Findings Of Fact Joanne Fletcher answered the telephone the day Eddie Dingler called The Summit Men's Hair Barbershop (Summit I) asking for work. He said he was Roffler- and Sebring-trained and that he held barber's licenses both in Alabama and in Florida. Ms. Fletcher relayed this message to respondent Donald C. Allgood. At the time, Mr. Allgood was half-owner of The Summit IV, and respondent Don Pettis owned the other half. Mr. Allgood had no ownership interest in Summit I, which was licensed to Mr. Pettis. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Allgood acted as a sort of manager at Summit I the two or three days of the week he spent there, even though he was technically an independent contractor, working on commissions. Respondents had worked with each other for some seven years. The parties stipulated that respondent Donald C. Allgood "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0021833" and that respondent Don Pettis "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0011546." One Monday morning Eddie Dingler appeared in person at Summit I and talked to respondent Allgood about employment. Mr. Allgood called respondent Pettis, then took Dingler to respondent Pettis's house, where Ron Pettis was also present. Dingler told this group that he was licensed both in Florida and in Alabama and that he was conversant with the Roffler and Sebring tonsorial techniques. He was specifically asked whether he had a Florida license, and he answered affirmatively. He was not asked to produce the license certificate itself or the wallet-sized card that licensed barbers are issued. Barbers are under no requirement to carry this card on their persons. Respondent Pettis asked respondent Allgood to observe Dingler cutting hair and to hire him if he cut hair satisfactorily. Dingler was engaged as a barber on a commission basis. He proved to be a highly competent hair stylist, and "excellent barber," from a technical standpoint. Posted in is station at Summit I was what appeared to be a valid Florida barber's license with Dingler's name and photograph: he was wearing eye, glasses and a yellow shirt. Aside from the respondents, five witnesses saw this barber's license, which was counterfeit. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent Pettis remembered noticing a number of plaques on the wall at Dingler's station in Summit I, including something that looked like Dingler's license. Mr. Allgood was unable to say that he had specifically seen Dingler's barber's license at any time before Dingler gathered up his things to leave after being discharged from employment. After Dingler had worked at Summit I for about three months respondent Allgood asked him if he would like to work Mondays (when Summit I was closed at Summit IV. Dingler was Interested and reported for work at Summit IV the following Monday. Michael NcNeill let him in the barbershop ,and noticed what appeared to be an official Florida barber's license among Dingler's effects. After Mr. McNeill had left the Summit IV premises, Dingler allegedly sexually assaulted a 17-year-old patron. When respondent Allgood learned of this, he told victim's father that he would fire Dingler and do what he could to see that Dingler's barber's license was revoked. Dingler was discharged the day after the alleged assault. In discussing the matter with a law enforcement officer, respondent Allgood suggested that the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) be notified so that proceedings to revoke Dingler's barber's license could be instituted. On November 24, 1980, Mr. Allgood voluntarily presented himself for an interview by Charles Deckert, an investigator for DPR. He assumed Mr. Deckert was developing a case so that action against Dingler could be taken. He learned in the interview for the first time that Dingler had never been licensed in Florida as a barber or a registered barber's assistant, according to DPR's records. In preparing the foregoing findings of fact, petitioner's proposed findings of fact and memorandum of law and respondents' proposed order have been considered, and the proposed statement and findings of fact have been adopted in substance.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner refrain from taking action against respondents on account of this technical violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Grinsted, Esquire Post Office Drawer 915 Shalimar, Florida 32579 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Barbars Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rosanne M. Gonzales (Rosanne), is the holder of License Number BS 0007763 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Barbers' Board. She operates a barbershop under the trade name "Tamarac Barber Shop" at 7403 Northwest 57th Street, Tamarac, Florida. Respondent, Geronimo Navarro Gonzales (Geronimo), is the husband of Rosanne, and practices barbering at the Tamarac Barber Shop. Responding to a complaint filed by a former employee of Tamarac Barber Shop, an investigator visited that shop on November 27, 1984. The investigator found Geronimo cutting a customer's hair. When asked to produce his license, Geronimo handed the investigator a license reflecting the name "Juan Navarro" and License Number BB 0020347. The license also contained Geronimo and Rosanne's current home address in Plantation, Florida. When asked why the name on the license did not match his own name, Geronimo replied that he had been using the name "Juan Navarro" on the license to avoid detection by his former wife. The photograph on the license did not appear to be Geronimo, but Rosanne initially claimed Geronimo had been very ill and had lost a great deal of weight. Geronimo later explained that he had taken the barber