Findings Of Fact Respondent, Enchanted Mirror, Inc., is licensed as a cosmetology salon under License No. CE0034033. Respondent owns and operates several beauty salons in central Florida and has for 30 years. Licenses for all salons except the one in question here were properly renewed and maintained. License No. CE0022297 for a cosmetology salon was issued for Augie's Enchanted Mirror salon, located at 278 East Michigan Avenue, Orlando, Florida, on September 26, 1975. In 1977, Respondent moved Augie's Enchanted Mirror to a new location at 314 East Michigan Avenue, Orlando, Florida. When this move was made, Respondent did not obtain a new license for the salon at its new location, though it continued to operate the salon. At all times from the time of original licensure in 1975, Respondent operated Augie's Enchanted Mirror as a cosmetology salon open to the public, with whom it did business as such. Sometime between 1977 and 1979, License No. CE0022297 was removed from the records of the Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Cosmetology. In 1980, neither the Board of Cosmetology nor the Department of Professional Regulation mailed to Respondent a renewal notice for a cosmetology salon license for Augie's Enchanted Mirror. However, routine inspections of the facility were made by inspectors of the Board of Cosmetology on September 13, 1978, and August 9, 1979. The report of the former inspection bears the 314 East Michigan Avenue address and that of the latter, the 298 East Michigan Avenue address. Therefore, though the records did not reflect the license and no renewal application forms were sent out, the Board was aware of the salon and inspected it, raising no question as to the license status until 1982 or 1983. The inspection of October 25, 1982, revealed a current license was not posted, but the inspection report of February 14, 1983, the "new establishment" inspection reveals the CE0034033 license number. Therefore, as late as October 25, 1982, the salon was operating without a current license as a result of the transfer from one location to another and the failure of the Board to send out renewal forms after 1980.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent has been licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida since August 13, 1979. He currently holds license number CL 0110182, which has an expiration date of June 30, 1992. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, the owner and operator of Best Cuts, Inc. (Best Cuts), a licensed cosmetology salon located at 5331 West Atlantic Boulevard in Margate, Florida. In late October, 1990 or early November, 1990, Luis Villate applied and interviewed for a hair stylist position at Best Cuts. During the interview, Respondent asked if Villate was licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. In response to this inquiry, Villate showed Respondent a completed State of Florida application for licensure by examination. The application contained a certification, dated January 6, 1990, and signed by the Educational Supervisor of the cosmetology school Villate had attended, that Villate met the educational and training requirements for eligibility to sit for the cosmetology licensure examination. Following the interview, Respondent telephoned the Department's offices in Tallahassee to find out if there was any legal impediment to his hiring Villate to work as a hair stylist at Best Cuts. Respondent explained to the Department representative with whom he spoke that Villate had "all his hours" of schooling and training and that he had applied for a cosmetology license. The representative told Respondent that, if such were the circumstances, it would be permissible for Respondent to employ Villate at his salon. 1/ Respondent shortly thereafter hired Villate to work at Best Cuts. The representations made to him by the Department representative did not play a role in his decision to hire Villate. Because he desperately needed a competent hair stylist to work at the salon, he would have hired Villate even if he had been told that Villate's unlicensed status rendered him ineligible for lawful employment. Villate remained an employee of Best Cuts for approximately two months, until December 4, 1991. During the period of his employment, Villate cut, washed and blow dried customers' hair. At no time during this period was he licensed to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida. The termination of Villate's employment with Best Cuts was precipitated by an inspection of the salon made by Louis Morganstern, an inspector with the Department, on December 3 and 4, 1990. During the first day of his inspection, Morganstern observed Villate cutting the hair of a customer. Upon his return to the office, Morganstern ran a computer check on Villate, which revealed that Villate had taken and failed the licensure examination and therefore was still unlicensed. The following day, at Morganstern's request, Villate signed a document agreeing to "cease and desist" from the practice of cosmetology in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Cosmetology enter a final order (1) finding that Respondent committed the violation of law alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and (2) imposing upon Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $100 for having committed this violation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of August, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of August, 1991.
