The Issue The issue in this case is whether any disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent for alleged non-compliance with the graduate exemption provision of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and the Rules pertaining to graduates of cosmetology schools as contained in Chapter 61G5, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Miriam Viera, is of Hispanic origin. Her native language is Spanish. Ms. Viera and her children are the recipients of welfare in Escambia County. Specifically, Ms. Viera and her family receive money from Aid to Family with Dependent Children and food stamps. She has always wanted to be a cosmetologist and in 1994 was able to pursue her goal of becoming a licensed cosmetologist and also attempted to get off welfare. In order to become a licensed cosmetologist Ms. Viera was required to, (1) be 16 years of age, (2) graduate from an approved school of cosmetology, (3) have completed 1200 hours of training in cosmetology, (4) complete an application for licensure thereby applying to the Board of Cosmetology to sit for the cosmetology exam and, (5) pay the required licensure and examination fees. The application to the Board of Cosmetology required that Ms. Viera's 1200 hours of training be certified by the school where she took her training and that a certificate of completion of an approved HIV/AIDS training course accompany the application. Failure to meet any one of these requirements would cause Ms. Viera to be ineligible to take the cosmetology examination, as well as ineligible for licensure. On January 29, 1994, Respondent graduated from RTI Technical Institute in Pensacola by completing 1200 hours of training in cosmetology. RTI is a State approved cosmetology school. However, RTI does not offer an HIV awareness course. The course was offered at one of the local Pensacola hospitals. After graduation Respondent decided to take approximately two weeks off. On February 17, 1994, Respondent completed her training for HIV/AIDS awareness. During this time period, Respondent had also picked up an application to take the cosmetology examination and licensure from RTI. The form the school supplied to Ms. Viera did not contain the cover letter/instruction sheet for the application. As a consequence Ms. Viera was told that the application fee would be $75.00. On February 17, 1994, Respondent secured a $75.00 money order and presented a completed application to the office of Larry Bryant, the president of RTI Cosmetology School. The application was left with Mr. Bryant so that he could certify to the Board of Cosmetology, on behalf of RTI that Ms. Viera had completed 1200 hours of cosmetology training at the school. After Mr. Bryant completed the school's part of the application, he was to send the application and the money order on to the Board of Cosmetology. Respondent indicated on her application that she wanted to take the examination in Spanish. Such a request is authorized by the Board. There was no evidence that this request was fraudulent. The fee to take the examination in Spanish was an additional of $30.00. However, Respondent was unaware of the requirement for additional money because she had not received the applications's cover letter/instruction sheet with her application. Until Respondent paid the additional $30.00 she was not eligible to take the cosmetology examination. Likewise, the cosmetology examination was not available to Ms. Viera until the additional $30.00 application fee was paid. For unknown reasons over which Ms. Viera had no control, Mr. Bryant did not complete the school's part of the application until about March 2, 1994. Consequently, Ms. Viera's application was not mailed to the Board of Cosmetology until March 2, 1994. Ms. Viera had assumed that Mr. Bryant had completed and mailed her application within a couple days of her leaving it with him. She was unaware that Mr. Bryant had not done so. Again, Ms. Viera was not eligible to take the cosmetology examination until the certification from the school was accomplished and the application received by the Board. Likewise the cosmetology examination was not available to her until the application was completed by the school and received by the Board. In the meantime, around March 1, 1994, Respondent had begun practicing cosmetology at Lee's Family Affair Studio in Pensacola, Florida. Ms. Viera had been referred to the salon by the school. Ms. Viera needed to work because, being on welfare her funds were extremely short and she had to make up the money she had used to pay the $75.00 application fee. Normally, applicants who have met all the requirements for taking the cosmetology examination are admitted to take the examination scheduled approximately 10 to 15 days after the Board of Cosmetology has received and reviewed the application. The application of Respondent was received by the office of the Cosmetology Board on March 9, 1994. Based upon this date, the next examination was offered on April 21, 1994 had the entire examination fee of $105.00 been paid. Except for the fee, Respondent's application was complete in all respects as required by Rule 61G5-18.002, Florida Administrative Code. The Board sent a letter to Respondent dated March 15, 1994, advising her that her application was not complete because she did not pay the additional $30.00 fee for the Spanish version of the cosmetology examination and that she