The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 477.21(1); 477-15(8) and 477.02(4), Florida Statutes, by operating a cosmetology salon on at least three different occasions to-wit: January 23, 1975, January 24, 1975 and January 30, 1975, without the direct supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact Notice of this hearing was served on Respondent. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the proceeding. Respondent holds a current cosmetology salon license No. 14954 and cosmetologist license No. 68986 Respondent, by her own written admission, has, on January 23, January 24 and January 30, 1975, operated her salon without the supervision of a master cosmetologist.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Women's Exchange, Inc., possessed a valid Florida license to operate a cosmetology salon at 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue, Miami, Florida, under License No. CE 0032221, which license was issued on September 16, 1982, and expires on October 31, 1984. On January 20, 1983, Steven M. Granowitz, an investigator for Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, entered Respondent's salon for a routine inspection. When he entered the salon, which was located in what appeared to be a home, he noticed it was quite busy. Customers were being waited on at all operator positions, and others were waiting their turn. Upon entering the salon, Mr. Granowitz tried to find the manager to identify himself and present his credentials, but no manager was present, so he talked to the receptionist, showing her his credentials and advising her he was going to do an inspection. At first, he looked at the salon license and went to examine the four operators and their licenses. These licenses are required to be displayed prominently in the shop. None of the four operator stations were displaying licenses. Two operators indicated they had licenses, but did not have them present. Mr. Granowitz made a phone call to his board and verified that these two individuals, Yvonne Eberhart and Clara Ann Edden, were in fact licensed. The two other individuals who he observed to be at operator stations with customers in the chairs, to whom they were applying curly perms, Jacqueline Dulippe and Jeanette Toussaint, were not licensed either by the Board of Cosmetology or Barbers' Board. He, admittedly, did not watch these two unlicensed operators during the entire period he was there. Consequently, it may well be that other licensed operators also worked on the same customers. There is no doubt in his mind, however, that what he observed these two do were cosmetology operations. Licenses are required to perform the work being performed by these two individuals, though not all functions in a cosmetology salon require a license. When Mr. Granowitz discussed this situation shortly thereafter that day with Antonia Gary, one of the officers of Respondent corporation, in the salon, she indicated she was not the manager of the salon, that none of the corporate officers were involved in the day-to-day operation of the salon, and that she did not know these two individuals were not licensed. However, there was no claim that either had misrepresented their license status. Joyce Ann Hanks-Knox, President of Women's Exchange, Inc., the corporation which owns the corporation which now owns Fingertips, the salon in question, admits that the license is in the name of Women's Exchange, Inc. There is no question, however, that Women's Exchange, Inc., holds the license in question for Fingertips and that the current Fingertips salon is that which is described in the license. She is not a licensed cosmetologist, and while she spends as much as 20 hours per week in the business of Women's Exchange, Inc., these duties do not include active management of the salon. She further relates, however, that it has never been the policy of either the parent corporation or the management of Fingertips to permit unlicensed operators to work, unsupervised, on customers. She admits that both women in question worked at Fingertips and, in fact, one was hired by her. Their duties were to be trained as operators and to perform other small tasks within the salon, such as moving patrons from one area to another, cleaning the salon, and insuring that supplies were at the work stations as needed. They were also allowed to wash hair, but, in this apprentice program, nonlicensed personnel were not to give permanents or do anything else that could be considered cosmetology. All of the licensed operators knew what the apprentice program consisted of, its limitations, and that these two individuals were not licensed. As such, they should have stopped them from performing unauthorized tasks. Neither individual was hired as a cosmetologist, nor was she paid as a cosmetologist. Since neither Ms. Knox nor Ms. Gary actively supervise the operation of the salon, since Mr. Granowitz could find no one there during his visit who admitted to being in charge, and since there was no evidence presented that there was any manager assigned to the salon, it is obvious that the salon was left, for the most part, to run itself without effective management supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent corporation be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $250 for each count proven -- a total of $500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 15th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Mr. Fred Roche Department of Professional Secretary Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce Hanks-Knox, Esquire President Women's Exchange, Inc. 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues here concern an administrative complaint, DPR Case No. 91-11773, charging the Respondent with operating a cosmetology salon for which a license to operate had not been obtained. See Section 477.029(1)(b), Florida Statutes, (1989).
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the inquiry Respondent has held license CL 0121148, issued by the Board of Cosmetology. As late as September 25, 1991, a cosmetology salon license had never been issued to Sabrina's Beauty Salon at 1002 First Avenue, Jasper, Florida. At various times between June 26, 1991 and September 6, 1991, Respondent operated a cosmetology salon (Sabrina's Beauty Salon) at the 1002 First Avenue, Jasper, Florida address.