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent William L. Hamilton should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for violation of Section 477.27(5) and 477.17, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, to-wit: 21F-3.01 in that said Respondent was charged with operating a cosmetologist salon without a salon license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent William L. Hamilton received notice of this hearing and in his election of remedies stated that the violation notice did not constitute a violation of law and sent a letter of explanation as to the violation notice and stated that he would not attend this hearing. Inspector Madge Evans of the State Board of Cosmetology entered the salon operated by William L. Hamilton as Bill's Hair Shack in Palatka, Florida in which he was doing business without a salon license. Mrs. Evans notified the Respondent that he must apply for an obtain a salon license before operating a beauty salon and left an application form with Respondent. On several occasions the inspector for the Board entered a place of business in which William L. Hamilton was operating a beauty salon without a salon license. The salon license is not transferable from location to location and each location that is to be used as a beauty salon must be certified by the Board and a salon license issued. Respondent Hamilton is not now operating a beauty salon under a valid beauty salon license and salon license No. 22621, which Respondent holds is now invalid inasmuch as the location has burned. He holds personal license No. 62269 which entitles him to practice cosmetology in the State of Florida.
Recommendation Suspend the personal license No. 62269 of Respondent William L. Hamilton for a period of three months for violation of Section 477.15, Florida Statutes and 477.17(s). DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 1976 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 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida William L. Hamilton Route 1, Box 30 East Palatka, Florida 32301 Mrs. Mary Alice Palmer Post Office Box 9087 Board of Cosmetology Winter Haven, Florida 33880 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the salon license of Richard J. Payseur, No. 20140-OB should be revoked, annulled, suspended or withdrawn because he did not display a proper sign in his salon.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Mary Francis Pfeiffer, Inspector for the Board, testified that Respondent Richard Payseur had been the proprietor of the beauty salon under the name "Showplace Beauty Salon", New Port Richey, Florida. At her last visit, the salon was under a new proprietorship and that to the best of the Inspector's knowledge, Mr. Payseur does not operate a beauty salon in the State. The Respondent Mr. Payseur holds a Masters License No. 0083341. Mr. Payseur, the Respondent, had been issued a violation notice after a visit to the salon on January 17, 1976 and again on March 20, 1976.
Recommendation Dismiss the present complaint and warn Respondent that a violation of the State laws and regulations governing cosmetologists could jeopardize his personal license. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of August, 1976 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 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida Richard J. Payseur Box 667 Route 4 Brooksville, Florida 33512
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not the Respondent operated a cosmetology salon without a current active salon license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, a post- hearing memorandum, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. Respondent, James F. Tobin, was at all times material herein licensed by the State of Florida to practice cosmetology and has been issued cosmetologist license number CL 0096393. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) During December, 1980, Respondent purchased a cosmetologist salon then named Sisters Two which is located at 17036 W. Dixie Highway, North Miami Beach, Florida. Respondent thereafter renamed the salon "All About Hair" and at all times subsequent to December, 1980, owned and operated All About Hair as a cosmetologist salon. During July or August, 1981, Respondent submitted to the Petitioner an application for a cosmetology salon license for All About Hair enclosing therewith a check made payable to the Petitioner in the amount of $40. On August 13, 1981, Petitioner received the application and on the following day, August 14, 1981, Petitioner cashed the Respondent's $40 check. The Department did not approve the application and on August 19, 1981 returned the application to Respondent together with a cover letter stating the following three reasons: The application was not accompanied by a diagram of the salon, The lease was not in the Respondent's name, and The application failed to specify the type of dry sanitizer that Respondent was using in the salon. Upon receipt of the returned application from the Petitioner, the (Respondent) gave it to his mother for completion and for resubmittal to the Petitioner. A completed cosmetology salon license application form for All About Hair was not received by the Petitioner from Respondent until August 8, 1983. Upon receipt of the completed application, the Department issued its cosmetology salon license number CE 0035291 for All About Hair on September 10, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Respondent, by and through its business manager, acknowledged that it never received from the Petitioner a cosmetology salon license in the name of All About Hair prior to September 8, 1983. Although the Respondent assumed that his mother immediately re-submitted the returned application to the Petitioner, other than the finding herein that the returned application was re-submitted to Petitioner on August 8, 1983, there was no direct testimony offered in support of that assumption. On September 30, 1982, Petitioner's investigator and inspector, Dorsey Hayes, made a routine inspection of All About Hair. During the course of that inspection, inspector Hayes discovered a discrepancy between the salon named All About Hair and the license which it was operating under, Sisters Two. At no time prior to September 10, 1983, did the Respondent hold a valid current license for the cosmetology salon All About Hair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent shall pay an administrative fine to the Petitioner in the amount of $250 within thirty days of the date of the Final Order herein. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 9th day of December, 1983.