examination in 1970 under the assumed name of Juan Navarro and had held the license for some fifteen years in that name. However, Geronimo acknowledged he had never had his name legally changed to Juan Navarro. An examination of agency records in Tallahassee revealed that a Juan Navarro was indeed issued barber license number BB 0020347 in June, 1970. According to the application, that individual was born in Cuba on September 9, 1936. When Geronimo produced a birth certificate and driver's license reflecting he was born on June 11, 1937 in Puerto Rico, it prompted further investigation by the Board, and resulted in the issuance of these complaints. According to Geronimo, he has been a barber for some thirty years. He originally barbered in New York State where he had a license, and then moved to Florida approximately fifteen or more years ago. At that time, he had just divorced his former wife, and was attempting to evade her detection. Because of this, he applied for licensure with the Barbers' Board using the name "Juan Navarro." He stated he took the barbers' practical and written examination (in Spanish) in April, 1970 in Jacksonville under this assumed name and received a passing grade. His visit to Jacksonville was corroborated by a friend who accompanied him to the test. He also claimed the Board mailed him a license in June, 1970, and that he has been paying the license renewal fees since that time. Although during the investigative stage the Gonzales denied sending the Board a letter advising that Juan Navarro now resided at the same address in Plantation as did the Gonzales, Rosanne acknowledged at final hearing that she had done so on behalf of her husband. The Board's official records show that only one Juan Navarro has ever been issued a license, and it is the one in the possession of Geronimo. When Geronimo reviewed the records at final hearing, he stated the person in the photograph attached to Juan Navarro's original application was not he and the signature on the application was not his own. Geronimo also stated that the copy of the New York license contained in his records was his old license from New York State, but that the man in the photograph attached thereto was a different person. Board investigators have never learned the identity or whereabouts of the man whose picture is on license number BB 0020347, or the Juan Navarro who prepared the original application for licensure. Rosanne testified her husband presented a license before he began barbering in her shop in May, 1983, and she relied upon this as a condition to hiring him. She indicated he is an indispensable asset to her business, and expressed a desire that he be allowed to continue in the barbering profession.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that both respondents be found guilty as charged in the administrative complaints, that Tamarac Barber Shop be given a public reprimand, and that Geronimo Navarro Gonzales be assessed a $500.00 civil penalty. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esq. Suite 4310, Southeast Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2355 Stephen R. Jacob, Esq. 800 N.W. Cypress Creek Rd., Suite 502C Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of barbering and the inspection of barbershops in the state of Florida pursuant to chapter 476, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Archibald was licensed as a barber in the state of Florida under license number BB8890016. At all times material hereto, Fresh Cut Barbershop ("barbershop") was licensed as a barbershop in the state of Florida under license number 1077801. At all times material hereto, Archibald was an owner and operator of the barbershop. On February 9, 2012, the barbershop was located within a shopping plaza at 6574 Northwest Selvitz Road, Port St. Lucie, Florida. On February 9, 2012, a routine inspection of the barbershop was conducted by Ms. Yvonne Grutka, a trained and experienced inspector employed by Petitioner. Ms. Grutka has been employed by Petitioner as an Environmental Health Specialist for approximately 17 years, performing approximately 1,200-1,400 annual inspections. Due to the nature of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, the physical layout of the barbershop, including the specific locations of the front entrance, work stations, and waiting area, is important to a clear understanding and resolution of the issues. However, insufficient evidence was presented at hearing in this regard. Moreover, insufficient evidence was presented as to the number of barbers who worked at the barbershop (and thus number of personal licenses); the identities of the barbers; where specifically within the barbershop they worked; and whether the barbers who worked at the barbershop were independent contractors or employees of the business. The scant evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that on February 9, 2012, the premises upon which the barbershop was physically located was leased from the owner of the shopping plaza. A separate beauty supply business, which was owned by Archibald's ex-wife, was located at the front of the leased premises. The barbershop was located in a smaller area at the back of the leased premises. Both businesses were accessible to customers through a single entry door at the front of the leased space where the beauty supply store was located. Petitioner failed to clearly and convincingly establish that the barbershop was open for business during the February 9, 2012, inspection. During Ms. Grutka's February 9, 2012, inspection, the only persons present at the barbershop were Archibald and another unidentified barber. No evidence was presented that this "other barber" was affiliated with the barbershop in any