Recommendation Based upon the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which imposes a $500.00 fine for this violation. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 5th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Petitioner's facts are subordinate to facts found with the exception of paragraphs (1) and (13) which are necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Copies furnished: Lois B. Lepp, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Sabrina Leonard Post Office Box 500 Jasper, FL 32052 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
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 is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex (Salon), a cosmetology salon located at 1442 Northeast 163rd Street in North Miami Beach, Florida. The Salon was first licensed by the Department on December 19, 1990. Respondent has never been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Her application for licensure is currently pending. Charles E. Frear is an inspector with the Department. On May 16, 1990, Frear went to 1442 Northeast 163rd Street with the intention of inspecting a licensed cosmetology salon operating under the name "Hair to Hair." When he arrived at the address, Frear noticed that the sign outside the establishment reflected that Beauty Salon Mayelin Unisex now occupied the premises. The Salon was open for business. Upon entering the Salon, Frear observed Respondent removing curlers from the hair of a customer who was seated in one of the chairs. 1/ Frear asked Respondent to show him her license to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. Respondent responded that she did not have such a license yet, but that she was scheduled to take the cosmetology licensure examination later that month. After learning from Respondent that she was the owner of the Salon, Frear asked to see the Salon's license. Respondent thereupon advised Frear that the Salon had not been licensed by the Department. Although she told Frear otherwise, Respondent was aware at the time that a Department-issued cosmetology salon license was required to operate the Salon. Frear gave Respondent an application form to fill out to obtain such a salon license. Respondent subsequently filled out the application form and submitted the completed form to the Department. Thereafter, she received License No. CE 0053509 from the Department to operate the Salon.
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 violations of law alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 for having committed these violations. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of April, 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 24th day of April, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Respondent plead guilty of the charge of operating a beauty salon without a certificate of registration. She stated that she lad height the salon known as Styles by Stallone believing that it was a licensed cosmetology salon, but in fact the owner of the salon was barber and the salon was licensed as barber salon. The salon is now licensed and the name has been changed top Male Ego.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for operating a beauty salon without the proper registration. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Eileen Warren 601 B. Northlake Boulevard North Palm Beach 33408
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 Whether Respondent, a cosmetology salon, permitted an unlicensed person to perform cosmetology services as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, dated April 24, 2007, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, as a cosmetology salon owned by Immacula Evans. Respondent is a licensed cosmetology salon, license number CE9966208, whose address of record with Petitioner is 11329 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33612. At all times material hereto, John R. Miranda was employed by the Petitioner as an Inspector. On or about March 8, 2006, Miranda conducted an inspection of Respondent's establishment located at 11329 North Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Miranda observed that an unidentified male was practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was personally issued to Respondent's owner. On or about March 17, 2006, Miranda conducted a re- inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of this inspection, Miranda observed that Pierre Elionze was practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was issued to Respondent. On or about March 24, 2006, Miranda conducted another inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of this inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet, Christine Marc, and Moveta S. Swalters were each practicing cosmetology without a license. A citation was issued to Respondent. On or about June 7, 2006, Miranda conducted a further inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet was again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. On or about July 29, 2006, Miranda conducted another inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet yet again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. On or about August 11, 2006, Miranda conducted an inspection of Respondent's establishment. In the course of the inspection, Miranda observed that Dwight Booquet was again practicing cosmetology without a license, and a citation was issued. Respondent has engaged in the unlawful and repeated violations of Subsection 477.0265(1), Florida Statutes, between March 8 and August 11, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order revoking Respondent's cosmetology establishment license number CE 9966208, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 2007.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein the Petitioner, Board of Cosmetology, (Board) , was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of cosmetologists and cosmetology salons in Florida. The Respondent, Anthony Autilio, held a license as a cosmetologist and a license to operate a cosmetology salon in Florida. On August 22, 1990, Sara Kimmig, an inspector with the Department's Orlando office, entered the Respondent's cosmetology salon, Capello Hair Designers, located at 5275 Red Bug Lake Road, #117, in Winter Springs, Florida for a routine inspection. As was her custom, she examined the physical plant for compliance with the Board's sanitation rules and also checked the credentials of each operator. When she approached the station at which Ms. Nemeth was applying a permanent to a customer, she noted that Ms. Nemeth's license, displayed on the mirror, was issued by the state of Connecticut, not Florida. No Florida license was in evidence. When Ms. Kimmig asked Ms. Nemeth if she had a Florida license, Ms. Nemeth