Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against Licensee Nannette Harnage charging.: "That you, said NANNETTE HARNAGE on Janu- ary 13, 1977 did work on a patron without license number and without the supervision of a master cosmetologist at Nannette's Hay Balers, Middleburg, Florida." The Respondent, Nannette Harnage, said that she was guilty of working in her salon without the presence or supervision of a master cosmetologist. She stated that she now has a master cosmetologist in the salon at all times. The issue as to working on a patient without a license number was dropped.
Recommendation Issue a letter or reprimand to the Respondent, Nannette Harnage. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Nannette Harnage Nannette's Hay Balers 2504 Blanding Boulevard Middleburg, Florida 32068
The Issue Whether the license of the Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for allowing students to work in his salon prior to the issuance of a work permit.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on May 31, 1977 charging: "That you, said Anthony LaRoche on March 15, 1977 did allow students to work in your salon prior to the issuance of work per- mits Anthony's, Jacksonville, Florida." Anthony LaRoche, Respondent, was the owner of several businesses and has managers to operate his beauty salons. A young man was hired to work in the Respondent's beauty salon to report to work at a subsequent time when the school attended by the cosmetologist would have sufficient time to send his credentials to the office of the State Board and for him to receive his work permit from the State Board. The cosmetologist reported for work and began working and was working at the time of the inspection on March 15, 1977 and had not yet received his work permit although he had previously applied for it. Upon learning of the inspection and the violation, the Respondent immediately sent for the credentials but the work permit was not received for 22 days thereafter. After the Respondent learned that the cosmetologist did not hear from it he ceased doing the work of a cosmetologist until his work permit was received.
Recommendation Send a letter of reprimand to Respondent for failing to ascertain whether an employee was duly certified to work in the salon owned by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of September, 1971, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace & Haggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Anthony LaRoche, President Anthony LaRoche, Inc. 5566 Ft. Caroline Road Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a cosmotologist should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the Administrative Complaint filed on June 20, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This proceeding involves a complaint that Respondent, Timothy C. Troutman, a licensed cosmetologist since 1981, engaged in "misconduct" while employed as an instructor at Riverside Hairstyling Academy (RHA) in Jacksonville, Florida. When the events herein occurred, Respondent was licensed as a certified cosmetologist having been issued license number CL 0134716 by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology (Board). RHA is certified as a cosmetology school and has several campuses, including one on Beach Boulevard in Jacksonville, Florida. The school is owned by Respondent's father, Howard Troutman. Respondent was employed as a floor instructor at RHA. In this capacity, he supervised the activities of approximately twenty students at any given time, as they performed cosmetology services. The underlying charges in this matter are that: (a) Respondent improperly touched Neva A. Choulat, a former student; (b) he made threatening telephone calls to, and improperly touched, Joanna Flowers, a customer; and (c) he made sexually explicit remarks to, and inappropriately touched, Nora Maszey, a former student. As to Maszey, it is also alleged that Respondent threatened to "affect her school credits if she made trouble for him." Each set of charges will be discussed separately below. Count I In this count, it is alleged that, while giving a facial to Choulat, Respondent "proceeded to massage her bare breasts underneath [her] smock," "directly touched her nipples and rubbed her breasts," and "rubbed his hands up and down her sides to include the sides of her breasts." On December 5, 1995, when she was sixteen years of age, Choulat enrolled at RHA in order to pursue her goal of completing RHA's 1200-hour cosmetology course and ultimately obtaining a cosmetology license. At that time, she was a full-time high student and attended RHA as a night/weekend student in addition to her high school studies. Prior to August 24, 1996, Choulat had no problems of any kind with Respondent, and they had a normal student-teacher relationship. On August 24, 1996, Choulat was performing cosmetology services on four clients. Throughout the morning, Respondent repeatedly asked Choulat if she wanted him to give her a facial. She agreed, and after lunch, Respondent took Choulat to a small room that was used for the giving of facials. The room had no windows, and the door was closed during the giving of the facial. Respondent instructed Choulat to remove her shirt and bra and don a smock. He left the room while she did so. When he returned to the room, he closed the door and told Choulat to lie down and close her eyes. Respondent then took Choulat's arms out of the smock. At that point, she had nothing covering her torso, except for a large towel that Respondent had placed over her chest. Respondent started performing the facial, but he quickly moved beyond the acceptable scope of a facial. Without asking Choulat's permission, Respondent rubbed his hand down her lower back, touched her breasts and nipples, and rubbed his hands down her sides, touching the sides of her breasts. At first, Choulat was too frightened to cry out or protest. However, Respondent asked her if she wanted him to stop, to which she replied "yes." Respondent then left the room, and Choulat put her clothes back on. After dressing, Choulat went to the beginner's room and began crying. She then told another student, Cynthia