Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed cosmetologist in the state of Florida, holding license number CL-0167327. She makes her home at 882 Anita Avenue, Pensacola, Florida, along with her husband and children. Respondent works at a relative's beauty salon in another location. Respondent has been interested in hair weaving or braiding for several years. Hair weaving or braiding is done by hand, by intertwining strands of hair. No tools are used other than a needlelike instrument used for lifting up strands of hair and sewing in synthetic or human hair. An individual's hair is not treated with any type of chemical, nor is it cut or shampooed. Such manipulation of the hair is somewhat difficult and requires practice in order to weave hair well. On or about October 20, 1987, Lutrel M. Raboteaux, an investigator for the Board of Cosmetology, contacted Respondent regarding a complaint they had received about her from Denise Bryant. 1/ Mr. Raboteaux's investigation centered on whether Respondent was maintaining a cosmetology salon in her home. The only items Mr. Raboteaux found at Ms. Freeman's home were a broken chair type hair dryer and a couple of well used bottles of hair supplies for black hair. Ms. Freeman had been given the broken hair dryer. She had never used the dryer since it was not in working order. The bottles were for personal use and were only used by Ms. Freeman and her family. About two years ago, Respondent met Marie Smith. They became good friends. Through their friendship, Ms. Smith discovered that Ms. Freeman knew how to do hair weaving. Ms. Smith was interested in having her hair woven, and asked Respondent to weave her hair. Ms. Smith, in return for Respondent's weaving her hair, tutored one of Respondent's children. The hair weaving and tutoring took place at Ms. Freeman's home and consisted mostly of tightening the weave as Ms. Smith's hair grew. Ms. Smith viewed the hair weaving arrangement as more of a quid pro quo for tutoring Respondent's child. Respondent viewed the hair weaving arrangement on more of a friendship basis as a favor for a favor. Other than this one arrangement, Ms. Freeman would practice hair weaving on her family and some of her friends. They would ask her to weave their hair. As was the case with Ms. Smith, they would ask her to weave their hair and she would perform that task for them. Again as with Ms. Smith, Respondent would weave the hair of her friends at her home. She did not charge for her services. Any hair weaving that took place in Ms. Freeman's home was for free. She never received any money from the individuals she practiced on at her home. The only time she may have received anything was the tutoring swap described earlier involving Ms. Smith. Likewise, Ms. Freeman supplied no chemicals or other supplies necessary for her friends to get their hair woven. Her friends supplied those items at their own expense. Ms. Freeman's sole reason for weaving her friends' hair was to practice the art of hair weaving which she wished to specialize in. It is clear that Ms. Freeman never intended to operate a hair weaving business in her home and did not consider her home in anyway to be a beauty salon. Her home is not open to the public. Her home did not contain any equipment or chemicals used in a beauty salon. No evidence was presented that she keeps regular hours or appointments at her home. On the contrary, she in fact works at another beauty salon in Pensacola. Additionally, Ms. Freeman asked one of her teachers at a cosmetology school in Pensacola if it was all right for her to practice hair weaving at her home for free. She was informed that it was not against Florida Law and was otherwise completely unaware that there may be a problem with not having her home licensed as a salon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: That the complaint against Ms. Freeman be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Arled Corp., d/b/a Cadris Hair Design, has been licensed to operate a cosmetology salon in the State of Florida, having previously been issued license number CE 0046212. At all times material to this case, the Respondent corporation has been the owner and operator of a cosmetology salon known as Cadris Hair Design, which is located at 13635 Southwest 26th Street, Miami, Florida 33175-6377. On December 26, 1991, during the course of a routine inspection, an inspector employed by the Department of Professional Regulation discovered that Liliam de la Portilla was practicing a cosmetology specialty on the licensed premises without having a valid license to practice a cosmetology specialty. Further investigation revealed that Liliam de la Portilla had been practicing a cosmetology specialty on a regular basis on the licensed premises since approximately the middle of September of 1991. Liliam de la Portilla has previously been licensed to practice a cosmetology specialty, but her last license expired on June 30, 1990. During the period from the middle of September of 1991 through December 26, 1991, Liliam de la Portilla did not have a valid license to practice a cosmetology specialty in the State of Florida. Ms. Gladys Scheer is, and was at all material times, the president of and owner of Arled Corporation. Ms. Scheer granted permission for Liliam de la Portilla to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design. Liliam de la Portilla was not an employee of Cadris Hair Design, but merely paid rent for the right to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design. Ms. Gladys Scheer has known Liliam de la Portilla for approximately ten years. Ms. Scheer knew that Liliam de la Portilla had previously been licensed to practice a cosmetology specialty and assumed, but did not verify, that Liliam de la Portilla was still licensed. In September of 1991 when Ms. Scheer first allowed Liliam de la Portilla to practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design, she was not aware that Liliam de la Portilla's license had expired. Following the inspection on December 26, 1991, Ms. Gladys Scheer told Liliam de la Portilla that the latter could no longer practice a cosmetology specialty on the premises of Cadris Hair Design until such time as she was properly licensed.