Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been licensed as a barber and as a cosmetologist for approximately the last 18 years. He holds a bachelor's degree in vocational education from the University of Central Florida. He has taught courses in barbering for a number of years at different schools. The July 1986 barber instructor examination was the first barber instructor examination administered in the State of Florida. Petitioner was eligible to take and did take the July 1986 barber instructor examination. Although he achieved a passing score on the written portion of that examination, he failed to obtain a passing score on the practical portion of the examination. Accordingly, Petitioner is deemed to have failed the entire examination. Approximately 30 days before the examination date, Petitioner received from Respondent a Notice to Appear containing both Petitioner's examination admission slip and detailed instructions and information regarding the administration of the examination and the contents of the examination itself. Regarding the practical portion of the examination, the information within the Notice to Appear advised Petitioner and the other candidates that the practical portion of the examination would consist of the preparation of a lesson plan and actual presentation of that lesson according to the candidate's own lesson plan. The Notice to Appear specified that there are seven categories of instruction as follows: Shampooing and Haircut Shave Permanent Wave Facials Coloring Sanitation and Sterilization Chemical Straightening The Notice to Appear explained that each candidate, before coming to the examination, should prepare at least one lesson plan for each category of instruction. At the examination site, each candidate would be assigned one of those seven categories of instruction. The candidate would then submit a lesson plan for a 30-minute lesson for the category assigned to that candidate at that time. The candidate would then present the lesson according to the lesson plan which that candidate submitted. The lesson could be either a demonstration or a lecture, and the candidate would be evaluated on the candidate's use of audio/visual aids during the lesson presentation. The Notice to Appear also includes a blank sample grade sheet so that the candidate is advised as to the specific 20 criteria by which the examiners judge the lesson plan and its presentation. The team of three examiners for the July 1986 barber instructor examination consisted of two licensed barber instructors and one educator, since the barber instructor examination is a teaching examination rather than a barbering examination. The examiners are prohibited from conferring or collaborating with each other in marking their individual grade sheets. When Petitioner arrived at the examination site for the practical portion of the examination, he was assigned the first category of instruction: Shampooing and Haircut. He turned in the lesson plan which he had previously prepared. His lesson plan covered only the topic of haircutting and stated that the time necessary for the lesson was one hour. All examiners agreed that Petitioner started his presentation at 3:05 p.m. and concluded it at 3:19 p.m. The percentage of agreement among the three examiners as to whether Petitioner met each of the 20 criteria in the practical portion of the examination is within the normal range of expectation for three evaluations performed independently.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing grade on the practical portion of the July 1986 barber instructor examination. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 10th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Frank Capostagno 3344 South Orange Blossom Trail Orlando, Florida 32207 Chester G. Senf, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Barbers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent, Martin Rosales1/ (Respondent), engaged in the practice of barbering without a license and displayed as his own the barbering license of another, and, if so, what administrative penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was not licensed as a barber by the Department's Board of Barbers for the State of Florida. John Miranda, during all times relevant to this proceeding, was employed by Petitioner as an inspector. Mr. Miranda's job responsibilities include conducting inspections of barbershops. On September 13, 2014, Petitioner, through its employee, Mr. Miranda, inspected the premises of Sanchez Barbershop/Salon (Barbershop). During the inspection, Mr. Miranda observed, and photographed, Respondent performing barbering services on a customer. Specifically, Respondent was cutting a customer's hair. During the inspection on September 13, 2014, Mr. Miranda briefly exited the barbershop in order to retrieve something from his vehicle. As Mr. Miranda was returning to the shop, he observed Respondent fleeing the premises. Mr. Miranda did not give chase, and Respondent did not return to the Barbershop prior to Mr. Miranda completing the inspection. Upon re-entry to the Barbershop, Mr. Miranda saw, at the work-station where he observed Respondent, a barber’s license displaying Respondent’s photographic image and the name Joseph Garcia. Respondent and Joseph Garcia are not the same person. Respondent publicly displayed the barber’s license of another as if it were his own. Respondent does not challenge the merits of the Administrative Complaint but instead defends against the action on the ground that he is the victim of mistaken identity. According to Respondent, he is not the person appearing in the photographs taken by Mr. Miranda on September 13, 2014. Mr. Miranda testified, without hesitation or reservation, that Respondent is the person that he observed in the Barbershop on September 13, 2014. His certainty as to Respondent’s identity is bolstered by the fact that he had dealings with Respondent prior to September 13, 2014, and, at the time of the inspection, was familiar with Respondent’s appearance. During the final hearing, Mr. Miranda, while sitting approximately five feet from Respondent, affirmed that Respondent is the person that he observed providing barbering services on September 13, 2014. Additionally, the person depicted in the photographs taken during the inspection by Mr. Miranda bears a definite physical resemblance to Respondent. The undersigned is convinced that Respondent is the person that Mr. Miranda observed performing barbering services at the Barbershop on the day in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Martin Rosales: Engaged in the unlicensed practice of barbering, an act proscribed by section 476.204(1)(a); Displayed as his own the barber’s license of another, an act proscribed by section 476.204(1)(d); and Imposing an administrative fine of $500 payable to Petitioner within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 2015.