Summers, that Respondent had touched her breasts in the facial room. Summers advised Choulat to tell her mother. Later that afternoon, Summers confronted Respondent and told him that she was aware of his actions with Choulat and that this was a stupid thing to do with a seventeen-year-old student. In response, Respondent stated that "it was stupid of me." When Summers asked Respondent what would happen if Choulat went to the police or his father, Respondent replied "I hope she don't." At approximately 2:30 p.m. the same day, Choulat filed a complaint with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office regarding Respondent's conduct. Choulat reported that Respondent had touched her breasts without her permission. She followed up by telling her parents, filing a complaint with the Office of the State Attorney, and reporting the incident to Respondent's father. Choulat disenrolled from RHA a few weeks later, despite having invested more than $2,400.00 in tuition payments. She stopped her course of studies and is now employed in another field. Although Choulat has a pending civil action against Respondent and RHA, her testimony is found to be credible. This finding is based on Choulat's consistent account of the incident over time, her actions immediately after the incident occurred, the corroborating testimony of Summers, an impartial witness, and the admissions made by Respondent to Summers immediately after the incident. Respondent's contentions that Choulat had initiated the subject of getting a facial, that the smock was never removed, that nothing improper occurred during the fifteen- minute demonstration, and that he made no incriminating admissions to witness Summers have been rejected. The evidence established that while a facial may extend below the neck, at no point does it include massaging of breasts and nipples, nor should it extend below the upper portion of the shoulder blades in the back, or below the armpit level on the front of the body. Further, it is not an acceptable teaching practice to give a private facial to a student outside of a classroom setting. Therefore, Respondent's conduct with student Choulat equates to misconduct in the practice of cosmetology. Count II The second count alleges that while giving a hair cut to Joanna Flowers in 1995, Respondent "placed her long hair over her breasts" and "stroked her breast under the pretext of stroking her hair." The complaint also alleges that he "rubbed his penis up against Ms. Flowers' hands and/or arms while they were resting on the arms of the chair," and that he thereafter telephoned Flowers "numerous times at her home" and she "felt threatened by [the calls]." Flowers, who is now twenty-two years of age, occasionally went to RHA in 1992 or 1993 for hair cuts. RHA records show that she went only twice. On both occasions, a receptionist would assign a staff member to cut her hair. On her second visit in the fall of 1993, Respondent was assigned by the receptionist to cut her hair. Flowers had long hair which went over her upper chest and fell to a length that was below her breasts. Following the initial haircut, Respondent checked the cut to determine whether it was even. While checking the length of the cut, Respondent pulled the hair down in front of Flowers and his hand may have accidentally touched her breasts. However, if such touching occurred, it was not intentional, and it was not inappropriate to check the length of the cut in this manner. At the same time, Respondent's "crotch area [was] at the same level that the arm rest is on the chair," and while leaning over the chair, Respondent may have accidentally come into contact with Flowers' arm. Again, however, if a touching occurred, it was unintentional. Finally, there was no testimony to support the allegation that Respondent called Flowers on numerous occasions at home in a threatening fashion. Count III The last count alleges that "on numerous occasions" between 1995 and 1996, Respondent "touched the chest and buttocks [of Norah Homan, now Norah Maszey] in an inappropriate manner." The complaint also alleges that Respondent made "sexual references and innuendos regarding her," and that Respondent "implied" to her that "he could affect her school credits if she made trouble for him." Based on Respondent's alleged misconduct, Maszey subsequently filed a civil action against Respondent and RHA. Maszey, now twenty-seven years of age, was a cosmetology student at RHA between March 1995 until her graduation in March 1996. During her tenure at RHA, Respondent was one of her instructors. In September 1995, while in a floor setting learning how to cut and style hair, Maszey went to the supply room to "get a tube of color off the shelf." As she was bending over with her back to the door, Respondent came up behind her and placed "his hands right on the inside of [her] buttocks." Although Respondent did not touch the vaginal area, "he was as close as he could have been without" actually touching it. Maszey jumped up and Respondent "just smiled and acted kind of scared" and said he was "sorry." By inappropriately touching Maszey in this fashion, Respondent committed misconduct in the practice of cosmetology. Except for this incident, however, there was no other credible evidence that Respondent inappropriately touched Maszey "on numerous occasions," as alleged in the complaint. During Maszey's tenure as a student at RHA, Respondent occasionally told her that she "was pretty." But this remark alone does not rise to the level of constituting "sexual references and innuendos," as alleged in the complaint. Indeed, Maszey simply described these comments as being "way too much complimenting," but nothing more. Finally, there is less than clear and convincing evidence to support the allegation that Respondent threatened to take away her credits if she "made trouble for him." Mitigating and Aggrevating Factors Mitigating factors Respondent has been licensed as a cosmetologist for seventeen years. Except for the two inappropriate touchings of Choulat and Maszey, which occurred more than two years ago, he has an unblemished record. Respondent has worked in his father's school since the