The Issue Whether Respondent's Deloris Overstreet license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for the reason that she failed to have or to display a certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the inspection by Ms. Artie Mitchell, Respondent had no certificate of registration. Ms. Mitchell left an application form with Respondent and Respondent procured the certificate of registration within fifteen (15) days thereafter. Ms. Overstreet, Respondent, has secured her certificate of registration and has it on display in the beauty shop owned by Respondent doing business as Dee's Beauty Boutique.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a State of Florida-licensed cosmetologist (license number CL 0127356) and the owner and operator of Marie's Beauty Salon, a State of Florida-licensed cosmetology salon (license number CE 0040980) located in Fort Lauderdale. Leonard Baldwin is an inspector with the Department. Baldwin has conducted various inspections of Marie's Beauty Salon. His last inspection was conducted on April 24, 1992. 2/ Nancy Victor is not now, nor has she ever been, licensed to practice cosmetology, or any specialty area thereof, in the State of Florida. Victor was hired by Respondent to work as a shampooist in Respondent's salon. Her first day of work was April 24, 1992. At around noon on that day the mother of a young customer walked into the salon to pick up her daughter. The daughter, however, was not ready to leave. She still had rollers in her hair. The mother was in a hurry. She approached Victor and asked her to remove the rollers from her daughter's hair. Victor obliged the mother and began removing the rollers. Respondent, who was working on the hair of a customer seated in the chair next to the one in which the daughter was seated, overheard the discussion between the mother and Victor. Respondent was aware that it was unlawful for a person to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida without a license. Furthermore, she knew that Victor did not have a license to practice cosmetology in this state. Nonetheless, inasmuch as she was busy with another customer and Victor did not have any shampooing that she needed to do, Respondent allowed Victor to remove the rollers from the daughter's hair. As Victor was removing the roller's from the daughter's hair, Baldwin entered the salon to conduct a routine inspection. When Respondent saw Baldwin, she instructed Victor to stop what she was doing and leave the area. Victor did what she was told and went to the rear of the salon. Respondent then went over to the daughter and finished removing the rollers from her hair.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and fining her $75.00 for having committed said violation. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of September, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 15th day of September, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Patsy Arline and Roberta Stein, doing business in a partnership allowed a non-licensed person to practice cosmetology in their beauty salon, to-wit: one Gloria Gann. Whether Respondent's License No. 19208 should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact Notice of Service was entered without objection and marked Exhibit 1. The Complaint with the license attached thereto was entered into evidence as Exhibit 2 without objection. The Respondents were duly sworn. Respondents admit that they allowed a person who was non- registered to practice cosmetology in the salon known as the Yellow Tulip which they own and operate as a partnership under License No. 19208. Respondents did not know of the serious consequences of their act.
The Issue Whether Respondents operated their cosmetology salon in violation of the rule then in effect in which each cosmetology salon owner or manager should send to the Board every five (5) years a certificate from a licensed electrician showing that the electrical equipment in said salon is in safe operating condition. Regulation 21F-3.02, of the rules and regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology. Whether Respondents' license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact The witness and Respondents were duly sworn. The Notice of Service and Complaint were entered without objection and marked Exhibit 1. The Election of Remedies and Electrical Certificate were entered into evidence as Exhibit 2 without objection. Respondents held a license as required by Board of Cosmetology Rule 21F-3.02, which was dated 1969. A notice of violation was written up by the Board at the five-year expiration of said license which was in 1974. Since the writing of the violation notice, the Board has rescinded the rule requiring an electrical certificate and Respondnets not having procured a certificate in a timely fashion did not then attempt to secure said certificate inasmuch as the rule had been rescinded.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent has been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida since August 13, 1979. He currently holds license number CL 0110182, which has an expiration date of June 30, 1992. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Best Cuts, Inc. (Best Cuts), a licensed cosmetology salon located at 5331 West Atlantic Boulevard in Margate, Florida. In late October, 1990 or early November, 1990, Luis Villate applied and interviewed for a hair stylist position at Best Cuts. During the interview, Respondent asked if Villate was licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. In response to this inquiry, Villate showed Respondent a completed State of Florida application for licensure by examination. The application contained a certification, dated January 6, 1990, and signed by the Educational Supervisor of the cosmetology school Villate had attended, that Villate met the educational and training requirements for eligibility to sit for the cosmetology licensure examination. Following the interview, Respondent telephoned the Department's offices in Tallahassee to find out if there was any legal impediment to his hiring Villate to work as a hair stylist at Best Cuts. Respondent explained to the Department representative with whom he spoke that Villate had "all his hours" of schooling and training and that he had applied for a cosmetology license. The representative told Respondent that, if such were the circumstances, it would be permissible for Respondent to employ Villate at his salon. 1/ Respondent shortly thereafter hired Villate to work at Best Cuts. The representations made to him by the Department representative did not play a role in his decision to hire Villate. Because he desperately needed a competent hair stylist to work at the salon, he would have hired Villate even if he had been told that Villate's unlicensed status rendered him ineligible for lawful employment. Villate remained an employee of Best Cuts for approximately two months, until December 4, 1991. During the period of his employment, Villate cut, washed and blow dried customers' hair. At no time during this period was he licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. The termination of Villate's employment with Best Cuts was precipitated by an inspection of the salon made by Louis Morganstern, an inspector with the Department, on December 3 and 4, 1990. During the first day of his inspection, Morganstern observed Villate cutting the hair of a customer. Upon his return to the office, Morganstern ran a computer check on Villate, which revealed that Villate had taken and failed the licensure examination and therefore was still unlicensed. The following day, at Morganstern's request, Villate signed a document agreeing to "cease and desist" from the practice of cosmetology in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violation of law alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $100 for having committed this violation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of August, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 August, 1991.
Findings Of Fact A complaint and Notice of Hearing to show cause was issued against Respondent, Mary Jorge, and a copy of notice of violation was served upon her citing her for operating a cosmetology salon without direct supervision and mangement of a master cosmetologist. The complaint was dated May 24, 1974. The Respondent was renoticed to appear at the subject hearing inasmuch as she failed to appear or moved for a continuance at the original hearing date The Respondant testified and presented witnesses to show that although there was no master cosmetologist in the shop at the time of the inspect ion by the Petitioner there was no work being done in the shop during the time the master cosmetologist was out of the shop at the lunch period. There is insufficient evidence to show that the Respondent was performing the business of cosmetology at the time that the violation notice was written.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 18th 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 Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mary Jorge 7742 W. Hillsborough Tampa, Florida 33615
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed May 31, 1977, against Jack Diftler, owner of the Haircuttery, charging: "That you, said Jack Diftler on March 25, 1977 did allow a cosmetologist to practice in your salon without the supervision of a master cosmetologist at The Haircuttery, St. Augustine, Florida." The Respondent, Jack Diftler, is a master cosmetologist who had left the beauty shop he owned to make an emergency trip to Miami. The cosmetologist who works in his shop and who is not a master cosmetologist failed to obey his instructions which were to cease his cosmetology work and work repairing the shop while he, the master cosmetologist, was absent. The cosmetologist, Michael Diamond, failed to obey instructions and did perform cosmetology work in the absence of the master cosmetologist.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to the Respondent. The disobedience of an employee is an extenuating circumstance. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jack Diftler, Owner The Haircuttery 52 Spanish Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Respondent allowed cosmetologists to work in Otto's Beauty Salon without a master cosmetologist being present. Whether Respondent's license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn, or suspended.
Findings Of Fact Respondent appeared in person and admitted the violation as charged by the Complainant. Respondent is the occasional manager of Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent is the master cosmetologist and the only master cosmetologist working in Otto's Beauty Salon. Respondent was absent from the shop as charged by the Board during working hours and during the time cosmetologists were working in said salon.
