The Issue Whether the Master Barber Certificate and the City Barber Shop Certificate of Registration held by the Respondent W. R. Griffis should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on the 22nd day of November, 1976, by P. W. Barker, Executive Director, Florida Barber Sanitary Commission, alleging: That Respondent allowed a dog in the barber shop in violation of Section 476.22(1)(g), Florida Statutes. The Respondent's shop had dirty floors in violation of Section 476.22(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The laboratories were dirty in violation of Section 476.22(1)(i), Florida Statutes. The supply storage room was dirty in violation of Section 476.22(1)(j). The shop was being operated with dirty neck dusters in violation of Section 476.22(1)(1)(6) and (8). Inspector Gordon N. Patterson, an employee of the Florida Barber Sanitary Commission had warned the Respondent on previous occasions that he must clean up his shop. The Administrative Complaint alleged that during the period July, August and September, 1976, the Respondent had been drinking intoxicating beverages and had performed unsatisfactory haircuts on customers as a result of this drinking. An affidavit of the Chief of Police confirms the allegations. At the hearing the Respondent admitted that he does drink, but that he never goes to the barber shop until several days after he has been drinking. The Respondent admitted that he had been ill and that his shop floors, laboratories and storage room had been dirty at times but that he intends to and at present is keeping his place very clean. The Respondent denied that he allowed a dog in his shop stating that a dog ran into his shop but was ejected shortly thereafter.
Recommendation Suspend the Master Barber Certificate No. 8195 and Shop Certificate of Registration of the City Barber Shop No. 2096 held by the Respondent for a period of time not to exceed six (6) months. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 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: A. Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32304 P. Wayne Barker, Executive Director Barber Sanitary Commission 108 West Pensacola Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Warren R. Griffis c/o City Barber Shop 127 West Broadway Fort Meade, Florida 33841
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.
Findings Of Fact Joanne Fletcher answered the telephone the day Eddie Dingler called The Summit Men's Hair Barbershop (Summit I) asking for work. He said he was Roffler- and Sebring-trained and that he held barber's licenses both in Alabama and in Florida. Ms. Fletcher relayed this message to respondent Donald C. Allgood. At the time, Mr. Allgood was half-owner of The Summit IV, and respondent Don Pettis owned the other half. Mr. Allgood had no ownership interest in Summit I, which was licensed to Mr. Pettis. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Allgood acted as a sort of manager at Summit I the two or three days of the week he spent there, even though he was technically an independent contractor, working on commissions. Respondents had worked with each other for some seven years. The parties stipulated that respondent Donald C. Allgood "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0021833" and that respondent Don Pettis "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0011546." One Monday morning Eddie Dingler appeared in person at Summit I and talked to respondent Allgood about employment. Mr. Allgood called respondent Pettis, then took Dingler to respondent Pettis's house, where Ron Pettis was also present. Dingler told this group that he was licensed both in Florida and in Alabama and that he was conversant with the Roffler and Sebring tonsorial techniques. He was specifically asked whether he had a Florida license, and he answered affirmatively. He was not asked to produce the license certificate itself or the wallet-sized card that licensed barbers are issued. Barbers are under no requirement to carry this card on their persons. Respondent Pettis asked respondent Allgood to observe Dingler cutting hair and to hire him if he cut hair satisfactorily. Dingler was engaged as a barber on a commission basis. He proved to be a highly competent hair stylist, and "excellent barber," from a technical standpoint. Posted in is station at Summit I was what appeared to be a valid Florida barber's license with Dingler's name and photograph: he was wearing eye, glasses and a yellow shirt. Aside from the respondents, five witnesses saw this barber's license, which was counterfeit. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent Pettis remembered noticing a number of plaques on the wall at Dingler's station in Summit I, including something that looked like Dingler's license. Mr. Allgood was unable to say that he had specifically seen Dingler's barber's license at any time before Dingler gathered up his things to leave after being discharged from employment. After Dingler had worked at Summit I for about three months respondent Allgood asked him if he would like to work Mondays (when Summit I was closed at Summit IV. Dingler was Interested and reported for work at Summit IV the following Monday. Michael NcNeill let him in the barbershop ,and noticed what appeared to be an official Florida barber's license among Dingler's effects. After Mr. McNeill had left the Summit IV premises, Dingler allegedly sexually assaulted a 17-year-old patron. When respondent Allgood learned of this, he told victim's father that he would fire Dingler and do what he could to see that Dingler's barber's license was revoked. Dingler was discharged the day after the alleged assault. In discussing the matter with a law enforcement officer, respondent Allgood suggested that the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) be notified so that proceedings to revoke Dingler's barber's license could be instituted. On November 24, 1980, Mr. Allgood voluntarily presented himself for an interview by Charles Deckert, an investigator for DPR. He assumed Mr. Deckert was developing a case so that action against Dingler could be taken. He learned in the interview for the first time that Dingler had never been licensed in Florida as a barber or a registered barber's assistant, according to DPR's records. In preparing the foregoing findings of fact, petitioner's proposed findings of fact and memorandum of law and respondents' proposed order have been considered, and the proposed statement and findings of fact have been adopted in substance.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner refrain from taking action against respondents on account of this technical violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 28th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Grinsted, Esquire Post Office Drawer 915 Shalimar, Florida 32579 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Barbars Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent Vernon C. Linton's license number 20365 should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for teaching or attempting to teach barbering at a registered barber school without a certificate of registration as a registered barber teacher or a registered barber intern teacher issued by the Florida Barber's Sanitary Commission in violation of Section 476.01(2), F.S. Whether Respondent Leonard Nicholson's license number 18832 should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for violation of Section 476.01(4), for operating a school of barbering without providing the required supervision, direction and management as the registered barber teacher of the school.
