent sells hairpieces or wigs which are fitted and then attached to the customers' heads. Respondent uses two methods of wig or hairpiece attachment: weaving and taping. The weaving method requires the weaving of an anchor thread through the customer's natural hair which then holds the hairpiece in place once it is similarly secured to the woven thread. Regardless of the method of attachment, the customer's hair must be styled to blend in with the hairpiece. Customer preference and the amount of natural hair available determine which attachment method is used. While it is not part of the fee charged by Respondent, Ms. Cannizzo will also trim a customer's hair or shampoo it upon request. Ms. Cannizzo has been directed not to perform these services but does so to augment the tips she receives. Prior to the inspection of Respondent's business premises Ms. Padrick identified herself and her occupation to Mr. Gaeta. Ms. Padrick inspected the public areas of Respondent's business and, by invitation, an office area used by Mr. Gaeta.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent in violation of Section 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3689 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted in finding of fact paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 is rejected. Whether Respondent has been licensed as a salon in the past is unclear. That Respondent operates as a cosmetology salon is a question of law addressed in the conclusions. Paragraph 3 is accepted. It should be noted, however, that all services described in the brochure may not be offered at the Respondent's business. Only those services found to be performed by Respondent are included in the findings of fact. Paragraph 4 is accepted. See paragraph 3 above. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Respondent does not dispute that it shampoos hairpieces for its customers. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 are accepted. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: None submitted COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 Frank E. Freeman 2930 North East Second Court Miami, Florida 33137 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 William O'Neil General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondents for alleged violations of Sections 455.277 and 477.028, Florida Statutes (1979).
Findings Of Fact Respondent Luella and Porter's School of Beauty currently holds License No. CT 0000056 and is located at 316 NE First Street, Pompano Beach, Florida. Respondent Luella A. Bailey is an owner of the Respondent beauty school and currently holds License No. IC 0031324 as a cosmetology instructor. In March of 1980 Respondent Bailey discussed a two week course of study in Esthetology given by the Respondent beauty school with Bonnie Cohen and her mother, Sharon Cohen. Bonnie Cohen and her mother were led to believe that the course, which involved the study of the face, the use of massage and water vapor and the use of various creams and oils would enable Bonnie Cohen to obtain a paid position in cosmetology salons performing facials. Respondent Bailey suggested at least two places where Bonnie Cohen might obtain employment as a person trained to perform facials: Christine Valmy Salon and Palm Aire Spa Salon. Respondent Bailey knew or should have known that in order to perform facials in a cosmetology salon an employee must be certified as a cosmetologist. Respondent Luella and Porter's School of Beauty has been in business for a long period of time and is recognized as a reputable school. Bonnie Cohen paid a fee of $500.00 and took the two week course given at Respondent school which began on March 18, 1980 and ended on March 28, 1980. She learned to massage areas of the face and neck, apply creams and chemicals used to clean and soften the skin, and learned how to apply treatments for various minor skin problems. Miss Cohen was awarded a certificate worded: "Esthetics - Scientific Facial Treatments and Skin Care Seminar. This certifies that Bonnie Cohen has parti- cipated in the Christine Valmy Seminar for Esthetics - Scientific Facial Treat- ments and Skin Care. Date, March, 1980." The certificate was signed "Christine Valmy by Luella Bailey." In October of 1980, Bonnie Cohen sought employment at two cosmetology salons, Christine Valmy Salon and Palm Aire Spa Salon, both of which were recommended to her by Respondent Luella Bailey. The owner of the Palm Aire Spa Salon discussed employment with Bonnie Cohen and would have employed her, but when Miss Cohen produced the herein described certificate instead of a cosmetology license the owner of the salon would not employ her to perform facials. A cosmetology license is required for employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered censuring Respondent Luella Bailey and imposing on her as a licensee an administrative fine not to exceed $1,000.00 In addition the Hearing Officer recommends that the license of Respondent Luella and Porter's School of Beauty be suspended for a period of six (6) months. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 21st day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Luella & Porter's School of Beauty 316 NE First Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Ms. Luella A. Bailey 3200 NW 90th Avenue Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Petitioner, CASE NO.: 81-1600 vs. LICENSE NOS. CT0000056 IC0031324 LUELLA & PORTER'S SCHOOL OF BEAUTY AND LUELLA A. BAILEY Respondents. /
