The Issue Whether the license of the Goldwyn Door Beauty Salon should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a beauty salon not under the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.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 Respondent's alleged violation of Rule 21f-3.10, Florida Administrative Code. Receipt of the Administrative Complaint and the Notice of Hearing was acknowledged by the Respondent. (Exhibit 1) Counsel for the Petitioner announced at the commencement of the hearing that Respondent's cosmetology salon was out of business and that said Respondent possessed no personal Certificate of Registration as a cosmetologist. Petitioner therefore interposed no objection to dismissal of the allegation.
Recommendation That the allegation against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Larry C. Wojtowicz c/o Nancy's Beauty Salon 2931 West Gate Avenue West Palm Beach, 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The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for employing a student without a permit to work who had not yet taken the state board examination for cosmetologists.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
The Issue Whether Respondent practiced cosmetology in a salon in Florida without a cosmetologist license as required by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Whether the Board has jurisdiction over Respondent. Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was practicing cosmetology by shampooing the hair of a customer of Bernice Benbow d/b/a Bernice's Beauty Salon at a time when Respondent, Carrie Shingles had no certificate to practice cosmetology. Respondent admitted she was not a registered cosmetologist; that she did shampoo the hair of a customer in Bernice's Beauty Salon; that she performed such work without the permission of Bernice Benbow, the owner of the salon; that she did not know said action was contrary to the Florida Statutes or the rules and regulations of the Board of Cosmetology. Notice of Service was entered without objection and marked Exhibit 1. The witnesses were duly sworn
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. August 27, 1975 date DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Bernice Benbow 702 Magnolia Street Cocoa, Florida Ms. Carrie Shingles 606 Poinsett Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Artie Leigh Mitchell 427 Roosevelt Avenue Merritt Island, Florida Ms. Mary Alice Palmer Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Post Office Box 9087 Winter Haven, Florida 33880
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Sections 477.02(6), 477.15(8), 477.27(1) & (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Clodoaldo and Olimpia Linares operate the Alinas Beauty Salon, a partnership, at 754 East 1st Avenue, Hialeah, Florida under Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon number 20143 issued by Petitioner on August 21, 1974. Petitioner's Inspector Miller, accompanied by Inspector Padrick, visited Respondent's salon on October 31 1975, to investigate a report that Respondent had an operator at their shop who was practicing cosmetology without a license. At that time the inspectors discovered Carmen Salvador giving a manicure to a patron. Salvador stated to the inspectors that although she did not have a Florida license to practice cosmetology, she was not employed in the salon. (Testimony of Miller and Padrick) Respondent Olimpia Linares testified that Salvador was her cousin and that while she was waiting for Linares to leave the salon for the evening she filed a patron's nails while Linares was working on the patron's hair. The patron was a friend of Salvador. (Testimony of Linares)
Recommendation That Respondent, Olimpia Linares, be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 477.27(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Clodoaldo and Olimpia Linares c/o Alinas Beauty Salon THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 754 East 1 Avenue Hialeah, Florida
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Section 477.02(4) & 477.15, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates Kemp's Beauty Salon, 404 N.E. 10th Street, Boynton Beach, Florida, under Certificate of Registration Number 16286 to operate a cosmetology salon issued by Petitioner on November 18, 1971. (Stipulation). On May 22, 1975, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondent's salon and observed a man styling the hair of a patron. On May 23, the Inspector returned and observed the same man doing the same thing. He informed her that he did not have a state license. Respondent was not present on either occasion. (Testimony of Jennings) Respondent testified at the hearing that he had had no idea that the individual in question, who was a patron of the shop, was going to work on customers. On May 23rd Respondent had left the shop to have lunch. (Testimony of Kemp).
Recommendation That Respondent's salon license 16286 be suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Thomas Kemp Kemp's Beauty Salon 404 N.E. 10 Street Boynton Beach, Florida
The Issue Whether Respondent, Nancy Jo Gupton, allowed a non- licensed person to practice cosmetology in her beauty salon contrary to Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is doing business as Nancy Jo's Hair Stylist in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent was working in said salon and left the salon to take a customer to the hospital. Sue Dalton, a non-registered person washed and set the hair of one Mrs. Latham, a customer of said salon. Sue Dalton was not employed to serve as a cosmetologist.
The Issue Whether the Respondent did violate Section 477.02(6); 477.27(1) and Section 477.15(8), Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology promulgated pursuant there to in that he did allow students to work in the La Marick Beauty Salon, a salon owned by licensee, prior to making application and/or renewing an application for such work from the Board of Cosmetology.