was not eligible to sit for any examination until the fee had been paid. The letter was received by Respondent around April 6, 1994. The Board's deficiency letter was the first indication Respondent had that she owed the Board more money and that she was not eligible for the examination scheduled for April 21, 1994 and that the examination was not available to the Respondent. Lutrel Raboteaux, an inspector for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, conducted a routine inspection of Lee's Family Affair Studio, on April 6, 1994. During the course of the inspection, the salon was open to the public, employees were present, and cosmetology services were being performed on customers. Inspector Raboteaux discovered that the Respondent was an employee of the salon, and asked the salon owner to see her license. Respondent was not initially at the salon when Mr. Raboteaux began his inspection. She arrived shortly thereafter. Respondent admitted to Inspector Raboteaux that she was employed by the salon, had been working there since around the first week of March and had charged about $20.00 for a haircut. Respondent further admitted that she had sent in her application to sit for the next available examination sometime in early March, 1994, but did not have a license. Mr. Raboteaux conferred with the manager of the salon, Daniel Lee, as to the location of Respondent's license, if any. Mr. Lee informed Inspector Raboteaux that Respondent was working under the graduate exemption from cosmetology licensure. Mr. Raboteaux asked to see documentation which would prove that the Respondent was a cosmetology school graduate i.e., the application for licensure, copy of the money order or check to pay for the exam, and a copy of the receipt indicating payment that the Board of Cosmetology sends to the graduate. No documents were posted at Respondent's workstation nor were any documents produced for Inspector Raboteaux. Inspector Raboteaux completed his inspection of the salon, and noted on the salon's inspection report that Respondent's graduate exemption was subject to further investigation. Later, Inspector Raboteaux contacted the Board of Cosmetology in Tallahassee and spoke with Ms. Stacy Merchant, and employee of the Board whose duties for the Board include processing and determining eligibility of cosmetology school graduates to sit for the cosmetology exam. Ms. Merchant informed Inspector Raboteaux that the Respondent was not eligible for the graduate exemption. Ms. Merchant based her conclusion on her understanding of Chapter 477 and the Rules promulgated thereunder. Based on Ms. Merchant's representation, Inspector Raboteaux completed a Uniform Citation and served it on the Respondent by United States Mail -- Restricted Delivery. The Uniform Citation served on the Respondent indicated she was charged with practicing without a license for which the Board's fine was $500.00. Because Ms. Viera was a welfare recipient she did not have the money to pay the additional $30.00 fee, let alone a $500.00 fine which she disputed. As a consequence, Ms. Viera could not take the April 21, 1994 cosmetology examination.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found not guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993) through a violation of Section 477.0135(g), Florida Statutes (1993) and the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1996.
The Issue Whether the certificate of registration of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for the reason that Respondent, Arguster Jackson, did work as a master cosmetologist without a valid certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact A copy of the Complaint with attached license, the certificate, and receipt for certified mail were entered into evidence as requested and marked Exhibit 1 without objection. Respondent entered a guilty plea, a copy of which was entered into evidence as requested without objection and marked Exhibit 2. Respondent Jackson did operate without a current registration required by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. Respondent secured her master cosmetologist certificate within a time laps after the filing of this Complaint.
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1977, Jacob Rubin, an inspector in petitioner's employ, entered the Hallmark Beauty Salon. He asked a woman who was doing manicures to produce her license. Even though she did not have a current, valid license from the Florida State Board of Cosmetology she said she had left her license at home. When asked to go home to get her license, she left the shop. She did not return to the shop that day. On behalf of respondent, Betty Lerner had hired this manicurist, whose name is Norma Bertha Ruiz de Hidalgo, in November of 1977. At the time she was hired, Ms. Hidalgo told Ms. Lerner that she had previously worked two or three blocks away and showed Ms. Lerner what seemed to be a current, valid license. In Ms. Lerner's hearing, customers greeted Ms. Hidalgo, recognizing her at respondent's shop as somebody they had known at a nearby shop earlier. The license which Ms. Hidalgo had shown Ms. Lerner was not displayed in the shop.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner reprimand respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel J. Wiser, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 The Hallmark Beauty Salon, Inc. 3800 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida
