Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, James Franklin, operated the Atlantic Barber Shop at 641 West Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida. Franklin has been issued barber license number BB 0017130 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Barbers' Board. The Atlantic Barber shop is the holder of barbershop license number BB 0005644 also issued by petitioner. Both licenses were renewed by respondent and are valid through September 30, 1988. Petitioner is required to conduct inspections of barbershops to ensure that such barbershops are in compliance with state law and agency rules. According to Rule 21C-19.015, Florida Administrative Code, an inspection shall be conducted annually on a random unannounced basis. In order to perform an inspection, access to the premises of a licensee is obviously necessary. Respondent's barbershop was last inspected by petitioner on May 24, 1984. Accordingly, an agency inspector (J. Oben) visited respondent's shop on March 11, 1986, for the purpose of conducting a routine annual inspection. Oben made two trips to the shop that day but found it closed each time. She left a business card at the door, and also told the proprietor of a shoe shop next door to have Franklin contact her. Oben returned to respondent's shop on March 12 and 18, 1986, but found the shop closed. Again she left her business card with instructions for Franklin to contact her. After Franklin failed to contact Oben, Oben sent to Franklin, by certified mail, letters on March 21, April 28 and May 12, 1986. Franklin signed for two letters but would not claim the final letter. The letters pointed out Oben's futile efforts to inspect the barbershop, and asked that Franklin promptly contact her. Franklin never responded. The issuance of an administrative complaint followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint herein be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3719 Petitioner: Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in findings of fact 3 & 4. Covered in findings of fact 3 & 4. Covered in findings of fact 3 & 4. Covered in findings of fact 3 & 4. Covered in findings of fact 3 & 4. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Franklin Atlantic Barbershop 641 West Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Florida Barbers' Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Michael Harris is a licensed cosmetologist having been issued license number CL 0104278. However, respondent's license has not been current from July 1, 1982 through at least July 24, 1984. Prior to April 13, 1983, respondent acquired and began operating Northwood Barber Shop, a cosmetology salon located at 513 Northwood Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. However, respondent never obtained a cosmetology salon license to operate at the location and did not obtain a barber shop license from the Florida Barbers Board to operate at that location until December 2, 1983. On or about April 13, 1983, respondent was operating Northwood Barber Shop. In addition, on or about April 13, 1983, respondent himself was practicing cosmetology and holding himself to be a cosmetologist without being duly licensed as a cosmetologist. After December 2, 1983, respondent was lawfully operating the Northwood Barber Shop, having been issued a barber shop license by the Florida Barbers Board. However, on June 14, 1984, respondent again was practicing cosmetology and holding himself out to be a cosmetologist without being duly licensed. Respondent did not raise or prove as a defense that he was licensed as a barber by the Florida Barbers Board on either April 13, 1983 or Jun 14, 1984. On the contrary, respondent's admissions to petitioner's inspector on those dates and other occasions affirmatively suggest that respondent was not licensed as a barber.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Cosmetology impose upon respondent Michael Harris an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. Recommended this 4th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 4th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Michael Harris 513 Northwood Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myrtle S. Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology 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
Findings Of Fact Except to the extent they are consistent with these Findings of Fact, the Department's proposed findings of fact are rejected as either not supported by competent, substantial evidence, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Linares, a resident of Miami, Florida, has been a licensed barber, having been issued License Number BB 0018163 at least between the dates of July 8, 1983, and March 2, 1984. (The license expires July 31, 1984.) During this time, Linares owned and operated Mr. Larry Hair Studio, located in Miami, under barbershop License Number BS 001515 (which also was in effect on these dates and expires July 31, 1984.) Linares has been licensed in Florida and has practiced barbering in Florida for 18 years. He has no record of ever before having been disciplined. When the Department's investigator appeared at the Barbershop for a routine inspection on July 8, 1983, the hair of approximately three or four customers was on the floor of the Barbershop around the two barber chairs in the shop. Linares was sitting in one of the chairs in the customer waiting area. No customers were being barbered at the time. The Barbers' Board has announced a policy that cut hair should be removed or at least be swept aside after every second customer. But there was no competent substantial and persuasive evidence that Linares' failure to do so constituted either a failure to eliminate all fire hazards or a failure to provide for safe and unobstructed human passage in the premises. The Board's policy was communicated to Linares on July 8, 1983. On July 8, 1983, Linares also had no wet sterilizing agent or any other means of sterilization of equipment available for use and was not sterilizing the equipment he was using. Finally, a combination of dirt and old soap from use over an extended period of time had accumulated on the bathroom fixtures of the bathroom in the Barbershop. The Department inspector advised Linares that the conditions just described were violations of the rules governing licensed barbers and that he would return to reinspect the Barbershop between 30 and 90 days later. The Department inspector returned on August 12, 1983. On his return, there again was hair from approximately four customers on the floor of the shop around the two barber chairs. However, on this occasion, both chairs were in use and there were customers waiting for haircuts. On August 12, 1983, Linares still was not sterilizing his equipment and had no wet sterilizing agent or other means of sterilization available for use. Finally, the bathroom fixtures still had an accumulation of dirt and old soap on August 12, 1983.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board reprimand Respondent, Lazaro V. Linares, d/b/a Mr. Larry Hair Studio, and impose an administrative fine in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 28th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Lazaro V. Linares 7015 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33138 Myrtle S. Aase, Executive Director Barbers' Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