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order concluding that the Respondent is guilty of violating Section 477.029(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a reprimand and an administrative fine in the amount of $100.00. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of August 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire N-607 Rhode Building Phase 2 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33128 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Bureau Chief Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Gladys Scheer, President Cadris Hair Design 13635 Southwest 26th Street Miami, Florida 33175-6377 Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent Nancy Moss' cosmetology instructor's license should be suspended or revoked, or whether other disciplinary action should be taken by Petitioner against Respondent for alleged violation of Section 477.025(1), Florida Statutes (1980 Supplement), and Section 477.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979).
Findings Of Fact On May 28, 1981 Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology filed an Administrative Complaint seeking to suspend or revoke or take other disciplinary action against Respondent Nancy Moss as licensee and against her license as a cosmetology instructor. The complaint charged Respondent Moss with three (3) counts of misconduct for holding herself out as a cosmetologist and a cosmetology instructor and for operating a cosmetology salon without being duly licensed. Respondent holds an inactive cosmetology instructor's license #1C 0083468. The inactive receipt was dated July 31, 1980 and expired June 30, 1981 (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Respondent was the owner and operator of the American Hairstyling Academy, a barber school duly licensed by the State Board of Independent Post- Secondary Vocational, Technical, Trade and Business Schools during the time pertinent to this hearing. The school ceased operation on July 1, 1981. The Director of the State Board of Independent Post-Secondary Vocational, Technical, Trade and Business Schools, a witness for Petitioner, made an official visit to the American Hairstyling Academy on January 21, 1981. He saw a woman sitting in one (1) of the six (6) or seven (7) chairs in the facility with rollers in her hair and saw Respondent Moss performing a service on the woman's hair. After the Director had identified himself, Respondent gave him the American Hairstyling Academy school records to examine and then proceeded to complete her work on the woman's hair. The Director noticed a room with clothes hanging on racks and trinkets in a counter with a sign, "Boutique," near the door. The room had been previously designated as a classroom for the barber school. Before the Director left, one (1) other person entered the premises. (Transcript, pages 12 through 34.) The Supervisor I, Office of Investigative Services, Jacksonville, Region II, made an appointment for a shampoo and set with Respondent Moss on February 4, 1981 at the American Hairstyling Academy. She appeared at the designated time, and Moss performed the shampoo and set. The Supervisor saw a room in which clothes were hanging and saw an area beyond that room which was separated with a cloth curtain. Before the Supervisor left, one (1) other person entered the premises. The Supervisor paid for the hair service and left the school. (Transcript, pages 34 through 41.) An investigator for Petitioner saw two (2) women at the academy, one having her hair serviced and one (1) waiting for Moss. The investigator was told by Respondent that teaching was done at the school and that there were two students enrolled, but no student records were produced for her to examine. She saw no blackboards or what she recognized as a classroom. (Transcript, pages 41 through 51.) A witness for Respondent had his hair washed, conditioned and cut many times in Respondent's barber school by students. He has had the same service done by the Jacksonville Barber College. (Transcript, pages 62 through 67.) A former student stated that she attended the American Hairstyling Academy for two (2) months, and Respondent Moss supervised the work done by the students. She attended classes with five (5) other students in a classroom at the American Hairstyling Academy and checked out books from the library, but she did not complete the course. (Transcript, pages 67 through 71.) Respondent called another witness who had had students at the barber school work on her hair on approximately ten (10) different occasions, but Respondent Moss did not work on her hair. (Transcript, pages 71 through 74.) The Hearing Officer finds that the licensed barber school owned and operated by Respondent Moss prior to July 1, 1981 had a few students, six (6) or seven (7) chairs, a small area that was used by students and Respondent for instruction and a minimal library. The testimony and evidence presented by both parties show that Respondent Moss was a practicing barber in a licensed barber school. Her acts could also be classified as practicing cosmetology although she said she practiced barbering.