The Issue The matters to be determined by this Recommended Order concern administrative prosecution of the Respondent on the part of the Petitioners. The action by Commissioner Turlington is, according to an Administrative Complaint, in which the Respondent is accused of false, malicious, derogatory and profane commentary, epithets related to faculty, staff, administrators and students within the Bay County School System. By subject, these allegations pertain to accusations of illicit sexual relationships on the part of school personnel, accusations of theft by a former faculty member and general derogatory comments related to various categories of individuals within the Bay County School System. It is further alleged that the Respondent failed to properly instruct and supervise students. Respondent is accused of coercing a student, who was employed at the Haney Vocational Technical Center Business Office, to provide the Respondent with confidential information in the personnel files of other school employees. Respondent is accused of making derogatory, demeaning and profane remarks about students while conducting class and in the presence of other students who are not the subject of those comments. Respondent is accused of making false representations to students about political influence with the Superintendent of the Bay County School System and members of the State Board of Cosmetology. Respondent is said to have falsified student records which she submitted to the State Board of Cosmetology. Finally, Respondent is said to have willfully and intentionally refused to comply with specific instructions given to her by her supervisor, the principal of Haney Vocational Technical Center. The accusations brought against the Respondent by Pete Holman as Superintendent of the Bay County School System are in a similar vein to those by the Education Practices Commission in the person of Commissioner Turlington. These accusations by the co-prosecutors are more completely described and discussed in - the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which follow.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, MYRTICE SHORES FLORA, is the holder of a Florida teaching certificate, number 236133 and has held that certificate at all times relevant to the inquiry. She had been a cosmetology instructor at Tom P. Haney Vocational Technical School in Bay County, Florida for fifteen years prior to her suspension in August, 1983. The suspension relates to the matters as charged by the Superintendent of the Bay County School District. Her status With Bay County is that of a continuing contract employee. The allegations which underlie the complaints filed by the two petitioners do not pertain to her competence as an instructor. The charges which have been placed against the Respondent relate to activities within the school year 1982-83. In particular that period from late 1982 to approximately the summer of 1983. Within that time frame a number of conflicts existed between faculty members at Haney, in the Department of Cosmetology; between students who were attending the cosmetology course at Haney; between faculty and students in that setting and between the administration of the school and the Respondent. The focus or gravamen of these administrative complaints is to the effect that the Respondent was the central player in this cast and primarily responsible for the turmoil. One of the contentions that is made by both prosecutors, concerns what is described as false and malicious statements that were made about the principal of Haney, a Mr. Revere; other faculty members, a teacher's aide, students and the Superintendent of the Bay County School District. In that same realm, Respondent is accused of making derogatory comments and using profanity in referring to the principal, Riviere, and other principals who preceded him at Haney Vocational Technical Center; concerning assistant principals; concerning faculty members and concerning students. Respondent did make numerous derogatory remarks, with malice and at times the use of profanity, directed toward various persons at Haney and toward the Superintendent of Bay County Schools. Some examples are: Expression of dislike of the principal of Haney, Mr. Riviere, in the sense of "hating" him, questioning his administrative ability, saying that he was the "south end of a north bound donkey", that Mr. Riviere did not know what was going on in the Cosmetology Department nor what would be best for that department. These were comments made in front of students in the class. Respondent said in front of students that Principal Riviere had gotten a girl pregnant and stolen student funds in order to pay for an abortion for the girl. In addition, Respondent in conversation with a fellow cosmetology teacher, one Sandra Sawyer, referred to Riviere as a person "who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground", a person who was a "stupid bastard". In referring to Riviere in conversation with Ed Sullivan, the registrar at Haney Vocational, she stated that Riviere was a person who given enough rope, "the son of a bitch would hang himself". She also referred to Riviere as a "bastard" in conversation with Sullivan. In discussions with Larry Johnson, the coordinator of personnel for the Bay County School District, Respondent made remarks on the subject of Mr. Riviere to the