The Issue Whether Respondent's cosmetology license should be suspended, revoked or whether Respondent should be disciplined for conduct, as a licensee, which will be set forth hereinafter in detail.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the proposed memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: Noella C. Papagno (herein sometimes referred to as Respondent) is a licensed cosmetologist under the laws of the State of Florida and has been issued License Number CL 0107656, which license is current through June, 1984. Respondent has been practicing cosmetology for approximately twenty-five (25) years and, prior to being licensed in Florida, was licensed to practice in Rhode Island. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.) Richard Gloss has been employed in the Building and Zoning Department for the City of Dania, Florida, for the past two (2) years. On or about October 12, 1981, Gloss received a complaint that Respondent was operating a salon at one of the ticket booths located at the flea market, 1930 North Federal Highway in Dania Florida. Gloss made a routine inspection through the flea market and observed a sign in front of a ticket booth occupied by the Respondent where upon he approached Respondent and identified himself as an employee of the City of Dania in the Building and Zoning Department. After identifying himself, Gloss inquired of Respondent whether she was properly licensed to conduct a beauty salon. Prior thereto, Respondent had offered to cut his hair. Respondent admits to having offered to cut Gloss's hair and related that she had been cutting hair at that location for approximately two and one half (2 1/2) years and that she charged customers from $.50 to $4.00, depending on the length of their hair and the amount of time it took to cut it. She also explained that she had two (2) licenses -- her cosmetology license and a Broward County Council license -- in order to carry on this business. Respondent described in a very detailed manner her method of water hair cutting and she explained that she used no chemicals and did not attempt to perform any kind of chemical services. Additionally, Respondent testified that she suffers from various allergies and her physician has cautioned her to stay away from dust in beauty salons. (Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 4 and 7.) In mitigation, Respondent offered the fact that she was providing a service which would not be otherwise available and that the equipment that she used is sanitized and that theme was no testimony offered by Petitioner of any ill effects by her operation at the subject facility. Finally, Respondent feels that the Board should grant her a specialty license, although she has not applied for a license based on her feelings that it would not be granted. [Testimony of Respondent and Edmund Gabler, a Broward County resident and customer of Respondent for approximately two (2) years.]
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year, during which time she must comply with all provisions of Chapter 477, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder, specifically including the proviso that she not practice cosmetology in an unlicensed location. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 11th day of August, 1982.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her national origin.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a subsidiary of Ratner Companies. Respondent operates a chain of salons, including the Cobblestone Hair Cuttery Salon (Cobblestone) in St. Augustine, Florida, and the Town Center Hair Cuttery Salon (Town Center) in Palm Coast, Florida. Petitioner was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, of Hispanic origin. She speaks Spanish as her first language and English as her second language. Petitioner has extensive experience as a hairdresser. She was licensed in Maryland in 1975 and in Florida in 1989. Petitioner has owned her own salons in Maryland and Florida. In the fall of 2007, Francesca Souza, Respondent's salon leader at Town Center interviewed Petitioner for a position as a hair stylist. Ms. Souza was impressed with Petitioner's experience as a stylist. Ms. Souza also believed that Petitioner's ability to speak Spanish would help improve service to the area's large population of Spanish-speaking clients. Because Ms. Souza did not have a position available at the time, she referred Petitioner to Cobblestone. The salon leader at Cobblestone hired Petitioner as a hair stylist. At Cobblestone, Petitioner had problems following Respondent's Fair and Equal Treatment Policies. The problems were based on allegations that Petitioner was taking customers out-of-turn, doing services that customers did not want, and being confrontational in the shop in front of clients. After Respondent was coached and counseled about not making clients or associates uncomfortable, Petitioner's ability to get along with other stylists improved. There were never any issues at Cobblestone with Petitioner’s speaking Spanish. In April or May of 2008, Petitioner transferred to Town Center because it was