Findings Of Fact Marie J. Jeune, Respondent, owns an establishment known as Joset's Beauty Salon located at 341 N.W. 3rd Street, Pompano Beach, Florida. From January, 1984 until July, 1984 Respondent operated Joset's Beauty Salon as a cosmetology salon but at no time did she have a license from the Board of Cosmetology for the salon. During this time, she employed a licensed cosmetologist on the premises, and she testified that she did not know that the salon had to be licensed. She thought she was complying with the law by employing a licensed cosmetologist and obtaining an occupational license. In July, 1984 the licensed cosmetologist left her employment at Joset's Beauty Salon due to pregnancy. On October 9, 1984, Alexa Arachy, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation conducted an inspection of Joset's Beauty Salon. Inspector Arachy observed an unlicensed person, later identified as Respondent's sister-in- law, Ms. McPhaton Jeune, giving a shampoo to a woman in the salon. She also observed two shampoo sinks, a salon station, numerous open bottles of dyes and waving lotions, combs, brushes, towels, hair on the floor, and a trash container full of items which would normally result from the operation of a salon. At no time has either Respondent or Ms. McPhaton Jeune been licensed by the Board of Cosmetology or the Barber Board, nor has Joset's Beauty Salon ever been licensed by the Board of Cosmetology, or the Barber Board. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S. have been considered in making the above findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300). DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 2nd day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marie J. Jeune 341 N.W. 3rd Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the license of the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a beauty salon not under the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against Mary Wilson, d/b/a Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon on May 31, 1976 alleging: "That you, said MARY WILSON d/b/a/ Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon on August 1, 1976 and January 19, 1977 did on at least two occa- sions operate a beauty salon without the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist, at Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon, Orlando, Florida." The Respondent is the owner of tie Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon, holds no Florida registration as a cosmetologist and the subject salon is now closed. At the time of the violation notice the Respondent was practicing cosmetology in the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon without a Florida cosmetology license and without being under the supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Revoke the license of the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mary Wilson Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon Post Office Box 5485 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Respondents' alleged violation of Sections 477.02(4), 477.15(8) & 477.27(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation operates the Get Your Head Together Cosmetology Salon at 687 N.E. 79 Street, Miami, Florida, under Certificate of Registration Number 15219 issued by Petitioner on February 15, 1971. On April 7, 1975, Petitioner's Inspector visited Respondent's place of business and found two cosmetologists, Sergio Ruiz Calderon and Silvia Gonzalez, engaging in the practice of cosmetology without the presence of a master cosmetologist. Calderon was drying a customer's hair with a blower and Gonzalez was providing another customer with frosting and a hair cut. (Testimony of Patrick). Respondent's President, Geno Tranchida, testified that his brother, a master cosmetologist, was due to arrive at the salon at noon on April 7, and that he therefore left for lunch about 11:45 after instructing his employees not to perform any work while he was gone. The employees disregarded these orders and when Geno Tranchida returned his brother called and informed him that he was ill. (Testimony of Geno Tranchida).
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a written reprimand for the violation of Section 477.02(4), Florida Statutes 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 Geno and Peter Tranchida c/o Get Your Head Together, Inc. 687 N.E. 79 Street Miami, Florida
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for employing a student without a permit to work who had not yet taken the state board examination for cosmetologists.
Findings Of Fact Elaine York is the owner and operator of the Act II Salon of Beauty. Mary Mainello, also called Kathy Mainello, is employed to work in he subject beauty salon. At the time of the inspection Miss Mainello had not yet obtained her work permit and had not taken the state board examination or been licensed to practice cosmetology. She told the inspector that she had been working doing shampoos and sets but that no damage was done. Therefore a violation notice was written against the owner of the salon. At the time of the inspection Miss Mainello was in the beauty shop of Respondent for the purpose of observing and was not on the payroll of the subject beauty salon. Although the inspector did not actually see her work, there was a station for her to work which . had been used at the time of the inspection. She said that she had been observing for a period of two (2) weeks. At the time of the inspection the owner, Mrs. York, was not in the shop, having gone to the bank. The Hearing Officer finds that the student, Mary Mainello, was in fact performing the duties of a cosmetologist, that is, shampooing and setting hair but without the knowledge or permission of the Respondent owner.