effect that he was "a very poor administrator", "a bastard" and a "son of a bitch". Further she stated that Riviere has sexual relationships with many of the female staff members at Haney Vocational. Respondent indicated to June Roberts, who was secretary to the assistant principal at Haney, one Jim Strickland, that Respondent felt that Riviere was "out to get her" and that she was "going to get him". Respondent told the school bookkeeper at Haney, one Ami Sullivan, that Riviere was having an affair with numerous women at the Haney school. Respondent told teacher aide at Haney, Cynthia Johnson, that Riviere would sleep with anybody and had the morals of a dog. She also told Johnson that Riviere was an unfit administrator. Respondent mentioned in front of students at Haney, during class, that Pete Holman, the Superintendent of schools in Bay County, "liked to sleep with black women". Respondent also commented to Sawyer, the co-teacher at Haney Cosmetology Department, that Holman slept with black women. Respondent made this same comment to Cynthia Johnson, the teacher's aide. Respondent also made adverse comments about other administrators. Among them, Assistant Principal Jim Strickland at Haney Vocational, whom she called a son of a bitch in conversation with Ms. Sawyer. She further told Sawyer that Strickland could not be trusted. In conversation with Larry Johnson, the Coordinator of Personnel of Bay County Schools she referred to the Assistant Principals at Haney, Homer Jackson and James Strickland, as incompetent, no good, and to the effect that they did not know what they were doing. She told Gail Chester, secretary in the Business Office at Haney, that assistant Principal Strickland was "a dumb ass" and that he "didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground". She referred to Assistant Principal Cheek "as an ass hole" and "a dumb ass", in conversations with Gail Chester. Respondent referred to the former Haney principal, a man named Slocum, as "a God damned son of a bitch" and stated on several occasions that Slocum and Slocum's secretary were having sexual relations. On numerous occasions to students, faculty and the administration, Respondent referred to Daisy Jackson, a former cosmetology instructor at Haney, as having stolen supplies from Haney Vocational. She also stated to those persons that Jackson was incompetent. In front of the class Respondent indicated that Sandra Sawyer, the co- teacher at Haney, had left her position at Haney because of emotional problems, in that Sawyer was going crazy. Respondent told Principal Riviere that Sandra Sawyer was incompetent, that she did not know what she was doing, and that she lacked enough experience to assist students in instruction. In front of students Respondent referred to Cynthia Johnson, a teacher's aide, as incompetent, a person whom the Respondent was teaching cosmetology services at night, and further indicated her belief that Johnson was "stabbing her in the back". In conversation with the school bookkeeper at Haney, Ami Sullivan, Respondent referred to Cynthia Johnson as "a spy". Respondent told Principal Riviere that Cynthia Johnson was not competent and did not know enough to adequately assist students, and did not know what she was doing. Respondent in conversation with Sandra Sawyer referred to some of the cosmetology students as lesbians, that some of them had learning disabilities, that some were stupid, that some were trouble makers, and that one student was a prostitute. The remarks recounted above, as individual comments, would not be significant. These remarks taken together demonstrate a persistent pattern of malicious gossip, disruptive in its influence. The remarks made to administrative officials can not be regarded as a good faith effort at offering complaints about relations with the Respondent's immediate supervisors and fellow teachers. These findings take into account the strains placed upon the Respondent in the overcrowded situation of the classroom at Haney in the relevant period, and the tendency which others had to be willing participants in gossip. Nonetheless, the quality of remarks by others did not carry with them the same careless disregard for the feelings of fellow workers and students. Finally, in her efforts at defense the Respondent has failed to establish that these statements were true. As established by the Superintendent Holman and the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction of Bay County Schools, Milton Acton, these remarks by the Respondent have made her lose her effectiveness as an employee in the Bay County School System. Her remarks fostered a tension in the school, which can not be balanced by her ample skills as a teacher. It is alleged that the Respondent has failed to provide proper instruction to students in her classes and failed to properly supervise their work. Having considered the testimony of students and staff and the success rate in passing the state board examination which is more than 90 percent, and the success in obtaining employment after finishing the course work at Haney Vocational, which again is more than 90 percent, Respondent is not found to have failed to properly instruct her students in the classes nor failed to properly supervise their work, as an overview of her performance. These findings take into account the alleged problems which Anita Shealy had in a bleach touch-up