way. No physical description of this person or his/her clothing was provided. It could be that this barber was just visiting, and was unaffiliated with the barbershop. No customers were present. The time of commencement and duration of the inspection is unknown. On the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, the property upon which the barbershop was located was in foreclosure. As a result, Archibald was planning to vacate the premises and move the barbershop to another location. During the inspection, boxes of items were on the floor, and other items were removed from walls, evidencing Archibald's intent to vacate the premises. Archibald was present on the date of the inspection. Archibald testified he is unsure whether the barbershop was open for business on February 9, 2012, because of his intent to vacate the building. On rebuttal, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" whether she "saw boxes or not." When asked specifically whether she recalled Archibald saying that he was in the process of moving, Ms. Grutka merely replied: "No. He may have. I really don't recall."1/ With respect to the allegation regarding the improper display of personal licenses, Ms. Grutka testified on direct examination that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe personal licenses posted with both the photograph and lamination. She testified that the licenses had the photograph or the lamination on "it, but one of the items was missing." However, no evidence was presented by Petitioner on direct examination as to the specific location of the alleged lack of personal licenses, or the number or identities of the licensees for which personal licenses were purportedly not properly displayed. It was only on cross-examination that Ms. Grutka referred to Archibald's personal license, at which time she testified merely that she recalled seeing his personal license located in the "back" of the premises. Archibald testified that he believes the license was displayed in the barbershop area, which was located in the "back end" of the building. Importantly, Ms. Grutka never testified specifically that Archibald's license was improperly displayed in any way. In sum, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's personal license, or, for that matter, the personal licenses of any other barbers who worked at the barbershop were improperly displayed. With respect to the issues of the display of the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, and most recent inspection report, Ms. Grutka testified that during the February 9, 2012, inspection, she did not observe a barbershop license displayed visibly within view of the "front door," or the rules of sanitation, health, and safety visibly within view of the "front door" or "waiting area." Nor did Ms. Grutka observe the most recent inspection form prior to the February 9, 2012, inspection displayed within view of the "front entrance" or the "waiting area." According to Ms. Grutka, she did not observe the barbershop license and rules of sanitation, health, and safety, anywhere at the barbershop on the day of the inspection. However, Ms. Grutka's testimony is unreliable and cannot be credited because of insufficient evidence of the physical layout of the premises. In fact, Ms. Grutka testified that she could not recall whether the "waiting area" was in the front of the building, the back of the building, or in both areas. Moreover, Ms. Grutka did not "recall" if the most recent inspection report was posted anywhere else in the barbershop. The unreliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is further demonstrated through the following exchange, which occurred during Archibald's cross-examination of her: Q: Questions for - - You said you never seen any of our license or anything in the back end? A: Yes, they were up - - not in the back. Your personal licenses I remember, you know, were in the back, but I don't recall the inspection sheet and stuff being moved to the back of the shop " Further undercutting the reliability of Ms. Grutka's testimony is her statement that the rule regarding the display of a barbershop license requires that the license be visibly within view of the front door. Contrary to Ms. Grutka's testimony, rule 61G3-19.009(2) states that "[t]he shop license shall be displayed within view of the front entrance or in the waiting area." Apparently, Ms. Grutka did not even consider whether the license was displayed in the "waiting area," because she could not identify the location of the "waiting area." Moreover, Ms. Grutka testified that she wrote in the report that the shop license was not "anywhere to be found in the shop." However, a review of the inspection report does not support her testimony. In fact, a section within the inspection report titled: "Remarks," was left blank. Nothing was written in the inspection report indicating that the shop license was nowhere in the barbershop. In sum, there is insufficient clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the barbershop license, rules of sanitation, or most recent inspection report were not properly displayed. Finally, during the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka testified she did not observe a recent sticker on the portable fire extinguisher indicating that it had been inspected. According to Ms. Grutka, portable fire extinguishers must be inspected on an annual basis, "as per the Fire Marshall, and they would have a sticker on them indicating that they had been inspected." At hearing, Archibald did not admit to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rather, Archibald persuasively explained that if personal and business licenses and the rules of sanitation and most recent inspection report