The Issue Should the Petitioner be licensed in Florida as a barber as a result of the examination for licensure given in December of 1987?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner took the examination for licensure as a barber in December of 1987. Although she achieved a passing score on the written portion of the examination, she did not obtain a passing score on the practical portion of the examination. The practical portion of the examination is divided into five parts. The Petitioner challenges the grade she received in the scoring of the haircut. The maximum number of points a licensure candidate can receive on a haircut is 45 points. A review of Respondent's Exhibit B shows that the Petitioner received 18 points for her performance on Sections 2-k, 2-o, and 2-p of the exam. She does not contest the examiners' ratings on Sections 2-j and 2- m. She is concerned only with the scores she received on Sections 2-l and 2-n. When the Petitioner took the examination, John E. Lewis was the model she used to demonstrate her ability to give a "styled" haircut. During the hearing, John E. Lewis explained the following characteristics of his head and scalp line: Mr. Lewis' ears are not symmetrically located. One ear is placed significantly higher on his head than his other ear, which gives them different heights in relation to his facial features. In addition, the hair on the left side of his head grows much thicker than the hair on the right side of his head. As a result of these characteristics, an optical illusion is created which makes hair of identical length on both sides of the head appear to be longer on the left side. During the barber examination, two examiners checked the style line of the haircut under Section 2-l. On the criteria rating sheets, they commented that the left side of the style line appeared longer. In rating the hair on each side as to evenness and balance (Section 2-n), the examiners each noted that the left side was either longer or fuller. Because of these evaluations, the Petitioner did not receive any points in categories 2-i or 2-n in the examination. Cathy Maynard Frank, a Florida licensed barber who was awarded a silver medal in the 1986 World Championship of Barbers and who has placed second nationally, testified as an expert witness on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. Frank had an opportunity to observe and professionally review the haircut a few hours after the examination. In her opinion, the hair on both sides (under Section 2-n) was as close as a barber could get them. If the Petitioner had cut the left side shorter to avoid the optical illusion of unevenness, the thicker hair on the left side would have stuck straight out. Ms. Frank generally agreed with the examiners' evaluations in the other categories which contributed to her credibility as an expert witness. Ronald Max Young testified as an expert witness on behalf of the Respondent. Mr. Young is a barber who has been licensed in Florida since 1972. He is a lead examiner for the state and has participated in the examination process for the last five years. Mr. Young testified that the examination contains the standard criteria necessary to meet the minimum requirements for licensing. The examiners look for an even haircut, evenly balanced all the way around. If a model is not fitting, that is the candidate's problem, not the examiners' problem. Mr. Young did not have an opportunity to examine the haircut given by the Petitioner during the practical examination. He was unable to comment on the specifics which had been commented upon by Ms. Frank. However, he did vouch for the qualifications and abilities of the two examiners who independently rated the Petitioner's performance.
The Issue Whether the Barbers' Board should discipline the Respondent (a licensed barber and barbershop) for permitting a person in his employ to practice barbering without a license in violation of Sections 476.204(1)(a) and (h) and 476.194(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Bruce Heineman, holds a valid Florida barber license, license number BB-0018489 which was originally issued on May 8, 1968, and has been continuously licensed as a barber since that time. No record of prior disciplinary action appears in Respondent's file. Respondent, Bruce Heineman operates a barbershop under the business name of "Cuttin Corners," located at 3107 South Orlando Drive, #7B, Sanford, Florida 32771. Said barbershop operates under a current valid barbershop license which was originally issued to Respondent on September 9, 1986. Sara Kemmeck, an inspector with the Department, testified that she personally observed an employee of Respondent, Tina Prescott, giving a customer a haircut on August 31, 1988, at his barbership. Upon demand, the employee was unable to produce a valid barbers license. The unrebutted evidence demonstrated that Tina Prescott was engaged in the practice of barbering without a valid license for a minimum of two weeks, while an employee of Respondent. Tina Prescott was issued a cosmetology license on November 7, 1988, license number CL-0174999, which permits her to practice barbering in a licensed barbershop.
The Issue Whether the Master Barber Certificate and the City Barber Shop Certificate of Registration held by the Respondent W. R. Griffis should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed on the 22nd day of November, 1976, by P. W. Barker, Executive Director, Florida Barber Sanitary Commission, alleging: That Respondent allowed a dog in the barber shop in violation of Section 476.22(1)(g), Florida Statutes. The Respondent's shop had dirty floors in violation of Section 476.22(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The laboratories were dirty in violation of Section 476.22(1)(i), Florida Statutes. The supply storage room was dirty in violation of Section 476.22(1)(j). The shop was being operated with dirty neck dusters in violation of Section 476.22(1)(1)(6) and (8). Inspector Gordon N. Patterson, an employee of the Florida Barber Sanitary Commission had warned the Respondent on previous occasions that he must clean up his shop. The Administrative Complaint alleged that during the period July, August and September, 1976, the Respondent had been drinking intoxicating beverages and had performed unsatisfactory haircuts on customers as a result of this drinking. An affidavit of the Chief of Police confirms the allegations. At the hearing the Respondent admitted that he does drink, but that he never goes to the barber shop until several days after he has been drinking. The Respondent admitted that he had been ill and that his shop floors, laboratories and storage room had been dirty at times but that he intends to and at present is keeping his place very clean. The Respondent denied that he allowed a dog in his shop stating that a dog ran into his shop but was ejected shortly thereafter.
Recommendation Suspend the Master Barber Certificate No. 8195 and Shop Certificate of Registration of the City Barber Shop No. 2096 held by the Respondent for a period of time not to exceed six (6) months. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 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: A. Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32304 P. Wayne Barker, Executive Director Barber Sanitary Commission 108 West Pensacola Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Warren R. Griffis c/o City Barber Shop 127 West Broadway Fort Meade, Florida 33841