demonstration. Respondent's supervision was adequate on that occasion. Likewise, in the circumstance with a student, Kim Nelson, who experienced problems with frosting of her hair, it is found that Nelson undertook that matter against the advice of the Respondent and suffered the consequences. Other indications made by various witnesses for the Petitioner to the effect that they did not receive adequate supervision and assistance as students at Haney, are not accepted, when considered in the context of the overall testimony of this hearing. As reflected in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent in discussion with Rena Mabius, a student who worked in the busi- ness office at Haney, and who had access to personnel files of staff, Respondent commented that "it would be nice if you could get me some of those files so I could use them." This referred to discussion in which the student had indicated that most teachers did not accurately report their absences in the records, intimating that Respondent would not need to either. The student in the face of Respondent's remarks about obtaining the files quit her position in the business office to avoid controversy. This again, in keeping with the opinions of the educators Holman and Acton, would substantially reduce the effectiveness of Respondent as an educator. Respondent is accused of making derogatory comments, de- meaning and profane remarks to students in her class in the pre- sence of other students. While it is true that the Respondent would on occasion use such language as "damn, shit and bitching" and would comment on a student's performance during class, these remarks are not found to be unacceptably derogatory or demeaning, to the extent they were proven. Respondent is next accused of having repeatedly made false representations to her students that she possessed some substantial political influence with the Superintendent of the Bay County School System and members of the State Board of Cosmetology. Respondent did in fact make comments to her students that she had influence with the Superintendent of the Bay County School System and in effect had influence with the State Board of Cosmetology. These statements were not defamatory and Petitioner did not show that they were false. Moreover, they were not statements which were shown to have reduced her effectiveness as an instructor or otherwise to have had an adverse influence on the students. Respondent is accused of having falsified reports which she submitted to the State Board of Cosmetology. Respondent instructed the students to write the entries of the various services given, as indicated on their monthly service sheet, in pencil. This would allow changes to be made in the entries related to the number of services done. The significance of these numbers related to the fact that a certain number of services had to be achieved prior to the students' standing examination by the Cosmetology Board. Two of those students, Peggy Harsh Singleton and Tina Mangum in the submission of their November, 1982 monthly sheet from which the total figures for students at Haney Vocational in the Cosmetology Department were extracted, modified their November 1982 records to reflect services not given. While it is not clear that the Respondent, for all students at Haney in the period in question, had a policy of allowing numbers to be added which equated to services not done in the various categories of services necessary to be accomplished before standing the state board examination, she did on the occasion of Mangum and Singleton in the face of suspicions explained by her co-instructor Ms. Sawyer, ignore clear discrepancies within the monthly reporting by those students which would indicate false reporting by those students. Even though Sawyer explained her suspicions related to those student monthly service reports for November, 1982, Respondent's reply was to the effect that there was "a lot of things that she didn't like, that that's the way things were, and that's the way they did things" and that-Sawyer "better get used to it." In essence, it would not have been possible for the students to perform the number of services reflected in the November report and it is not possible that all changes shown in the November report reflect the reexamination of prior months reporting and the addition of services which they performed in the prior months by placing those prior services in the November report. Some of the items in the November report of the two students are bogus entries, brought to the attention of the Respondent by Sawyer and ignored. Copies of those November reports related to the students Singleton and Mangum may be found as Petitioners' Exhibits Numbers 1 and 3 respectively. Notwithstanding the stated suspicion and the evident discrepancies, Respondent filed a report with the State Board of Cosmetology that indicated Singleton and Mangum had completed the necessary services to stand the State Board examination. Respondent in speaking with student Singleton, whom the Respondent knew had not completed sufficient services to stand the examination, told Singleton she would be allowed to stand the State Board examination and complete missing services at a time subsequent to the State Board examination. As established through the testimony of the educators Holman and Acton this conduct brings about a substantial loss of effectiveness on the part of the