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent Nancy Moss be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stanley B. Gelman, Esquire 207 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, the following facts are found. In 1980 Ruth Sinclair became interested in hair braiding and hair sculpture while she was studying the history of African art at the University of Miami. Since her initial interest in hair braiding and hair sculpture, Ruth Sinclair has made extensive efforts to study the subject and to learn and improve her skills in hair braiding and hair sculpture. Shortly after her initial interest in hair braiding and hair sculpture, Ruth Sinclair began practicing hair braiding and hair sculpture in Florida and she has continued to do so more or less continuously ever since then. Ruth Sinclair is predominantly self-taught in the field of hair braiding or hair sculpture, but she also obtained some training from others by going to California and Africa. The practice of hair braiding and hair sculpture originated in the Nok region on the west coast of Africa around 200-300 B.C. As used in Africa since that time, particular types of sculptured or braided hairstyles have served to identify the wearer's tribe or status in society. However, despite centuries of such hair braiding practices by African Blacks, the practice was virtually lost among Blacks who were brought to the United States as slaves. As practiced by Ruth Sinclair, hair braiding or hair sculpture consists of two basic categories or types of hair styles. These are the traditional styles and the contemporary styles. The traditional styles are patterned after styles that were used in the past in Africa and consist of hair braids that follow the same pattern as some forms of weaving. Sinclair ordinarily spends approximately 35 to 40 hours to produce a traditional style hair sculpture, and in more than ten percent of the cases in which Sinclair produces a traditional style hair sculpture, Sinclair charges a fee. The contemporary style involves the use of the same techniques as the traditional style but also involves the use of contemporary materials produced by modern technology such as synthetic or human hair and commercially-made ornaments or beads. In producing a contemporary style hair sculpture, Sinclair ordinarily spends approximately 8 to 20 hours, and she normally charges a fee. As practiced by Ruth Sinclair, hair sculpturing, whether of the traditional or the contemporary style, is produced primarily by hair braiding. The hair braiding is done by hand, by intertwining strands of hair. No tools are used other than a long, tapered instrument for lifting up strands of hair. The person's hair is not treated with any type of chemicals, nor is it cut or shampooed (although Sinclair requests that her patrons wash their hair before receiving any services), and Sinclair washes her hands in soap and water before, during, and after performing her services. The braided or sculptured hairstyles are normally worn for approximately 3 to 6 months. Nearly ninety percent of Sinclair's patrons were Black women. During the period from 1982 until sometime in 1984, Ruth Sinclair leased a storefront at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and there she conducted a business of performing hair braiding or hair sculpture. The name of the business was Uzuri Braid Shop, and the business had about twenty paying customers per week. At the Uzuri Braid Shop at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida, Ruth Sinclair employed Respondent Picala Simsa, and also Angela Powell or Powers as assistants. Picala Sims was employed as an assistant there from 1982 until 1984, and Powell or Powers from 1983 until 1984. Both were hired by Ruth Sinclair, and Ruth Sinclair paid them both a salary. Their duties were basically the same: to assist Ruth Sinclair in braiding and beading patrons' hair. On August 2, 1983, Joyce Sager, an inspector employed by the Petitioner, conducted an inspection of the Uzuri Braid Shop at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida. On that occasion, Picala Sims and Angela Powell or Powers were present and were performing hair braiding services for customers of the business. Ruth Sinclair was not present at the time, but Sager spoke with Ruth Sinclair on the telephone that day, and in the course of their conversation, Ruth Sinclair acknowledged to Inspector Sager that she was the owner of the business and that she was the employer of Picala Sims and Powell or Powers. During the period from November 1983 until November 1984, Ruth Sinclair leased space in an indoor flea market at 18200 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and there she conducted a business of performing hair braiding or hair sculpture. The name of the business was Uzuri Braid Shop, and the business had about 15 paying customers per week. On June 9, 1984, Dorsey Hayes, an inspector employed by the Petitioner, went to the Uzuri Braid Shop at 18200 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, and spoke with Ruth Sinclair. During the course of the conversation, Ruth Sinclair acknowledged being the owner of the business and that she had been performing braided hairstyles there. None of the following people have ever been licensed to practice cosmetology or barbering in the State of Florida: Ruth Sinclair, Picala Sims, Angela Powell, or Angela Powers. Neither the Uzuri Braid Shop at 6009 N.W. 