The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent owned, operated, maintained, established, or conducted a barbering business and barber shop for purposes of the requirements delineated in Section 476.194, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with regulating the licensure of barbers, the licensure of barber shop establishments and the practice of barbering, and the operation of barber shops, pursuant to Chapter 476, Florida Statutes (2006). After investigation the Respondent, Chand Harris, was accused in the Administrative Complaint, with practicing barbering or operating, establishing, opening, or conducting a barber shop operation or business without proper licensure. Although properly served with a copy of the Notice of Hearing at his last known address of record, Mr. Harris failed to appear at the hearing. After waiting an appropriate period of time, the hearing was convened and the taking of evidence was initiated. Upon conclusion of the Petitioner's case the Respondent, Mr. Harris, had not yet appeared at the hearing and never did appear at hearing. Consequently, no evidence was adduced on behalf of the Respondent. There has been no communication with the Respondent either before or since the hearing and thus there is no known explanation for his failure to appear at the hearing. Robert M. Johnson is employed by the Department as an inspector. He has been thus employed for approximately three and one-half years. He has a four-year degree from Baptist College of Florida and is currently enrolled in basic law enforcement courses at Lake City Community College. He also received formal training from the Department upon beginning his employment and attends on-going training sessions. Mr. Johnson performs approximately 1,300 inspections annually. On November 3, 9, and 17, 2005, Mr. Johnson inspected the premises of a business known as "Trend Setterz." Mr. Johnson's investigation established, through his testimony, that the Respondent, Chand Harris, owned and controlled the establishment named Trend Setterz. It is located at 289 Marion Oaks Lane, Ocala, Florida 34473. Trend Setterz was not licensed as a barber shop by the Florida Barbers Board, but was operating as a barber shop. Mr. Johnson observed a substantial number of people having hair cuts performed in the Trend Setterz shop. During those inspections, Mr. Johnson observed Mr. Giscard Rousseau performing barbering services inside the Trend Setterz establishment. He specifically observed Mr. Rousseau cutting hair for compensation. He also overheard Mr. Rousseau telling at least one customer not to pay him in the presence of Mr. Johnson so he could not be accused of barbering for compensation without a license. Mr. Rousseau was not licensed as a barber by the Florida Barber's Board at the time of the inspections and with regard to the time period represented by the charges in the Administrative Complaint against the shop owner and operator, Mr. Harris. Later, after the pertinent time period represented by the charges in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Rousseau indeed achieved licensure as a barber by the Florida Barber's Board, on September 12, 2006. That license is current and active through July 31, 2008. Chand Harris, however, as well as Trend Setterz, is not and never has been licensed by the Barber Board respectively as a barber or as a barber shop.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Department of Business and Profession Regulation, Board of Barbers, finding the Respondent guilty of the charges in the Administrative Complaint and assessing an administrative penalty in the amount of $1,000.00, due and payable to the Barber Board, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date a final order herein is filed with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Tiffany A. Harrington, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Chand Harris 16330 Southwest 17th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34473 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the Petitioner's witness and his demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: During times material herein, Respondent was a licensed barber and the holder of license number BB 0006222. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2) During November of 1982, Petitioner's inspector, Steven Granowitz, made a routine inspection of barbershops with delinquent licenses. During the course of these routine inspections, Inspector Granowitz inspected the Broadway Barbershop which was being operated by the Respondent, Mary E. Smith. During the course of his inspection, Inspector Granowitz identified himself and asked to inspect the Respondent's current-active barber's license. Initially, Respondent related to Inspector Granowitz that her license had either been stolen or misplaced and that she could not keep track of the license. During the course of Inspector Granowitz's inspection, there were approximately four customers present and Inspector Granowitz's observation led him to believe that the Respondent had been continuously operating the barbershop without a license. It is so found. An examination of the documentary evidence introduced reveals that during 1979 Florida barbershop license number BS 0005766 was issued to the Respondent to operate the Broadway Barbershop located at 1133 NW 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The Respondent did not timely renew Florida barbershop license number BS 0005766. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Following the inspection during November 30, 1982, by Inspector Granowitz, Respondent applied for a new barbershop license for the Broadway Barbershop and on December 13, 1982, Florida barbershop license number BA 0005766 was issued to the Respondent for the Broadway Barbershop. (Testimony of Granowitz and Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6 and 7).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Barbers' Board impose an administrative fine of $500.00 on Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 8th day of February 1984.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was issued barber license number BB-0012083 on June 26, 1959, and has been continuously licensed as a barber since that time. No previous disciplinary action has been initiated or taken against Respondent's license. Barber shop license number BS-0008388 was issued to Respondent on October 10, 1984, but expired on October 1, 1986. A late renewal was issued for Respondent's barber shop license on February 1, 1988, and he currently has a valid barber shop license. Respondent does not dispute that he operated his barber shop at 1010 Grace Street, Tampa, Florida, between October 1, 1986 and February 1, 1988 while shop license BS-0008388 was expired. He was specifically observed by Petitioner's investigator to be operating said shop without a current valid license on January 23, 1988. It is the position of Respondent that he sent the renewal fee for his license, but it was either lost in the mail or incorrectly applied to someone else's license. However, no proof was offered by Respondent to support his claim. He testified that he sent his renewal fee by October, 1986, but the check stub he introduced shows a date of June 11, 1987. Additionally, he offered no explanation of the discrepancy in his testimony that he never received any notice to renew from Petitioner prior to October, 1986, and his contention that he mailed the renewal fee in a timely manner. Based upon a review of the evidence, including the witnesses' demeanor, it is found that Respondent failed to apply for renewal of his barber shop license and operated his barber shop without a current valid license from October, 1986 to February, 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner impose a $50.00 administrative fine against Respondent for operating a barber shop without a current valid license. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 7th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1795 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald Jones, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Willie Mitchell, Jr. 1010 Grace Street Tampa, Florida 33607 Myrtle Aace, Executive Director Barbers Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
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.