closer to her home. For approximately two months, Petitioner experienced no problems working at Town Center. Town Center was a multi-cultural salon. Ms. Souza spoke several languages in addition to English, including Spanish and Portuguese. Other bi-lingual stylists included the following: (a) Natalie, who was from Thailand and spoke Chinese and Cambodian; (b) Andrea, who was from Jamaica and spoke French; and (c) Maria, who was from Puerto Rico and spoke Spanish. Other stylists, who spoke only English, included the following: Courtney; Jessica; Monica; Jasmine; Stacy; Christine; Melissa; Eugenia; and Michael Ann. From the beginning, Petitioner believed that these stylists formed a clique that attempted to exclude other stylists. Respondent did not have a policy prohibiting stylists from speaking a foreign language to each other or to customers in the salon. Bi-lingual stylists usually spoke to their customers according to their national origin when necessary to make the customers feel comfortable. Initially, Petitioner sometimes spoke Spanish to Francesca and Maria. Some of the stylists in the "clique" complained that Francesca and Petitioner should speak English to each other in the salon because they were in the United States. Francesca then informed Petitioner that they should speak English to each other. Francesca explained to Petitioner that some of the stylists might feel as if Francesca favored Petitioner and that speaking English would make everyone feel more included. In June 2008, Petitioner was working at Town Center when two sisters of Hispanic origin came in for service. One sister was treating the other for a special occasion. Diane was due to take the next walk-in client. Therefore, Diane asked the sister being served to sit in her chair. After the sisters told Diane what service they wanted, Stacy made a comment in English to Diane that she was not competent to do the service. Apparently, one or both of the sisters understood Stacy's comment. The sister receiving the service became upset, stating, in Spanish, that she did not want Diane to do her hair. At that point, Petitioner intervened. Speaking in Spanish to the sisters, Petitioner assured them that Diane was competent to perform the service and that Stacy had made a childish comment. The incident grew worse when Petitioner overhead Courtney complaining to the "clique" about Petitioner’s speaking Spanish to Diane's customers. Petitioner also understood that members of the "clique" were being critical of her and the sisters. As the "clique" talked among themselves, the sisters became even more upset. Apparently the sisters and Petitioner believed that the other stylists were making fun of the sisters and Spanish-speaking people in general. Eventually, Petitioner called Ms. Souza, who was on vacation. Courtney also spoke to Ms. Souza. Courtney yelled that Petitioner should be fired, that she was a troublemaker, that she should not be speaking Spanish, and that she had caused the whole problem. Ms. Souza talked to the sisters on the phone. She made arrangements to compensate them for the incident. Ms. Souza later talked to Petitioner, asking whether she had caused the problem. Petitioner responded that the "clique" was jealous of her and were discriminating against her because she spoke Spanish. After the incident with the sisters, personality conflicts developed between the "clique" and Petitioner. They could not get along and did not trust each other. When Petitioner began working at Town Center, the salon had an honor system in place to determine which stylist would get the next walk-in client. Petitioner took advantage of the honor system by taking clients out-of-turn. Ms. Souza then instituted a walk-in list that the stylists signed when they came to work. As they took clients, they were supposed to scratch their name off the top of the list and write it at the bottom. Petitioner also took advantage of the walk-in list by not scratching her name off the top of the list after taking a client. The other stylists would then scratch off Petitioner's name or white it out and write it at the bottom. When this happened, Petitioner and the other stylists would bicker with each other. Petitioner never admitted she had done anything wrong and always complained that the other stylists were picking on her. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the "clique" resented Petitioner’s speaking Spanish to her clients when it was not necessary because they assumed that Petitioner was talking about them. There is no persuasive evidence that the "clique" resented Petitioner’s speaking Spanish because she was from Argentina of Hispanic origin. To the contrary, a member of the "clique" occasionally requested Petitioner's assistance in communicating with a Spanish-speaking client. The evidence also shows that Petitioner was very aggressive in soliciting clients and selling retail products. Her list of clients that would request her services grew quickly. She often had the highest sales per week and/or month of retail products. The members of the "clique" may have been jealous of Petitioner's rapid success but they