Findings Of Fact Upon stipulation of the parties the hearing of these two dockets, docket number 76-1031, Florida State Board of Barber's Sanitary Commission, Complainant, versus Vernon C. Linton, and docket number 76-1079, Florida State Board of Barber's Sanitary Commission versus Leonard Nicholson were consolidated and heard simultaneously On two occasions, one on the 20th day of March, 1976 and the other on the 23rd day of March, 1976, Mr. C. L. Jones, Inspector for the Florida Barber's Sanitary Commission entered the American School of Barber Styling, located at the Tallahassee Mall, Tallahassee, Florida, and found that the school, owned and operated by Respondent Leonard Nicholson, was being used by the Respondent, Vernon C. Linton, for the instruction of a student in the art of barbering. Mr. Leonard Nicholson holds a certificate as a registered barber teacher, but was not present on either March 20th or March 23rd at the time of the inspection Respondent Vernon C. Linton did not at that time hold a certificate as a registered barber teacher or registered barber intern teacher. Mr. Linton was issued a license as a qualified registered barber intern teacher subsequent to the inspection.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of barbering and the inspection of barbershops in the state of Florida pursuant to chapter 476, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Archibald was licensed as a barber in the state of Florida under license number BB8890016. At all times material hereto, Fresh Cut Barbershop ("barbershop") was licensed as a barbershop in the state of Florida under license number 1077801. At all times material hereto, Archibald was an owner and operator of the barbershop. On February 9, 2012, the barbershop was located within a shopping plaza at 6574 Northwest Selvitz Road, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On February 9, 2012, a routine inspection of the barbershop was conducted by Ms. Yvonne Grutka, a trained and experienced inspector employed by Petitioner. Ms. Grutka has been employed by Petitioner as an Environmental Health Specialist for approximately 17 years, performing approximately 1,200-1,400 annual inspections. Due to the nature of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, the physical layout of the barbershop, including the specific locations of the front entrance, work stations, and waiting area, is important to a clear understanding and resolution of the issues. However, insufficient evidence was presented at hearing in this regard. Moreover, insufficient evidence was presented as to the number of barbers who worked at the barbershop (and thus number of personal licenses); the identities of the barbers; where specifically within the barbershop they worked; and whether the barbers who worked at the barbershop were independent contractors or employees of the business. The scant evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that on February 9, 2012, the premises upon which the barbershop was physically located was leased from the owner of the shopping plaza. A separate beauty supply business, which was owned by Archibald's ex-wife, was located at the front of the leased premises. The barbershop was located in a smaller area at the back of the leased premises. Both businesses were accessible to customers through a single entry door at the front of the leased space where the beauty supply store was located. Petitioner failed to clearly and convincingly establish that the barbershop was open for business during the February 9, 2012, inspection. During Ms. Grutka's February 9, 2012, inspection, the only persons present at the barbershop were Archibald and another unidentified barber. No evidence was presented that this "other barber" was affiliated with the barbershop in any way. No physical description of this person or his/her clothing was provided. It could be that this barber was just visiting, and was unaffiliated with the barbershop. No customers were present. The time of commencement and duration of the inspection is unknown. On the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, the property upon which the barbershop was located was in foreclosure. As a result, Archibald was planning to vacate the premises and move the barbershop to another location. During the inspection, boxes of items were on the floor, and other items were removed from walls, evidencing Archibald's intent to vacate the premises. Archibald was present on the date of the inspection. Archibald testified he is unsure whether the barbershop was open for business on February 9, 2012, because of his intent to vacate the building. On rebuttal, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" whether she "saw boxes or not." When asked specifically whether she recalled Archibald saying that he was in the process of moving, Ms. Grutka merely replied: "No. He may have. I really don't recall."1/ With respect to the allegation regarding the improper display of personal licenses, Ms. Grutka testified on direct examination that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe personal licenses posted with both the photograph and lamination. She testified that the licenses had the photograph or the lamination on "it, but one of the items was missing." However, no evidence was presented by Petitioner on direct examination as to the specific location of the alleged lack of personal licenses, or the number or identities of the licensees for which personal licenses were purportedly not properly displayed. It was only on cross-examination that Ms. Grutka referred to Archibald's personal license, at which time she testified merely that she recalled seeing his personal license located in the "back" of the premises. Archibald testified that he believes the license was displayed in the barbershop area, which was located in the "back end" of the building. Importantly, Ms. Grutka never testified specifically that Archibald's license was improperly displayed in any way. In sum, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's personal license, or, for that matter, the personal licenses of any other barbers who worked at the barbershop were improperly displayed. With respect to the issues of the display of the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, and