admitted she did not, but indicated she had applied for one. Ms. Nemeth also admitted she had been performing cosmetology services at that station for about three weeks. Ms. Nemeth has been licensed in Connecticut for over 10 years and that license has been kept current. When she first approached Respondent for a job, she asked to be a cleaner, but because of her long experience and the fact that she held a license in another state, he told her she could be his assistant and do shampoos, preparations, and cleanup, none of which requires a Florida license. She told him, then, that she had applied for a Florida license and, about three weeks before Ms. Kimmig's inspection, told him that she had received notice from the Board that she was qualified for licensure and authorizing her to practice pending the issuance and receipt of her Florida license. Respondent took Ms. Nemeth's word for that and did not ask to see the letter. On the basis of her representations, he assigned her a station and allowed her to cut hair, a procedure which does require a license. On the day the salon was visited by Ms. Kimmig, Ms. Nemeth was cutting the hair of and giving a permanent to a friend of the Respondent, Bruno, a shoe salesman, who had given Ms. Nemeth a free pair of shoes sometime previously. Ms. Nemeth was doing the cosmetology work for him in repayment for his prior gift to her. Mr. Autilio was not in the shop on the day Ms. Kimmig made her inspection. They spoke on the phone the next day at which time he admitted he had allowed Ms. Nemeth to start to do cosmetology work about three or four weeks previously when she advised him she had received the authorization from the Board. Ms. Nemeth, in fact, had not submitted her application to the Board prior to Ms. Kimmig's inspection. Simply put, due to some family financial reverses, she did not have the required fee to submit with the application, and in addition, had not secured all the credentials verification that she needed from Connecticut. When Mr.. Autilio found out what the situation really was, after the inspection, he immediately loaned her the necessary money for the application fee and his car, and instructed her to drive to Tallahassee, submit her application, pay the fee, and get her license. By that time she had received the information she needed to verify her credentials and did what he suggested. She was issued the required authorization letter the day she submitted her application and paid the fee. She took it back to Orlando with her. At the time of the inspection, however, and for the three or four weeks previous thereto, she practiced cosmetology, in Respondent's salon and with his concurrence, without the appropriate license. When Ms. Kimmig conducted her inspection on August 22, 1990, she discovered several other discrepancies, most of which were minor. Only one, some hair left in some equipment, was considered not to be minor but it is not the subject of this complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued herein reprimanding the Respondent, Anthony Autilio. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Offices 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 3rd day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-0871 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contra to the evidence of record. 7 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Harris Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert E. Miller, Esquire Piazza, Miller & Grace, P.A. Raintree Office Park 990 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Margaret Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not the Respondent operated a cosmetology salon without a current active salon license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, a post- hearing memorandum, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. Respondent, James F. Tobin, was at all times material herein licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology and has been issued cosmetologist license number CL 0096393. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) During December, 1980, Respondent purchased a cosmetologist salon then named Sisters Two which is located at 17036 W. Dixie Highway, North Miami Beach, Florida. Respondent thereafter renamed the salon "All About Hair" and at all times subsequent to December, 1980, owned and operated All About Hair as a cosmetologist salon. During July or August, 1981, Respondent submitted to the Petitioner an application for a cosmetology salon license for All About Hair enclosing therewith a check made payable to the Petitioner in the amount of $40. On August 13, 1981, Petitioner received the application and on the following day, August 14, 1981, Petitioner cashed the Respondent's $40 check. The Department did not approve the application and on August 19, 1981 returned the application to Respondent together with a cover letter stating the following three reasons: The application was not accompanied by a diagram of the salon, The lease was not in the Respondent's name, and The application failed to specify the type of dry sanitizer that Respondent was using in the salon. Upon receipt of the returned application from the Petitioner, the (Respondent) gave it to his mother for completion and for resubmittal to the Petitioner. A completed cosmetology salon license application form for All About Hair was not received by the Petitioner from Respondent until August 8, 1983. Upon receipt of the completed application, the Department issued its cosmetology salon license number CE 0035291 for All About Hair on September 10, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Respondent, by and through its business manager, acknowledged that it never received from the Petitioner a cosmetology salon license in the name of All About Hair prior to September 8, 1983. Although the Respondent assumed that his mother immediately re-submitted the returned application to the Petitioner, other than the finding herein that the returned application was re-submitted to Petitioner on August 8, 1983, there was no direct testimony offered in support of that assumption. On September 30, 1982, Petitioner's investigator and inspector, Dorsey Hayes, made a routine inspection of All About Hair. During the course of that inspection, inspector Hayes discovered a discrepancy between the salon named All About Hair and the license which it was operating under, Sisters Two. At no time prior to September 10, 1983, did the Respondent hold a valid current license for the cosmetology salon All About Hair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent shall pay an administrative fine to the Petitioner in the amount of $250 within thirty days of the date of the Final Order herein. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1983.