also resented the methods she used to increase her commissions as set forth in Ms. Souza's testimony and the documentation memorializing her counseling and coaching conversations with Petitioner. On August 6, 2008, Ms. Souza had a conversation with Petitioner outside the salon. During the conversation, Ms. Souza informed Petitioner that she was creating an environment in the salon that was uncomfortable to stylists and others in the following ways: (a) arguing with Jasmine about a client; (b) bickering on the floor; and (c) intervening with Stacy's recommendations to a client by making derogatory remarks about the quality of Stacy's work. At the conclusion of this conversation, Petitioner agreed to stop that kind of behavior. On August 8, 2008, Ms. Souza had a conversation with Petitioner regarding the two technical complaints. First, a client was unhappy with an "updo" done by Petitioner. Additionally, Petitioner tried to charge the client $40 for the service after Monica had quoted the client a $25 price. Ms. Souza had to redo the hair style and charged the client $25. Second, a client came in with a very uneven hair cut. Petitioner refused to cut the client's hair the way she wanted it because it would, in Petitioner's opinion, look bad. On September 6, 2009, Ms. Souza wrote a letter to Stephanie Melstein, Respondent's district leader. The letter reviews the problems Ms. Souza was having with Petitioner as follows: (a) taking clients out-of-turn, then getting defensive when confronted by another stylist; (b) leaving the salon without cleaning up at closing; (c) not crossing her name off the walk-in list so that she remains at the top of the list; (d) talking to clients sitting in another stylist's chair, frequently saying things contrary to what the stylist and client have discussed; (e) walking to the front of the salon and striking up a conversation with a walk-in client, then putting the client's name in the computer as a "request" for herself, even though the client did not care who performed the service; (f) making derogatory comments about people's sexual orientation and/or religion; (g) walking away and pretending to be busy when presented with an ethnic client that she does not want to serve; and (h) claiming that the whole salon is out to get her because of jealousy. In the September 6, 2008, letter, Ms. Souza requested that Ms. Melstein let her know how much information is needed to terminate a person without repercussion to Ratner Companies. Ms. Souza did not want to be seen as a weak salon leader, but she also did not want to have the salon involved in a lawsuit by a disgruntled employee. On September 12, 2008, Ms. Souza gave Petitioner a verbal warning regarding the following: (a) not taking clients in order according to the walk-in policy by skipping over other names; (b) interfering with other stylists; and (c) leaving early without management approval. Ms. Souza advised Petitioner that her actions were creating an uncomfortable environment for clients and co-workers. Ms. Souza also stated that any future violations in these same areas will result in termination. Petitioner hand delivered a letter dated September 16, 2008, to Ms. Souza and Ms. Melstein at a monthly salon meeting. According to the letter, Petitioner had been picked on by the "clique" since her first week at work. In the September 16, 2008, letter, Petitioner's complaints included, but were not limited to, the following: (a) someone was scratching out Natalie's and Petitioner's names on the walk-in list when they had a request customer as if they had taken a walk-in client; (b) someone was telling Natalie's and Petitioner's request customers that they were scheduled to work on days they were off; (c) Ms. Souza warned Petitioner about Lynn and Melissa and advised Petitioner not to speak Spanish because the stylists would think Ms. Souza was favoring Petitioner; (d) Ms. Souza talked about some of the stylists behind their backs; (e) Michael Ann left work early one day without permission; (f) Monica was 45 minutes late one day, leaving a client waiting for her; (g) Lynn was 35 minutes late with no repercussions; (h) Michael Ann left the salon for an hour without clocking out, leaving a client waiting that Lynn had to service; (i) Lynn leaves the salon for coffee without clocking out; (j) the smokers take more breaks than non-smokers; (k) the "clique" discriminated against the two Spanish sisters and Petitioner; (l) Lynn falsely accused Petitioner of being a thief for hiding Lynn's lunch; (m) the "clique" members go to lunch then expect someone to check in the clients and have them wait until the "clique" members return; (n) Ms. Souza feels that Petitioner has a chip on her shoulder; (o) Petitioner cannot speak Spanish with her Spanish-speaking clients because the "clique" finds it offensive; (p) Monica refused to give Petitioner her paycheck, placing it on a high shelf; (q) Francesca falsely stated that Petitioner had four complaints on redo haircuts; (r) Lynn and the "clique" mistreated a person in training at the salon; (s) someone put a bag of bleach on Petitioner's lunch; (t) the "clique" is