Respondent, in that this action undermines her integrity in the eyes of the students, faculty and administration. The final contention by the Petitioners against the Respondent concern her willful and intentional refusal to comply with specific instruction given to her by her principal. Re-spondent in November 1982 had agreed to comply with Principal Riviere's instruction to the effect that she would not take students to Tallahassee to stand the State Board of Cosmetology Examination without first obtaining his permission. Thereafter, she submitted a request for temporary duty assignment in which one of the stated reasons was "Board testing of students in Tallahassee". This duty assignment request was signed by the Principal authorizing a trip to Tallahassee on November 14th, 1982. A copy of this request form may be found as Respondent's Exhibit Number 4 admitted into evidence. Respondent then took the students to stand the examination in Tallahassee. Later when she was confronted by the Principal on the question of whether she should have taken any of the students to the State Board she first denied having done so. She then acknowledged that she had taken them. In the course of the hearing Respondent attempted to argue that she had been given permission via the request for temporary duty assignment as described. Notwithstanding the signature of the Principal on that document, Petitioner argues that the Respondent knew that she was taking the students to stand the examination without the necessary permission of the Principal, in violation of the Principal's instruction. Under the circumstances in which written permission was given to go to Tallahassee, Respondent is not shown to have been insubordinate. Nor has Petitioner shown other acts of insubordination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology (Board), is charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of cosmetology. Among its responsibilities are the routine inspections of cosmetology salons to insure that all Board requirements are being met. On January 13, 1988 a Board inspector inspected the premises of From Hair on Etc., a licensed cosmetology salon in Clearwater, Florida. During the course of the inspection, the inspector observed a work station set up for respondent, Kristie J. Wheatley. The inspector also reviewed the salon's appointment book and noted manicure appointments for "Kristie" beginning around October 13, 1987 and continuing until January 19, 1988. However, the inspector did not find a license for respondent, and a subsequent search of Board records revealed that respondent was not registered with the Board. The inspector later talked with respondent by telephone. Respondent acknowledged that she had been employed as a manicurist at the salon since October 1987 and was not registered with the Board. She informed the inspector that she was unaware that the Board had begun enforcing a new law that required manicurists to be registered. According to owners of the salon, respondent performed manicure services in the salon for a three month period from October 1987 until January 1988. She was compensated for these services. In response to their inquiry as to her registration status, Wheatley told them she had filed an application for registration. Later on, she advised them the registration was at her home. When the owners learned from the inspector that respondent was not registered with the Board, her services were terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in the amended administrative complaint, that she be assessed a $150 fine, and that she not be permitted to register with the Board until such fine is paid. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of February, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kristie J. Wheatley 14194 Darts Drive Fenton, MI 48430 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Toni M. Farmer, presently holds an active cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, License No. CL0062662, for the period July 19, 1982, through June 30, 1984. Between May 6, 1980, and July 6, 1981, Farmer worked as a cosmetologist in a salon operated by Shear Pleasure, Inc., in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. Shear Pleasure, Inc., is the holder of License No. CE0027634. Beginning July 13, 1981, to the present, Farmer has worked as a cosmetologist in the salon, Josef and Charles, Inc., d/b/a Josef and Charles Styling Salon, License No. CE0022674, located in Orange Park, Florida. When Farmer began her employment with Shear Pleasure she had a current and valid cosmetology license issued by Petitioner, which license expired June 30, 1980. Around August 18, 1980, Farmer forwarded a cashier's check made payable to the Board of Cosmetology for purposes of renewing her delinquent cosmetology license. Subsequent to the action on the part of Farmer and in the course of a routine inspection, Jewel Walker, an inspector for Petitioner, noted the fact of expiration of Farmer's license. This took place in 1980. When told that Petitioner had not responded to the renewal request, Walker instructed Farmer to post the indicia of payment of fees, i.e., a copy of the cashier's check of August, 1980, at Farmer's work station in the interim and to check the post office for any return of that cashier's check, due to the fact that Farmer had changed her mailing address following the transmittal of the cashier's