age of twenty. The loss of a license will deprive him of working in his life-long profession and cause financial harm to Respondent and his family. Contrary to Petitioner's suggestion, Respondent is not found to be a "grave danger to the public" should he retain his license. Aggrevating factors Respondent improperly touched two young women, each on one occasion. By doing so, he breached the position of trust he held as an instructor. After being inappropriately touched in 1996, Choulat lost her desire to pursue a career field in cosmetology and left the school. She also lost approximately $2,463.00 she had invested in the school. In addition, she sought counseling from a social worker. Although Maszey eventually graduated from RHA, she no longer works in the profession and now prefers to work alone at home. At the same time, however, she stated that "Tim is [not] responsible for absolutely all of that, but he sure did not help."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 477.028(1)(b) and 477.029 (1)(h), Florida Statutes, by inappropriately touching students Choulet and Maszey, and that Respondent's license number CL 0134716 be revoked. All other charges should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth C. Masters, Esquire 7960 Arlington Expressway Suite 230 Jacksonville, Florida 32311 Michael R. Yokan, Esquire 204 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Joe Baker, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0790 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 477.14(1) & 477.17, Florida Statutes. Receipt of Administrative Complaint and Notice of Hearing was acknowledged by Respondent. (Exhibit 1)
Findings Of Fact On May 20, 1975, Respondent was employed at the Elizabeth Arden cosmetology salon, 340 Miracle Mile, Coral Gables, Florida. This salon operates under Certificate of Registration No. 21626 issued by Petitioner on May 8, 1975. Petitioner's inspector had seen an ad in the Miami Herald to the effect that Respondent was employed at that establishment and she was aware of the fact that he did not hold a current cosmetologist license. She visited him on May 20, 1975 and he stated at that time that he had applied for a license. The inspector checked with Petitioner's records personnel and discovered that his license had not been renewed at that time. (Testimony of Padrick) Respondent submitted letters dated June 25, 1976 in which he stated that he had planned to attend his hearing but was unable to do so because of illness in the family. He further stated that he had been a licensed cosmetologist in the State of Florida for over 20 years, and previously one in Illinois for over six (6) years. He stated that he had severe medical problems and went out of the beauty field for approximately two years and when the job opportunity at Elizabeth Arden came along he forwarded a check for $35.00 to Petitioner to reinstate his cosmetology Certificate and that when Petitioner's inspector entered the shop on May 20, 1975, his new license had not yet been received. However, he did show her the check stub. They then jointly called Petitioner's Winter Haven office and he was advised that the check had not been received but that he should send a money order and his old license stub. He did so and his license was received on June 14, 1975. (Statement of Respondent)
Recommendation That the allegation against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Robert Wintermute c/o Elizabeth Arden 340 Miracle Mile Coral Gables, Florida
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed by the State of Florida as a cosmetologist, having been issued license number CL200634. At all times material hereto, her business, Karline's Beauty Spa of the Palm Beaches, has been a licensed cosmetology salon, having been issued license number CE74123. On Friday, September 26, 2003, the Department's inspector Yvonne Grutka performed an inspection of Karline's Beauty Spa from 3:24 to 4:35 p.m. When she arrived, she noticed a pregnant woman styling a female client's hair with marcel irons. When the pregnant woman saw Grutka, she left her client and left the salon. Grutka asked Respondent the identity of the pregnant woman, and Respondent told her the woman was Venus Pope. Respondent then showed Grutka a license with Venus Pope's photograph on it, but the picture did not look like the woman who had been styling the client's hair. At first, Respondent represented that Venus Pope had gone to lunch and would return. Later, Respondent said the Pope had gone to pick up her children and would not return until the following Wednesday. However, Grutka checked the computer at the front desk and learned that Pope was scheduled to work the following day, Saturday, September 27. Grutka subsequently returned to the salon when Pope was working. She asked the woman her name, and the woman identified herself as Venus Pope. Pope was not the pregnant woman who had been styling the female client's hair. Grutka concluded that Respondent was interfering with her inspection by not properly identifying the pregnant woman who was styling hair. Grutka noticed that various personal items and papers were located in the same open drawer in which sanitized combs and brushes were being stored. A blow dryer was also resting on the open drawer. The salon's license and previous inspection sheet were not displayed within view of the front door, as required. In addition, the stylists' licenses with their photographs were not displayed at their workstations, as required. These violations were admitted by Respondent during the final hearing. When Grutka arrived at the salon on September 26 Respondent was in her office in the back of the salon and was not "on the floor."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,600 to be paid within 30 days of the date the final order is entered. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 17th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Malone, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Karline Ricketts, pro se 1900 Okeechobee Boulevard, South 8A West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
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.