were not displayed during the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was because the property was in foreclosure, items had been removed from the walls, items were placed in boxes, and he was planning on moving the barbershop to another location. In fact, the barbershop vacated the premises sometime in 2013, and relocated to another shopping plaza. At the conclusion of the February 9, 2012, inspection, Ms. Grutka prepared and signed an inspection report indicating the violations noted in the report, and she informed Archibald of the alleged violations. Archibald acknowledged his receipt of the report. No evidence was presented indicating that a follow-up inspection of the barbershop was ever scheduled or occurred. No citation has ever been issued for the February 9, 2012, inspection. No evidence was presented establishing a prior history of persistent or flagrant violations of the same nature as those alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The evidence at hearing established that even if personal and business licenses, the rules of sanitation, and the most recent inspection report were not properly displayed on the date of the February 9, 2012, inspection, it was an isolated incident.2/ Importantly, the facts adduced at hearing do not clearly and convincingly establish that Archibald personally engaged in any misconduct resulting in the five charges which are the subject of the Administrative Complaint. The evidence failed to establish, clearly and convincingly, that Archibald personally committed, or is personally culpable for, a disciplinary offense which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty on all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Denver Owens was licensed as a barber in this state and has been so licensed for 26 years. Although Owens has worked in barbershops for most of the last 26 years, he never owned a shop until he opened this barbershop in Apopka some two years ago. At the time he opened the shop he obtained an occupational license which, with his current barber's license, he thought was all he needed to operate a one-man shop. On April 26, 1984, an inspector with the Department of Professional Regulation saw the barber's sign on the site not on her records and entered the shop to inspect. The only discrepancy which is material to the issues here is that no registration had been issued for the barbershop. When questioned by the inspector, Owens readily acknowledged that he had not applied for registration for a shop because he was unaware such registration was required. The following day Owens submitted an application to register his shop and obtained registration dated May 4, 1984. When told the Department proposed to assess a fine of $250 against him for operating without a shop license, Owens requested a hearing, the file was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and this hearing ensued.
The Issue The issue in the proceeding is whether Respondent, Felix Robaina, violated provisions of the "Barbers' Act", Chapter 476, Florida Statutes, by operating a barbershop without a current active barbershop license. Background and Procedural Matters This proceeding commenced with an Administrative Complaint by Petitioner on September 18, 1985, and by Respondent, Robaina's timely request for a formal hearing. At the hearing Petitioner presented its evidence through the testimony of investigator, Jean Robinson, Felix Robaina and three exhibits. Respondent submitted one exhibit. All exhibits were admitted without objection. By stipulation of the parties, Vivian Lerma served as translator for Mr. Robaina. She was placed under oath for this purpose in accordance with Section 90.606, Florida Statutes. The parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. These have been considered and, where appropriate, have been incorporated into this Recommended Order. Specific rulings on each proposed finding of fact are found in the Appendix attached hereto.
Findings Of Fact Felix Robaina was born in Cuba and came to the United States in May, 1980. He cannot read, write or speak English and understands English very little. He took the barber's exam in Spanish and has been continually licensed as a barber by the Florida Barber's Board since June, 1983. On July 15, 1983, he opened his shop, Chosen Barber Shop, in Belle Glade, Florida. The shop had previously been owned by Antonio Garcia but was closed when Mr. Garcia died in 1982 or early 1983. Mr. Robaina has continually worked alone in the shop since he opened it and regular hours are 9 am to 7 pm, Tuesdays through Saturdays. Jean Robinson, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, noticed that the shop was reopened on a trip through the area and on June 1, 1985, she conducted an inspection. She found Mr. Robaina's barber license and occupational licenses were displayed on the wall. With a customer serving as interpreter, Jean Robinson asked Mr. Robaina for his shop license. de was confused and showed her the occupational license. Ms. Robinson explained the requirement of the law regarding a separate shop license and left an application for. Respondent, Robaina, promptly applied for a shop license, and has held license number BS0008668-since July 1985. Although part of the Barber exam course includes the legal requirement for licensing, Mr. Robaina said he did not know his shop required a separate license until Ms. Robinson visited and informed him. She confirmed that his confusion when she asked for the license was consistent with that ignorance. According to Ms. Robinson people commonly feel that the occupational license is all that is needed for a shop. Between July 1983 and July 1985, Felix Robaina operated his barbershop without a shop license.