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 the Barbers' Board should discipline the Respondent (a licensed barber and barbershop) for permitting a person in his employ to practice barbering without a license in violation of Sections 476.204(1)(a) and (h) and 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Bruce Heineman, holds a valid Florida barber license, license number BB-0018489 which was originally issued on May 8, 1968, and has been continuously licensed as a barber since that time. No record of prior disciplinary action appears in Respondent's file. Respondent, Bruce Heineman operates a barbershop under the business name of "Cuttin Corners," located at 3107 South Orlando Drive, #7B, Sanford, Florida 32771. Said barbershop operates under a current valid barbershop license which was originally issued to Respondent on September 9, 1986. Sara Kemmeck, an inspector with the Department, testified that she personally observed an employee of Respondent, Tina Prescott, giving a customer a haircut on August 31, 1988, at his barbership. Upon demand, the employee was unable to produce a valid barbers license. The unrebutted evidence demonstrated that Tina Prescott was engaged in the practice of barbering without a valid license for a minimum of two weeks, while an employee of Respondent. Tina Prescott was issued a cosmetology license on November 7, 1988, license number CL-0174999, which permits her to practice barbering in a licensed barbershop.
The Issue 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 Based upon my observation of the Petitioner's witness and his demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: During times material herein, Respondent was a licensed barber and the holder of license number BB 0006222. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2) During November of 1982, Petitioner's inspector, Steven Granowitz, made a routine inspection of barbershops with delinquent licenses. During the course of these routine inspections, Inspector Granowitz inspected the Broadway Barbershop which was being operated by the Respondent, Mary E. Smith. During the course of his inspection, Inspector Granowitz identified himself and asked to inspect the Respondent's current-active barber's license. Initially, Respondent related to Inspector Granowitz that her license had either been stolen or misplaced and that she could not keep track of the license. During the course of Inspector Granowitz's inspection, there were approximately four customers present and Inspector Granowitz's observation led him to believe that the Respondent had been continuously operating the barbershop without a license. It is so found. An examination of the documentary evidence introduced reveals that during 1979 Florida barbershop license number BS 0005766 was issued to the Respondent to operate the Broadway Barbershop located at 1133 NW 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The Respondent did not timely renew Florida barbershop license number BS 0005766. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Following the inspection during November 30, 1982, by Inspector Granowitz, Respondent applied for a new barbershop license for the Broadway Barbershop and on December 13, 1982, Florida barbershop license number BA 0005766 was issued to the Respondent for the Broadway Barbershop. (Testimony of Granowitz and Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6 and 7).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board impose an administrative fine of $500.00 on Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February 1984.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly determined that Petitioner did not pass the February 2003 Restricted Barber Practical Examination.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 17, 2003, Petitioner completed the Restricted Barber Practical Examination. He received a score of 69 on the examination. A total score of 75 was required to pass the examination. A maximum of 45 points was available on the haircut portion of the test. Petitioner received 28.5 points for that portion. Two examiners, who are licensed barbers, observed Petitioner performing the haircut on a live model. They are not supposed to begin grading and evaluating the haircut until it is complete. Therefore, it was not necessary for the graders to watch every move that Petitioner made during the haircut in order to properly assess his performance. Petitioner specifically challenged the following test sections related to the haircut: (a) the top is even and without holes, C-1; (b) the haircut is proportional, C-4; (c) the sides and back are without holes or steps, C-5; (d) the sideburns are equal in length, C-7; (e) the outlines are even, C-8; and (f) the neckline is properly tapered, C-11. Regarding section C-1, Examiner 106 found that the top of Petitioner's haircut was uneven. Examiner 501 did not find fault with the top of the haircut. As to section C-4, Examiner 106 found that the haircut was proportional. Examiner 501 determined that the haircut was not proportional because the sides were unequal; the left side was shorter than the right side. Examiner 106 did not give Petitioner full credit for C- 5 because the examiner saw holes/steps in the back and the right side of the haircut. Examiner 501 did not observe these problems and give Petitioner full credit for C-5. Examiner 106 did not give Petitioner credit for C-7 because the sideburns were unequal in length, i.e. the right sideburn was shorter than the left sideburn. Examiner 501 did not observe a problem with the sideburns. As to C-8, Examiner 106 determined that the outlines of the haircut were uneven on the left and right sides. Examiner 501 found that the outlines of the haircut were even. Regarding C-11, Examiner 106 found that the neckline was properly tapered. Examiner 501 determined that the neckline was improperly tapered, i.e. uneven. Both examiners have served in that capacity for several years. They have attended annual training sessions in order to review the exam criteria and to facilitate the standardization of the testing process. They are well qualified to act as examiners. The examiners evaluated Petitioner's performance independently. They marked their grade sheets according to what they actually observed about the completed haircut. The scores of the two graders were averaged together to produce a final score. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the examiners accurately recorded their individual observations regarding Petitioner's performance on the haircut. If one of the examiners did not observe a particular part of the haircut, Petitioner was given credit for that section. The examiners do not have to reach the same conclusion about each section of the test in order for the test results to be valid and reliable. Petitioner did not offer any persuasive evidence to dispute the manner or method by which Respondent accrues and calculates examination points. Petitioner would have failed the test based on either grader's independent scores. Therefore, Petitioner would not have passed the examination even if Respondent had not used one of the grade sheets in calculating Petitioner's final score.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order confirming Petitioner's examination score and dismissing his challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 16th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Smith, III 5603 Silverdale Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Gus Ashoo, Bureau Chief Bureau of Education and Testing Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0791 Julie Malone, Executive Director Board of Barber Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should have received a passing grade on the written part of her barber examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Nina D. Odom, was a candidate on the April 1997 barber examination. The test is administered by the Bureau of Testing, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Bureau), while licensure is conferred by Respondent, Barbers' Board (Board). There are two parts to the barber examination, a written portion and a practical portion. On an examination taken more than one year earlier, Petitioner had received a passing grade on the practical part of the examination. For the April 1997 examination, Petitioner received a score of 72 on the written part of the examination. In order to pass that part, a minimum score of 75 is required. Contending that she "wasn't pleased with [her] results," Petitioner requested a formal hearing to challenge her grade. In her letter requesting a hearing, Petitioner contended that the Bureau advised that her "weak area" was "implements," but the questions she failed were not in that subject area. As clarified at hearing, she challenged questions 2, 58, and 63, all multiple choice questions, contending that she should have received credit for her answers. Also, she questioned whether she should be required to pay a $150.00 reexamination fee even if she had already passed the practical part of the examination. Finally, Petitioner complained that she was required to retake both parts of the examination even if she failed only one part. The letter prompted this proceeding. The written portion of the barber examination is not an open book examination. Prior to the examination, however, candidates are given a copy of a "Candidate Information Booklet" (Booklet), which identifies in general terms the contents of the test and the reference materials from which the questions will be drawn. The questions are multiple choice and the correct answers are always taken from one of the reference materials in the Booklet. Because the questions are confidential, and may be used on future examinations, the actual text of the challenged questions will not be repeated here. In this case, Petitioner has contended that she should have been given credit for her answers to questions 2, 58, and Prior to the hearing, the Bureau agreed that Petitioner should have been given credit for question 58. This results in Petitioner's grade being raised to slightly above 73, which is still short of a passing grade. Question 2 tests the candidate's knowledge of a procedure to be used on a client. Petitioner selected an incorrect answer but contended that it was based on information she received from her instructors in 1992 while attending the Hair Design School in Jacksonville, Florida. However, witness Stewart, who helped draft the test questions, established that the correct answer is drawn from a recognized textbook, and that the information Petitioner received during her schooling was in error. Question 63 tests the candidate's knowledge of another procedure which licensed hair stylists must perform. Again, Petitioner selected an incorrect answer. Witness Stewart established that the correct answer was drawn from a recognized textbook cited in the Candidate's Information Booklet, and that Petitioner's answer was incorrect. The Board has promulgated Chapter 61G3-16, Florida Administrative Code, which contains the requirements for examination for licensure, reexamination, and examination review. Rule 61G3-16.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[t]here shall be two parts to the examination, a written portion and a practical portion." The evidence shows that Petitioner has successfully completed the practical part of the examination but has failed the written part on four consecutive occasions. Rule 61G3-16.002(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[a]n applicant who fails the state examination for licensure in whole or in part shall be required to pay the reexamination fee as set forth in Rule 61G3-20.007." Therefore, under the terms of the rule, Petitioner is required to pay the reexamination fee of $150.00 even if she passes one part of the two-part examination. Rule 61G3-16.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[a]n applicant shall be required to retake only the portion of the examination on which he or she failed to achieve a passing grade. However, an applicant must pass both portions of the examination within a one year period in order to qualify for licensure." Because Petitioner had not passed the practical part of the examination within one year of when she sat on the written part of the examination, she was properly required to retake both parts of the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a passing grade on the written portion of the April 1997 barber examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Nina D. Odom 1230 East 7th Street, Apartment 9 Jacksonville, Florida 32206 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Joe Baker, Executive Director Barbers' Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0769 Lynda Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