check. Farmer made other contacts with the Tallahassee, Florida, office of Petitioner to determine the status of her renewal in 1980. In the beginning of 1981, Farmer spoke with Walker about the renewal, having failed to receive any notification confirming license renewal. (In the course of these matters, Walker had indicated certain logistical problems that were taking place, reference license renewal for cosmetologists.) The owner of Shear Pleasure, Inc., Fontaine LeMaistre, was aware of the efforts on the part of Farmer to obtain license renewal and allowed her to continue as an employee during her tenure. When Farmer took a position with Josef and Charles, her employer was made aware of the fact that she did not have the license document and the employer was made aware of the efforts which Farmer had made to obtain the license. On August 11, 1981, Farmer requested the Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville, which had issued the August 18, 1980, cashier's check to stop payment on that check, based upon the fact that the payee, Petitioner, had not cashed the check. This request was honored and on August 13, 1981, a cashier's check was issued to Toni M. Farmer in the like amount of thirty-five dollars ($35.00), which check was subsequently cashed by Farmer. On May 12, 1982, Charles Coats, an investigator with Petitioner, made an inspection of the Orange Park business of Josef and Charles and discovered that Farmer was without a license. At that time, a copy of the original thirty- five dollar ($35.00) check written to the Board of Cosmetology was shown to Coats. Farmer related the circumstances involving efforts which she had made to obtain the license. Following this conversation, and specifically in June, 1982, Farmer maid the necessary fees and offered required credentials which allowed her license to be renewed, effective July 19, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the facts found, conclusions of law reached and being otherwise informed, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which suspends the license of Respondent for a period of fifteen (15) days based upon the violation found in Count I and dismisses Count II. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 29th day of December, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied to be licensed as a cosmetologist by the Board of Cosmetology of the State of Florida. In pursuit of her application she took the practical examination given by the Department of Professional Regulation, in Winter Haven on June 10, 1982. She received a grade of 66.5 on that portion of the examination. A passing grade is 75.0 or above. Petitioner did pass the written portion of the examination. Because the grade for the written portion is not averaged with the grade for the practical exam, it is irrelevant here. Ms. Forchion's only experience or expertise in the field of cosmetology comes from her study in a half-year course given at Orange County Vocational Technical School. Ms. Forchion contests the following grades received on the indicated portions of the practical examination: Shampooing 3.0 of a maximum 5.0 Permanent waving 12.0 of a maximum 20.0 Bleaching 11.0 of a maximum 20.0 Tinting 13.5 of a maximum 15.0 At the final hearing Ms. Forchion testified that she performed all the procedures properly for each of the areas examined. She did not however, know what the grading criteria to be used by the examiners were. For this reason she was unable to say that her performance met the standards established by the Board of Cosmetology for passing grades. Ms. Forchion's only standards for judging her own work came from her instruction at school. Respondent presented testimony from two of the examiners who were present at the time and place of Petitioner's examination. They had no recollection of Petitioner's performance on the practical exam and therefore were unable to provide testimony about the adequacy or inadequacy of her performance. During the shampooing portion of the examination, there was a deficiency in water pressure. The individual examination stations are apparently supplied by a common water main. When all of the examinees attempted to use water at the same time, the supply was inadequate. The Department of Professional Regulation employee supervising the examination asked the examinees to turn their water off in order to allow the pressure to return. This was unnerving to Petitioner because the examination was timed. In spite of the paucity of pressure she was able to complete the shampooing to her satisfaction and she did not claim that the lack of water resulted in an unacceptable performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order denying the application of Shirley J. Forchion for licensure as a cosmetologist because she failed to successfully pass the practical portion of the cosmetology examination as required by Section 477.019(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1981). DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 6th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley J. Forchion 3000 Orange Court Apartment 85 Orlando, Florida 32805 M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Florida Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION SHIRLEY J. FORCHION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-2352 DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Respondent. /