jealous that Petitioner has so many requests in such a short time; (u) someone erased some of Petitioner's chemical service appointments and put them under the name of other hairstylists; (v) someone scratched over Petitioner's initials on the chore list and placed another name there as if Petitioner did not do her chore, then told Ms. Souza that Petitioner left early without doing her chore; (w) Michael Ann wanted to smoke so she gave her walk-in to Jessica even though Petitioner was next in line; (x) Michael Ann leaves work early when Monica is on duty as assistant salon leader with no repercussion; (y) Stacy refused to cut the hair of a child on the walk-in list, asking Petitioner to cut the child's hair instead; and (z) the "clique" members get together to gossip about Petitioner getting a written warning report. After receiving the September 16, 2008, letter from Petitioner, Ms. Melstein went to the Town Center to investigate Petitioner's allegations. Ms. Melstein spoke to the Town Center staff, including Petitioner and Ms. Souza. Ms. Melstein reminded Petitioner and Ms. Souza that Respondent did not have a policy prohibiting speaking a foreign language in a salon. Ms. Melstein also reminded them that Respondent did have a policy prohibiting any conduct that created an uncomfortable environment for clients and staff. Finally, Ms. Melstein made it clear that if a stylist needed to speak a foreign language to make a client feel comfortable, the stylists certainly could do so. During her investigation, Ms. Melstein had conversation with all of the staff regarding the allegations in Petitioner's September 16, 2008, letter. Ms. Melstein concluded that there were personality conflicts among the stylists but that no one was being discriminated against. On or about October 1, 2008, Ms. Souza had a conversation with Petitioner regarding her failure to attend a mandatory salon meeting. Ms. Souza also instructed Petitioner to stop soliciting clients for a mortgage business by getting and/or giving out cell phone numbers and e-mail addresses and by giving mortgage company business cards to the clients. On October 18, 2008, Ms. Souza counseled Petitioner about taking clients out of turn. She also advised Petitioner about the importance of placing the names of clients in the computer. On or about November 3, 2008, Petitioner improperly charged a client for a foil service. At that time, the stylists were supposed to charge $3 per foil up to six foils and $45 for a partial foil of seven to twelve foils. Petitioner charged the client $3 per foil for eight foils, thereby undercharging the client $21. This is a terminable offense under Respondent's Fair and Equal Treatment Policy. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner did not have permission to charge the client $3 per foil for eight foils. On November 5, 2008, Ms. Sousa terminated Petitioner's employment at Town Center. According to the conference report form, Petitioner was terminated for the following reasons: (a) knowingly failing to charge clients properly by under- ringing sales and quoting incorrect prices; (b) creating an uncomfortable environment for clients and staff; (c) mistreating other associates by selling products to clients while other stylists are servicing those clients; (d) discrediting stylists with derogatory comments statement to clients; and (e) trying to coax clients into her chair while the clients were waiting for another stylist. The transaction detail report confirms that on November 3, 2008, Petitioner improperly charged for a foil service. Additionally, the transaction detail report reflects twelve instances of improper charging (over-ringing and/or under-ringing) by Petitioner prior to November 3, 2008. After being terminated, Petitioner complained to Naté Venkatesen, the human resources director for Ratner Companies. Petitioner stated that other associates in the salon also were improperly charging clients. As a result, Respondent performed an investigation and subsequently initiated coaching and counseling for all associates at the salon. There is no evidence that the stylists involved in the coaching had the same type of disciplinary history or problems following policies as Petitioner. In a letter dated December 5, 2008, Ms. Venkatesan agreed to reinstate Petitioner to her original position at full pay. Ms. Venkatesan also told Petitioner she would receive full back-pay from November 5, 2008, until December 12, 2008. According to the letter, Petitioner would be entitled to all benefits, including the company-paid trip to Cancun in May 2009. Finally, the letter stated that Petitioner needed to respond to the letter by December 12, 2008, or Respondent would assume she was not interested in returning to work. Petitioner declined to accept Petitioner's offer of reinstatement. She did not want to start all over in building her clientele and sales at another salon. Respondent never told Petitioner she could not return to Town Center. However, Ms. Venkatesan told Petitioner she did not think it would be a good idea for Petitioner to return to Town Center. After she was terminated, Petitioner