Findings Of Fact Respondent F. W. Lorick, Jr. received notice of this hearing and filed his election of remedies stating no contest and that he did not plan to attend this hearing. Respondent does not personally work in the La Marick Beauty Salon, therefore employs a manager to manage the salon although it is licensed in the company's name. The company of which Respondent is president is one of a chain of beauty salons. Mrs. Madge Edwards, inspector for the State Board of Cosmetology, on or about February 24, 1976 entered Respondent Lorick's beauty salon and found a student working as a cosmetologist. The student was a non-licensed person who held no permit to work in a beauty salon. The inspector wrote a violation which is the subject of this hearing.
Recommendation Advise the Respondent F. W. Lorick, Jr. that he is guilty of violating Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated thereto and that if other violations occur, his license may be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of August, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida Mr. F. W. Lorick, Jr., President La Marick Beauty Salon 2350 S. Ridgewood Avenue - Sunshine Mall South Daytona, Florida
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Respondent's cosmetology salon license was subject to discipline for alleged violations of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated thereunder.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Hattie Nesbit, is licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. The Respondent also holds a Florida cosmetology salon license for her beauty salon, Nesbit's Beauty Salon. 1/ Ms. Nesbit works part-time at her salon. She employs two to three other very experienced licensed cosmetologists. The salon has four beauty stations. Ms. Nesbit's beauty station is the first station after entering the salon premises. The other employees occupy the other stations. They are aware of the Board's rules for the operation and sanitation of a beauty salon. Additionally, Respondent has the Board's sanitation rules posted on the wall of the salon. The salon in general is clean and well-kept. Eileen Thomas, the Petitioner's inspector, conducted a random inspection of the Respondent's salon on February 21, 1989. Ms. Nesbit was not present during the inspection. While there the inspector observed that the container for the deposit of hair was a garbage can located in the back room. The room was closed off from the beauty salon. At the time of the inspection the container had hair in it. The garbage can cover was not on the container and the lid was not located at the time of the inspection. The Board's rules provide that a lid must be kept on the container for the deposit of hair. Respondent's receptacle for the deposit of hair was not maintained in such a manner. Therefore, Respondent is subject to discipline under the Board's rules governing the maintenance of container for the deposit of hair. The inspector, also, observed Ms. Blount, one of the beauticians employed by Respondent, apply chemicals to a patron's hair without using a spatula. Since Ms. Nesbit was not present at the salon she was unaware of the employee's disregard of the Board's rule that all chemicals be applied with a spatula. However, the salon owner is the person responsible for the operation of the salon and is responsible for violations committed by the employees of the salon. Respondent's lack of knowledge only goes to mitigate the penalty which should be imposed for the employee's failure to observe the Board's rules. The evidence showed that Respondent had reasonably instructed her employees on sanitary procedure and required them to follow that procedure. Respondent posted the sanitation rules on the wall of the salon as a reminder of those rules. Respondent's violation is nominal. In light of these facts Respondent should receive a nominal penalty. A letter of reprimand would be an appropriate penalty for this type of violation. Additionally, the inspector observed that the wet sanitizers located in four of the stations at the salon were only one third to one half full of a sanitizing solution. A wet sanitizer is any type of container that is large enough to hold a sanitizing solution in which a comb or brush can be completely immersed for proper sanitation. In this case, the containers provided by Respondent were large enough to allow for the complete immersion of a comb or brush in a sanitizing solution. There were combs and brushes in the wet sanitizers at the four stations. Those combs and brushes were not completely immersed in the sanitizing solution because the solution was low. The Rule on the provision of wet sanitizers does not require that the containers be filled all the time. The rule only requires that the containers be large enough to allow for immersion. The Rule requires only that a comb or brush be immersed prior to its use. The Rule does not require that a comb or brush be immersed all of the time. In this case Respondent provided containers of the correct size. However, no evidence was presented that the Respondent's operators were using the combs or brushes in the wet sanitizers without first properly sanitizing them. The fact that the jars were low in solution at the limited point in time of the inspection does not clearly and convincingly support a conclusion that Respondent's operators were not utilizing proper sanitation procedures before the combs and brushes were used on a customer. Without evidence of such use Respondent cannot be guilty of a violation of the Board's rule on the provision of wet sanitizers and the sanitation of combs or brushes before their use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for violation of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes and imposing a $25 fine. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1989.