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida, nor the Uzuri Braid Shop located at 18200 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, has ever been licensed to operate as a cosmetology salon or as a barber shop. There are certain conditions under which it would be inappropriate to give a person a braided hairstyle, even though the person wanted one. These conditions include the presence of a contagious scalp disease, abrasions of the scalp, hair that is not clean, or chemically treated hair that is very dry or damaged. The recognition of these conditions is a regular part of the curriculum currently being taught in schools of cosmetology in Florida, and someone not having received such training would be less likely to recognize them, which could lead to hair breakage or to the spread of contagious scalp diseases or parasites if a hair braiding service were performed when such conditions were present. The teaching of hair braiding has been a regular part of the curriculum of Florida schools of cosmetology at least since 1975.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order adopting the foregoing findings and conclusions and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1, 500.00 against Ruth Sinclair and an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 against Picala Sims. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 20th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Graham Williams, Esq. 18583 N.W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Lucien A. Jonet took the practical examination administered by the Board of Cosmetology for licensure on February 17, 1981. Jonet obtained a score of 71.5 percent on this examination in which 75 percent is a passing score. Jonet lost three points for failure to properly drape his model for Chemical Straightening, Bleaching and Shampooing. The model used by Jonet in the examination stated she moved, loosened and removed the drape at times because of the heat and her personal discomfort. When Jonet was present, he redraped the model; however, as required by the examination procedure, Jonet was not present when the model was examined. The Board's instructions do not advise the models or the examinees that the models should not touch their drapes or towels. The Board's confidential instructions to examiners provide that points be deducted for failure to properly drape the model. At least one of the examiners testified she would take points off for this performance criteria if the drape were loose or the towel off when she checked the model. Jonet's model had hair that was of minimal length, and Jonet stated her hair was so uneven that it could not be cut to a blended, even length. He gave the model a styled, uneven shag cut. The Board's confidential instructions to the examiners require that examinees' performances be graded on an even, blended haircut with even edges and necklines. Although the instructions to examinees advise that models should have hair of sufficient length that after an inch has been cut from the hair it may be curled, there are no specific instructions that they will be graded on a blended, even cut. The Board's only instructions to examinees on haircutting at the examination are as follows from the Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1: "We recommend a basic haircut. An extremely short style cut would interfere with the performance of molding and pin curl portion of your exam. You may use the hair cutting implements of your choice. Any hair falling on the floor must be cleaned up before grading. Are there any questions?" The examiners also stated that the examinees should report problems with their models' hair that would affect the examinees performances, and that when such problems existed they would not deduct points. However, the instructions to the examinees do not contain this caveat. Jonet lost eight points on haircutting: two points for gaps left behind his model's ears, two points twice for an uneven neckline, and two points for uneven blending of the hair. One of the examiners stated that the last portion of the curriculum for most Florida cosmetology schools is spent in simulation of the Board's examination, and that these schools are well versed in the specific criteria which the Board uses in assessing performance. Jonet had sought a reexamination but was denied because he had taken the first examination with 600 hours of evaluated credit, and the Board's rules require a person with only 600 hours of school who fails the examination to finish another 600 hours. The Board denied Jonet the opportunity to seek an added 600 hours of evaluated credit. Jonet has more than 40 years' experience in cosmetology, is a graduate of a European program, was licensed in Illinois prior to an examination being required, and held an Illinois license for 23 years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that Lucien A. Jonet be permitted to take the Board of Cosmetology's examination again, and that the instructions for the examination be amended to fairly advise examinees of the examination's actual requirements and instruct the models not to touch or interfere with their hair, drapes or towels. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 14th day of January, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lucien A. Jonet 12500 Ulmerton Road, #16 Largo, Florida 33540 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