looked for work for about three and a half weeks before finding a job at the Paradise Day Spa. Petitioner worked at the Paradise Day Spa for eight months until September 2009, when that company went out of business. A short time later, Petitioner found a job in a barber shop where she continued to work at the time of the hearing. When Petitioner worked for Respondent, she accrued a week's paid vacation after working for one year. She earned an average of $400 per week in commissions from services and an additional $300 per week in tips and retail sales. Up through the date of termination, Petitioner earned $18,763.07 gross pay and $15,312 net pay from Respondent. Petitioner earned $959.64 in 2008, working for the Paradise Day Spa. She earned approximately $129 per week at the Paradise Day Spa. Petitioner earns approximately $200 per week at the barber shop. Her earnings there are based on a 50 percent commission for each service she performs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 12th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Glasser, Esquire Glasser & Handel 116 Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Bradley J. Hansen, Esquire Ratner Companies, LC 1577 Spring Hill Road, Suite 500 Vienna, Virginia 22182 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for disposition is whether William Engelleiter practiced cosmetology without a license, and if so, what action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Nita Spagnole is an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) in the Orlando, Florida office. On March 22, 1988, she visited the Apollo Hair Designs Salon in Melbourne, Florida, to gather affidavits for another case. William Engelleiter was in the salon and was pointed out to her as a cosmetologist. He was in the area, talking to a customer, watching TV and visiting with the other workers. She did not observe him working on hair or otherwise practicing cosmeto1ogy. Ms. Spagnole later pulled his name on the agency computer and learned that he did not have a license. William Engelleiter attended cosmetology school but did not pass the board examination. He is diabetic and frequently ill. He met the Blough's, the owners of Apollo Hair Design at a flea market. They were giving away free samples and said they needed a receptionist. Engelleiter was hired to work as a receptionist until he was able to pass the examination. He started work at Apollo on January 25, 1988, and was still employed as a receptionist in March, 1988. He left shortly later due to illness. From time to time at the salon, William Engelleiter did his mother's hair and worked on the owner's daughter and other cosmetologists, but he claims that he never received compensation for those services. His mother confirmed this. David Simon, a friend of Engelleiter's, went to the salon to buy a hairpiece. He wanted Engelleiter to get the commission but was told that he could not, because he was not a cosmetologist.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint dated May 20, 1988 be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald L. Jones, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William R. Engelleiter 1964 McKinley Avenue Post Office Box 24A Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Respondent, Women's Exchange, Inc., possessed a valid Florida license to operate a cosmetology salon at 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue, Miami, Florida, under License No. CE 0032221, which license was issued on September 16, 1982, and expires on October 31, 1984. On January 20, 1983, Steven M. Granowitz, an investigator for Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Cosmetology, entered Respondent's salon for a routine inspection. When he entered the salon, which was located in what appeared to be a home, he noticed it was quite busy. Customers were being waited on at all operator positions, and others were waiting their turn. Upon entering the salon, Mr. Granowitz tried to find the manager to identify himself and present his credentials, but no manager was present, so he talked to the receptionist, showing her his credentials and advising her he was going to do an inspection. At first, he looked at the salon license and went to examine the four operators and their licenses. These licenses are required to be displayed prominently in the shop. None of the four operator stations were displaying licenses. Two operators indicated they had licenses, but did not have them present. Mr. Granowitz made a phone call to his board and verified that these two individuals, Yvonne Eberhart and Clara Ann Edden, were in fact licensed. The two other individuals who he observed to be at operator stations with customers in the chairs, to whom they were applying curly perms, Jacqueline Dulippe and Jeanette Toussaint, were not licensed either by the Board of Cosmetology or Barbers' Board. He, admittedly, did not watch these two unlicensed operators during the entire period he was there. Consequently, it may well be that other licensed operators also worked on the same customers. There is no doubt in his mind, however, that what