Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied to be licensed as a cosmetologist by the Board of Cosmetology of the State of Florida. In pursuit of her application she took the practical examination given by the Department of Professional Regulation, in Winter Haven on June 10, 1982. She received a grade of 66.5 on that portion of the examination. A passing grade is 75.0 or above. Petitioner did pass the written portion of the examination. Because the grade for the written portion is not averaged with the grade for the practical exam, it is irrelevant here. Ms. Forchion's only experience or expertise in the field of cosmetology comes from her study in a half-year course given at Orange County Vocational Technical School. Ms. Forchion contests the following grades received on the indicated portions of the practical examination: Shampooing 3.0 of a maximum 5.0 Permanent waving 12.0 of a maximum 20.0 Bleaching 11.0 of a maximum 20.0 Tinting 13.5 of a maximum 15.0 At the final hearing Ms. Forchion testified that she performed all the procedures properly for each of the areas examined. She did not however, know what the grading criteria to be used by the examiners were. For this reason she was unable to say that her performance met the standards established by the Board of Cosmetology for passing grades. Ms. Forchion's only standards for judging her own work came from her instruction at school. Respondent presented testimony from two of the examiners who were present at the time and place of Petitioner's examination. They had no recollection of Petitioner's performance on the practical exam and therefore were unable to provide testimony about the adequacy or inadequacy of her performance. During the shampooing portion of the examination, there was a deficiency in water pressure. The individual examination stations are apparently supplied by a common water main. When all of the examinees attempted to use water at the same time, the supply was inadequate. The Department of Professional Regulation employee supervising the examination asked the examinees to turn their water off in order to allow the pressure to return. This was unnerving to Petitioner because the examination was timed. In spite of the paucity of pressure she was able to complete the shampooing to her satisfaction and she did not claim that the lack of water resulted in an unacceptable performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order denying the application of Shirley J. Forchion for licensure as a cosmetologist because she failed to successfully pass the practical portion of the cosmetology examination as required by Section 477.019(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1981). DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 6th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley J. Forchion 3000 Orange Court Apartment 85 Orlando, Florida 32805 M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Florida Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION SHIRLEY J. FORCHION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-2352 DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Respondent. /
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
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.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Section 477.02(6), 477.15(8) and 477.27, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns Kathy's Colonial Curl and Comb, Ocean Ridge, Florida and was issued Certificate of Registration No. 21533 to operate a cosmetology salon by petitioner on April 15, 1975. On November 12, 1975, Petitioner's Inspector visited Respondent's place of business and discovered LaVerne Beres giving a shampoo and set to a customer. Beres informed the Inspector that she had just graduated from school and believed that the school would give her a permit to act as a cosmetologist, but that she did not have a license at that time. (Testimony of Padgett). Respondent testified Beres had told her that she had applied for a permit and that it would come in the mail shortly. Respondent's reason for hiring Beres without a license was because it was the busy season and she needed an operator. Respondent normally insists on her employees having licenses prior to hiring them. Beres is now licensed. (Testimony of Kight).
Recommendation That a letter of reprimand be issued to the Respondent for violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Ms. Luddy Gene Kight 5011 N. Ocean Boulevard Ocean Ridge, Florida 33444
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 477.02(6); 477.15(8); 477.27(1) and (2), F.S. by allowing a person to practice the art of cosmetology in her salon without said person being a registered cosmetologist by the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marlene Fletcher, d/b/a the Beauty Parlour, did allow one Victoria Kane to practice the art of cosmetology, to-wit: the giving of a permanent wave to a customer in Respondent's salon at a time in which she held no Florida license. Respondent discussed by long distance telephone the circumstances attending the giving of said permanent wave by the said Victoria Kane. The said Victoria Kane was not in the employ of the Respondent; however, said Victoria Kane was under the control of the Respondent inasmuch as the practice of the art of cosmetology was in the salon of Respondent and at a time in which the Respondent was present.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the practice of cosmetology or a specialty without an active license in violation of Section 477.0265, Florida Statutes (2005), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witness presented, and the record in this case, the following findings of fact are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was regulated by the Department. Respondent's last know address and his address of record with the Department is 421 Champagne Lane, Brandon, Florida 33510. This is also the address written on the Election of Rights Form submitted to the Department in which Respondent requested a formal hearing. At all times material hereto, John Miranda was employed by the Department as an environmental health specialist, where he has been working for approximately nine (9) years. As an environmental health specialist, Mr. Miranda conducts inspections for the Board of Cosmetology. On December 14, 2005, Mr. Miranda conducted an inspection of the Eclips Barber Shop (Eclips) located at 1221 Kingsway Plaza, in Brandon, Florida. During the inspection, Mr. Miranda observed Respondent cutting hair. However, when asked to do so, Respondent did not produce either a barber license or cosmetology license. On December 14, 2005, Respondent was not licensed as either a barber or a cosmetologist. Respondent was eligible to take the cosmetology examination on September 10, 2004. As of December 20, 2005, Respondent had successfully completed all parts of the cosmetology licensing examination. Respondent was not licensed as a cosmetologist until more than three months after the December 14, 2005, inspection. Respondent was initially issued a cosmetology license, License No. CL 1183800, on or about March 31, 2006. That license is current and active, with an effective date of March 31, 2006, through October 31, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent, Camilo Torres, engaged in the practice of cosmetology without a license, an act proscribed by Subsection 477.0265(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and (2) imposing an administrative fine of $500 for that violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 5th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Camilo Torres 421 Champagne Lane Brandon, Florida 33511 Lee C. Hawley Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondents operated their cosmetology salon in violation of the rule then in effect in which each cosmetology salon owner or manager should send to the Board every five (5) years a certificate from a licensed electrician showing that the electrical equipment in said salon is in safe operating condition. Regulation 21F-3.02, of the rules and regulations of the State Board of Cosmetology. Whether Respondents' license should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact The witness and Respondents were duly sworn. The Notice of Service and Complaint were entered without objection and marked Exhibit 1. The Election of Remedies and Electrical Certificate were entered into evidence as Exhibit 2 without objection. Respondents held a license as required by Board of Cosmetology Rule 21F-3.02, which was dated 1969. A notice of violation was written up by the Board at the five-year expiration of said license which was in 1974. Since the writing of the violation notice, the Board has rescinded the rule requiring an electrical certificate and Respondnets not having procured a certificate in a timely fashion did not then attempt to secure said certificate inasmuch as the rule had been rescinded.