Recommendation Write a letter of reprimand for lack of close supervision of the student who should have learned the laws and rules pertaining to cosmetology. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Kermit Coble, Esquire Coble, McKinnon, Reynolds, A Rothert, Bohner & Godbee, P.A. Post Office Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020
Findings Of Fact Respondent Hair and Company currently holds License No. CE 0024217 and is a business at 1930 Hallandale Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida Respondent Ettie Studnik is the wife of the owner of Hair and Company and the bookkeeper and manager of the salon. Three (3) employees of the Respondent salon, Elena Sirak, Jethsabel Morales and Arelis Penton, were not licensed cosmetologists during the period of time pertinent to this hearing between November, 1979 and February 20, 1980. On November 27, 1979 an investigator employed by Petitioner Department, Providence J. Padrick, issued a notice of violation to Respondent Studnik for permitting an unlicensed person, Elena Sirak, to shampoo the heed of a paying customer. Sirak was also given a notice of violation. (Transcript, pages 10 through 12). Thereafter, upon a second inspection of the salon on February 20, 1980, Padrick found the same employee again giving a paying customer a shampoo. Two (2) other unlicensed persons employed by Respondent salon were also performing shampoos for paying customers. Padrick issued notices of violation to Morales and Penton, but Sirak left the salon before she could issue a second notice of violation to her. A second notice of violation was issued to Respondent Ettie Studnik as owner of the salon. The three (3) unlicensed employees of the Respondent salon were students at local beauty schools and were employed by Respondent Studnik for cleaning the salon. They were permitted to shampoo customers at times when there were numerous customers waiting in the salon to he served. (Transcript, pages 11, 12. 27, 29. 32 and 33) At the time of the first inspection in November, 1979 Padrick discussed the violation with Respondent Studnik, who represented herself as the owner of Hair and Company, and told her that unlicensed persons were not allowed to shampoo the paying customers. During the hearing the owner of Hair and Company, Neal Studnik, stated that Respondent Ettie Studnik is his wife and operates the salon in his absence. Respondent Studnik acted in behalf of the owner, under his supervision and with his consent at the time pertinent to the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered censuring the owner of the Respondent Hair and Company and assessing a civil penalty not to exceed $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND 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 24th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael H. Weisser, Esquire Skylake State Bank Building 1550 NE Miami Gardens Drive North Miami Beach, Florida 33179 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent, Carmelina Denur, should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon without a salon registration certificate.
Findings Of Fact The inspector for the Petitioner, State Board of Cosmetology, entered a large utility room at the home of Respondent and found therein a cosmetology station with the usual mirrors, chairs , desks and cosmetology supplies, including an appointment book near the telephone. At the time of the visit of the inspector on May 27. 1977, the Respondent, Carmelina Debur, was doing a comb-out. Another woman was sitting in a chair in the area. The inspector determined that the Respondent was operating a beauty salon in her home without a registration and wrote a violation notice. The Respondent contended: that she had been retired six months from her job as a cosmetologist and that the furnishings for a salon in her home were for the benefit of her relatives and close friends and that she was not operating a beauty salon in her home. She stated that the area was a residential area and that her uncle gave her the salon equipment when he remodeled his store, and that she bought the cosmetology supplies inasmuch as she had a license and could buy it for personal use. She testified that she received no money from anyone and was not conducting a business in the beauty salon area of her home. There was no testimony or other evidence to show that the Respondent was in fact operating a beauty salon in her home.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Carmelina Denur 5295 S.W. 8th Court Margate, Florida 33063
The Issue Whether Respondent's cosmetology license should be suspended, revoked or whether Respondent should be disciplined for conduct, as a licensee, which will be set forth hereinafter in detail.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the proposed memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: Noella C. Papagno (herein sometimes referred to as Respondent) is a licensed cosmetologist under the laws of the State of Florida and has been issued License Number CL 0107656, which license is current through June, 1984. Respondent has been practicing cosmetology for approximately twenty-five (25) years and, prior to being licensed in Florida, was licensed to practice in Rhode Island. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.) Richard Gloss has been employed in the Building and Zoning Department for the City of Dania, Florida, for the past two (2) years. On or about October 12, 1981, Gloss received a complaint that Respondent was operating a salon at one of the ticket booths located at the flea market, 1930 North Federal Highway in Dania Florida. Gloss made a routine inspection through the flea market and observed a sign in front of a ticket booth occupied by the Respondent where upon he approached Respondent and identified himself as an employee of the City of Dania in the Building and Zoning Department. After identifying himself, Gloss inquired of Respondent whether she was properly licensed to conduct a beauty salon. Prior thereto, Respondent had offered to cut his hair. Respondent admits to having offered to cut Gloss's hair and related that she had been cutting hair at that location for approximately two and one half (2 1/2) years and that she charged customers from $.50 to $4.00, depending on the length of their hair and the amount of time it took to cut it. She also explained that she had two (2) licenses -- her cosmetology license and a Broward County Council license -- in order to carry on this business. Respondent described in a very detailed manner her method of water hair cutting and she explained that she used no chemicals and did not attempt to perform any kind of chemical services. Additionally, Respondent testified that she suffers from various allergies and her physician has cautioned her to stay away from dust in beauty salons. (Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 4 and 7.) In mitigation, Respondent offered the fact that she was providing a service which would not be otherwise available and that the equipment that she used is sanitized and that theme was no testimony offered by Petitioner of any ill effects by her operation at the subject facility. Finally, Respondent feels that the Board should grant her a specialty license, although she has not applied for a license based on her feelings that it would not be granted. [Testimony of Respondent and Edmund Gabler, a Broward County resident and customer of Respondent for approximately two (2) years.]