most recent inspection report, Ms. Grutka testified that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe a barbershop license displayed visibly within view of the "front door," or the rules of sanitation, health, and safety visibly within view of the "front door" or "waiting area." Nor did Ms. Grutka observe the most recent inspection form prior to the February 9, 2012, inspection displayed within view of the "front entrance" or the "waiting area." According to Ms. Grutka, she did not observe the barbershop license and rules of sanitation, health, and safety, anywhere at the barbershop on the day of the inspection. However, Ms. Grutka's testimony is unreliable and cannot be credited because of insufficient evidence of the physical layout of the premises. In fact, Ms. Grutka testified that she could not recall whether the "waiting area" was in the front of the building, the back of the building, or in both areas. Moreover, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" if the most recent inspection report was posted anywhere else in the barbershop. The unreliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is further demonstrated through the following exchange, which occurred during Archibald's cross-examination of her: Q: Questions for - - You said you never seen any of our license or anything in the back end? A: Yes, they were up - - not in the back. Your personal licenses I remember, you know, were in the back, but I don't recall the inspection sheet and stuff being moved to the back of the shop " Further undercutting the reliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is her statement that the rule regarding the display of a barbershop license requires that the license be visibly within view of the front door. Contrary to Ms. Grutka's testimony, rule 61G3-19.009(2) states that "[t]he shop license shall be displayed within view of the front entrance or in the waiting area." Apparently, Ms. Grutka did not even consider whether the license was displayed in the "waiting area," because she could not identify the location of the "waiting area." Moreover, Ms. Grutka testified that she wrote in the report that the shop license was not "anywhere to be found in the shop." However, a review of the inspection report does not support her testimony. In fact, a section within the inspection report titled: "Remarks," was left blank. Nothing was written in the inspection report indicating that the shop license was nowhere in the barbershop. In sum, there is insufficient clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, or most recent inspection report were not properly displayed. Finally, during the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka testified she did not observe a recent sticker on the portable fire extinguisher indicating that it had been inspected. According to Ms. Grutka, portable fire extinguishers must be inspected on an annual basis, "as per the Fire Marshall, and they would have a sticker on them indicating that they had been inspected." At hearing, Archibald did not admit to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rather, Archibald persuasively explained that if personal and business licenses and the rules of sanitation and most recent inspection report were not displayed during the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was because the property was in foreclosure, items had been removed from the walls, items were placed in boxes, and he was planning on moving the barbershop to another location. In fact, the barbershop vacated the premises sometime in 2013, and relocated to another shopping plaza. At the conclusion of the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka prepared and signed an inspection report indicating the violations noted in the report, and she informed Archibald of the alleged violations. Archibald acknowledged his receipt of the report. No evidence was presented indicating that a follow-up inspection of the barbershop was ever scheduled or occurred. No citation has ever been issued for the February 9, 2012, inspection. No evidence was presented establishing a prior history of persistent or flagrant violations of the same nature as those alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The evidence at hearing established that even if personal and business licenses, the rules of sanitation, and the most recent inspection report were not properly displayed on the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was an isolated incident.2/ Importantly, the facts adduced at hearing do not clearly and convincingly establish that Archibald personally engaged in any misconduct resulting in the five charges which are the subject of the Administrative Complaint. The evidence failed to establish, clearly and convincingly, that Archibald personally committed, or is personally culpable for, a disciplinary offense which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty on all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 26th day of February, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Denver Owens was licensed as a barber in this state and has been so licensed for 26 years. Although Owens has worked in barbershops for most of the last 26 years, he never owned a shop until he opened this barbershop in Apopka some two years ago. At the time he opened the shop he obtained an occupational license which, with his current barber's license, he thought was all he needed to operate a one-man shop. On April 26, 1984, an inspector with the Department of Professional Regulation saw the barber's sign on the site not on her records and entered the shop to inspect. The only discrepancy which is material to the issues here is that no registration had been issued for the barbershop. When questioned by the inspector, Owens readily acknowledged that he had not applied for registration for a shop because he was unaware such registration was required. The following day Owens submitted an application to register his shop and obtained registration dated May 4, 1984. When told the Department proposed to assess a fine of $250 against him for operating without a shop license, Owens requested a hearing, the file was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and this hearing ensued.