Findings Of Fact Bart Sklansky is the President of Sunshine Hair Fashions, Inc., which is the owner of a salon operating under the name of Sunshine Scissors, located at 5568 Flamingo Road, cooper city, Florida. At all times material hereto, Sunshine Hair Fashions, Inc., was licensed by the State of Florida, to operate a cosmetology salon under License No. CE0040983, and the Sunshine Scissors Salon located at 5568 Flamingo Road, Cooper City, Florida operated under that license. Mr. Sklansky owns several other salons and he visits each location from time to time to oversee the operations. Petitioner was and is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of cosmetology in the State of Florida. On January 20, 1988, Leonard Baldwin, an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation, entered the Sunshine Scissors Salon (hereinafter the "Salon") for the purpose of conducting a routine inspection of the premises. Mr. Baldwin has been an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation for approximately four years. As part of his job, he inspects approximately 32 cosmetology salons per week and prepares a written inspection report reflecting his visit. He generally reviews those reports with the employees who are present. He will generally inspect a salon only once a year unless there are problems. At the time of Mr. Baldwin's inspection in January of 1988, the Salon was basically in good shape with the exception of the work station of one of the operators, Kenneth Hayman. The shop is professionally cleaned once a week and the employees make sure that the floors, mirrors and waiting areas are clean at all times. However, each individual operator is responsible for the cleanliness of his particular work station. While Mr. Hayman is not deliberately unsanitary, he is sometimes careless and needs constant prodding and reminders to keep his work station clean. As noted on his inspection report (Petitioner's Exhibit 3), Mr. Baldwin found certain conditions which he felt were unsatisfactory during his January 20, 1988 visit. Among the conditions he noted were the following: the back bar of at least one of the work stations was dirty and had excessive dust; there was excessive hair on the floor; combs and brushes from at least one of the work stations contained excessive hair; and it appeared that the implements and utensils from at least one work station were not being properly cleansed, sanitized, or stored. However, no direct testimony was presented as to the proper method for sanitizing or cleaning the implements and no evidence was presented as to how Respondent's procedures failed to meet the regulatory standards. Although Mr. Baldwin's investigation report (Exhibit 3) indicates as an additional deficiency that "sanitary towels/neck strips were not being placed around patrons necks," no explanation was given as to the basis for this noted deficiency and no direct testimony was offered to support this contention. All of these deficiencies, identified under the pertinent rules of the Board's, were brought to the attention of Pam Greco, one of the operators at the Salon. Bart Sklansky was not made aware of the deficiencies until several months later. He never noticed any problems during his visits to the Salon. On October 2, 1988, Mr. Baldwin again inspected the Salon. The general condition of the shop was satisfactory. However, the work station of Kenneth Hayman was again found deficient in certain areas. More specifically, the back bar area around this work station was dirty and it appeared that utensils may have been used on more than one patron without being sanitized. Mr. Baldwin did not explain how he reached this conclusion. After the second inspection, Mr. Hayman paid more attention to the cleanliness of his work station and kept it clean the majority of the time. However, on December 9, 1988, Mr. Baldwin against inspected the salon and noted similar deficiencies to those he found during the October 1988 inspection. Mr. Hayman's work station has never been the source of any customer complaints. Mr. Hayman has been informed that his work station must be kept clean and he has kept his work station clean since the last inspection.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of cosmetology enter a final order in this case finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(9), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a reprimand and an administrative fine in the total amount of $100. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1989, in 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 5th day or May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobi C. Pam Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Bart Sklansky Sunshine Hair Fashions Post Office Box 601667 North Miami Beach, FL 33160 Myrtle Aase Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-075010
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the alleged violations occurred and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Great Expectations Precision Haircutters, is a cosmetology salon located in Melbourne, Florida. Its owner, Twin Towers Hair Stylists, Inc. is a New York corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Sharon Bross manages the salon and is the corporate owner's resident agent in Florida. The amended administrative complaint in this proceeding was served, by certified mail, on Sharon Bross. In August 1987, Sara Kimmig, an inspector for various boards within the Department of Professional Regulation, visited the Respondent salon in Melbourne. She found the salon open and conducting business, with three persons in the waiting area and four operators engaged in performing services. She found that the salon's license number CE 0038872 expired in October 1986. The salon opened for business in April 1986. All licenses expire on October 31st of even-numbered years, therefore the license expired shortly after it was obtained. Ms. Bross was informed of the violation and she immediately applied for and obtained a renewal license. At the hearing, Ms. Bross conceded that the license had expired, but that she had not received a renewal notice and the expiration was an oversight. The license on its face, however, indicates the October 31, 1986, expiration date. There was no evidence of past or other concurrent violations by this salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of the violations, as charged, and fined $500.00 DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Sharon Bross, Resident Agent Twin Towers Hair Stylists, Inc. Great Expectations Precision Haircutters 1525 West New Haven West Melbourne, Florida 32904 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