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year, during which time she must comply with all provisions of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder, specifically including the proviso that she not practice cosmetology in an unlicensed location. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, 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 11th day of August, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, the following facts are found. In 1980 Ruth Sinclair became interested in hair braiding and hair sculpture while she was studying the history of African art at the University of Miami. Since her initial interest in hair braiding and hair sculpture, Ruth Sinclair has made extensive efforts to study the subject and to learn and improve her skills in hair braiding and hair sculpture. Shortly after her initial interest in hair braiding and hair sculpture, Ruth Sinclair began practicing hair braiding and hair sculpture in Florida and she has continued to do so more or less continuously ever since then. Ruth Sinclair is predominantly self-taught in the field of hair braiding or hair sculpture, but she also obtained some training from others by going to California and Africa. The practice of hair braiding and hair sculpture originated in the Nok region on the west coast of Africa around 200-300 B.C. As used in Africa since that time, particular types of sculptured or braided hairstyles have served to identify the wearer's tribe or status in society. However, despite centuries of such hair braiding practices by African Blacks, the practice was virtually lost among Blacks who were brought to the United States as slaves. As practiced by Ruth Sinclair, hair braiding or hair sculpture consists of two basic categories or types of hair styles. These are the traditional styles and the contemporary styles. The traditional styles are patterned after styles that were used in the past in Africa and consist of hair braids that follow the same pattern as some forms of weaving. Sinclair ordinarily spends approximately 35 to 40 hours to produce a traditional style hair sculpture, and in more than ten percent of the cases in which Sinclair produces a traditional style hair sculpture, Sinclair charges a fee. The contemporary style involves the use of the same techniques as the traditional style but also involves the use of contemporary materials produced by modern technology such as synthetic or human hair and commercially-made ornaments or beads. In producing a contemporary style hair sculpture, Sinclair ordinarily spends approximately 8 to 20 hours, and she normally charges a fee. As practiced by Ruth Sinclair, hair sculpturing, whether of the traditional or the contemporary style, is produced primarily by hair braiding. The hair braiding is done by hand, by intertwining strands of hair. No tools are used other than a long, tapered instrument for lifting up strands of hair. The person's hair is not treated with any type of chemicals, nor is it cut or shampooed (although Sinclair requests that her patrons wash their hair before receiving any services), and Sinclair washes her hands in soap and water before, during, and after performing her services. The braided or sculptured hairstyles are normally worn for approximately 3 to 6 months. Nearly ninety percent of Sinclair's patrons were Black women. During the period from 1982 until sometime in 1984, Ruth Sinclair leased a storefront at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and there she conducted a business of performing hair braiding or hair sculpture. The name of the business was Uzuri Braid Shop, and the business had about twenty paying customers per week. At the Uzuri Braid Shop at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida, Ruth Sinclair employed Respondent Picala Simsa, and also Angela Powell or Powers as assistants. Picala Sims was employed as an assistant there from 1982 until 1984, and Powell or Powers from 1983 until 1984. Both were hired by Ruth Sinclair, and Ruth Sinclair paid them both a salary. Their duties were basically the same: to assist Ruth Sinclair in braiding and beading patrons' hair. On August 2, 1983, Joyce Sager, an inspector employed by the Petitioner, conducted an inspection of the Uzuri Braid Shop at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida. On that occasion, Picala Sims and Angela Powell or Powers were present and were performing hair braiding services for customers of the business. Ruth Sinclair was not present at the time, but Sager spoke with Ruth Sinclair on the telephone that day, and in the course of their conversation, Ruth Sinclair acknowledged to Inspector Sager that she was the owner of the business and that she was the employer of Picala Sims and Powell or Powers. During the period from November 1983 until November 1984, Ruth Sinclair leased space in an indoor flea market at 18200 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and there she conducted a business of performing hair braiding or hair sculpture. The name of the business was Uzuri Braid Shop, and the business had about 15 paying customers per week. On June 9, 1984, Dorsey Hayes, an inspector employed by the Petitioner, went to the Uzuri Braid Shop at 18200 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and spoke with Ruth Sinclair. During the course of the conversation, Ruth Sinclair acknowledged being the owner of the business and that she had been performing braided hairstyles there. None of the following people have ever been licensed to practice cosmetology or barbering in the State of Florida: Ruth Sinclair, Picala Sims, Angela Powell, or Angela Powers. Neither the Uzuri Braid Shop at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida, nor the Uzuri Braid Shop located at 18200 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, has ever been licensed to operate as a cosmetology salon or as a barber shop. There are certain conditions under which it would be inappropriate to give a person a braided hairstyle, even though the person wanted one. These conditions include the presence of a contagious scalp disease, abrasions of the scalp, hair that is not clean, or chemically treated hair that is very dry or damaged. The recognition of these conditions is a regular part of the curriculum currently being taught in schools of cosmetology in Florida, and someone not having received such training would be less likely to recognize them, which could lead to hair breakage or to the spread of contagious scalp diseases or parasites if a hair braiding service were performed when such conditions were present. The teaching of hair braiding has been a regular part of the curriculum of Florida schools of cosmetology at least since 1975.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order adopting the foregoing findings and conclusions and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1, 500.00 against Ruth Sinclair and an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 against Picala Sims. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 20th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Graham Williams, Esq. 18583 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