Findings Of Fact Antonio Castellano has been a master barber for more than 30 years and has been continuously licensed as a barber in Florida since 1970 (Exhibit 1). The International Inn Barber Shop is located on the ground floor of the International Inn at 3705 Henderson Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, which is owned by William A. Watson. There are three barber chairs in this shop, and all fixtures in the barber shop are owned by Watson. The barber shop has been licensed by Watson since 1982. The last license issued to Watson for this shop was issued December 4, 1986 to expire September 30, 1988 (Exhibit 3). Since 1982, Watson has hired barbers to operate the shop on commission. However, this has not proved satisfactory, and Watson concluded to lease the shop and have the lessee responsible for the various licenses required. In carrying out this plan, a LEASE (Exhibit 5) was entered into between Watson and Respondent on July 31, 1987, which provided Castellano would be totally responsible for the operation of this shop and would obtain the necessary city and state licenses required. The lease commenced August 1, 1987. This barber shop was inspected on or about November 18, 1987, by Judy Denchfield, an inspector from the Department of Professional Regulation. When told by Respondent that he was the lessor, Denchfield, without looking at the lease and aware that the shop license issued to Watson was posted in the shop and had not expired, assumed Respondent was the owner of the shop for licensing purposes and cited Respondent for violating Sections 476.204(1)(b) and 476.194(1)(e)1, Florida Statutes. These proceedings duly followed.
Findings Of Fact Joanne Fletcher answered the telephone the day Eddie Dingler called The Summit Men's Hair Barbershop (Summit I) asking for work. He said he was Roffler- and Sebring-trained and that he held barber's licenses both in Alabama and in Florida. Ms. Fletcher relayed this message to respondent Donald C. Allgood. At the time, Mr. Allgood was half-owner of The Summit IV, and respondent Don Pettis owned the other half. Mr. Allgood had no ownership interest in Summit I, which was licensed to Mr. Pettis. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Allgood acted as a sort of manager at Summit I the two or three days of the week he spent there, even though he was technically an independent contractor, working on commissions. Respondents had worked with each other for some seven years. The parties stipulated that respondent Donald C. Allgood "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0021833" and that respondent Don Pettis "is a barber having been issued license number BB 0011546." One Monday morning Eddie Dingler appeared in person at Summit I and talked to respondent Allgood about employment. Mr. Allgood called respondent Pettis, then took Dingler to respondent Pettis's house, where Ron Pettis was also present. Dingler told this group that he was licensed both in Florida and in Alabama and that he was conversant with the Roffler and Sebring tonsorial techniques. He was specifically asked whether he had a Florida license, and he answered affirmatively. He was not asked to produce the license certificate itself or the wallet-sized card that licensed barbers are issued. Barbers are under no requirement to carry this card on their persons. Respondent Pettis asked respondent Allgood to observe Dingler cutting hair and to hire him if he cut hair satisfactorily. Dingler was engaged as a barber on a commission basis. He proved to be a highly competent hair stylist, and "excellent barber," from a technical standpoint. Posted in is station at Summit I was what appeared to be a valid Florida barber's license with Dingler's name and photograph: he was wearing eye, glasses and a yellow shirt. Aside from the respondents, five witnesses saw this barber's license, which was counterfeit. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent Pettis remembered noticing a number of plaques on the wall at Dingler's station in Summit I, including something that looked like Dingler's license. Mr. Allgood was unable to say that he had specifically seen Dingler's barber's license at any time before Dingler gathered up his things to leave after being discharged from employment. After Dingler had worked at Summit I for about three months respondent Allgood asked him if he would like to work Mondays (when Summit I was closed at Summit IV. Dingler was Interested and reported for work at Summit IV the following Monday. Michael NcNeill let him in the barbershop ,and noticed what appeared to be an official Florida barber's license among Dingler's effects. After Mr. McNeill had left the Summit IV premises, Dingler allegedly sexually assaulted a 17-year-old patron. When respondent Allgood learned of this, he told victim's father that he would fire Dingler and do what he could to see that Dingler's barber's license was revoked. Dingler was discharged the day after the alleged assault. In discussing the matter with a law enforcement officer, respondent Allgood suggested that the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) be notified so that proceedings to revoke Dingler's barber's license could be instituted. On November 24, 1980, Mr. Allgood voluntarily presented himself for an interview by Charles Deckert, an investigator for DPR. He assumed Mr. Deckert was developing a case so that action against Dingler could be taken. He learned in the interview for the first time that Dingler had never been licensed in Florida as a barber or a registered barber's assistant, according to DPR's records. In preparing the foregoing findings of fact, petitioner's proposed findings of fact and memorandum of law and respondents' proposed order have been considered, and the proposed statement and findings of fact have been adopted in substance.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner refrain from taking action against respondents on account of this technical violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 28th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia Grinsted, Esquire Post Office Drawer 915 Shalimar, Florida 32579 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Barbars Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