he observed these two do were cosmetology operations. Licenses are required to perform the work being performed by these two individuals, though not all functions in a cosmetology salon require a license. When Mr. Granowitz discussed this situation shortly thereafter that day with Antonia Gary, one of the officers of Respondent corporation, in the salon, she indicated she was not the manager of the salon, that none of the corporate officers were involved in the day-to-day operation of the salon, and that she did not know these two individuals were not licensed. However, there was no claim that either had misrepresented their license status. Joyce Ann Hanks-Knox, President of Women's Exchange, Inc., the corporation which owns the corporation which now owns Fingertips, the salon in question, admits that the license is in the name of Women's Exchange, Inc. There is no question, however, that Women's Exchange, Inc., holds the license in question for Fingertips and that the current Fingertips salon is that which is described in the license. She is not a licensed cosmetologist, and while she spends as much as 20 hours per week in the business of Women's Exchange, Inc., these duties do not include active management of the salon. She further relates, however, that it has never been the policy of either the parent corporation or the management of Fingertips to permit unlicensed operators to work, unsupervised, on customers. She admits that both women in question worked at Fingertips and, in fact, one was hired by her. Their duties were to be trained as operators and to perform other small tasks within the salon, such as moving patrons from one area to another, cleaning the salon, and insuring that supplies were at the work stations as needed. They were also allowed to wash hair, but, in this apprentice program, nonlicensed personnel were not to give permanents or do anything else that could be considered cosmetology. All of the licensed operators knew what the apprentice program consisted of, its limitations, and that these two individuals were not licensed. As such, they should have stopped them from performing unauthorized tasks. Neither individual was hired as a cosmetologist, nor was she paid as a cosmetologist. Since neither Ms. Knox nor Ms. Gary actively supervise the operation of the salon, since Mr. Granowitz could find no one there during his visit who admitted to being in charge, and since there was no evidence presented that there was any manager assigned to the salon, it is obvious that the salon was left, for the most part, to run itself without effective management supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent corporation be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $250 for each count proven -- a total of $500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 15th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Mr. Fred Roche Department of Professional Secretary Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce Hanks-Knox, Esquire President Women's Exchange, Inc. 1828 N.E. Fourth Avenue Miami, Florida 33142 Ms. Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon without a certificate of registration.
Findings Of Fact An Administrative Complaint was filed against licensee, Virginia Jarnecke, who holds License No. Salon 24158, on the 31st of May, 1977, alleging that she did operate a cosmetology salon without a valid certificate of registration after having been warned and supplied with the proper form in July of 1976 at the La Petite Coiffures in Daytona Beach, Florida. The Respondent filed an Answer on the 24th day of June, 1977, entering a plea of not guilty to the Administrative Complaint. The inspector for the board inspected the Respondent shop in July of 1976 and found that there had been a change in ownership of the salon. She informed the Respondent new owner that the salon registration was nontransferable and that a new registration would have to be applied for and obtained. At that time she left a form designated BC-7 for use of the Respondent. On September 24, 1976 no license had been obtained and a violation of notice was written by the inspector. A license was obtained thereafter in November of 1976. The owner of the shop, Respondent Virginia Jarnecke, had waited to send in her application for registration of said shop until one of the employees obtained a license as master cosmetologist. She did not obtain a registration for the salon until November of 1976 although an application form had been' left by the Petitioner, State Board of Cosmetology, to change the registration from the former owner in July of 1976.
Recommendation Write a letter of reprimand to Respondent for the reason that there was unnecessary delay between the time the Respondent bought subject beauty salon and the time in which application for registration of the salon. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of August, 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: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. David McFadden, Esquire 100 Seabreeze Boulevard, Suite 210 Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
