Before the

Administrative Hearing Commission
State of Missouri
STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY !
!
"etitioner !
!
vs# ! $o# %&'(()* CS
!
OL+,+A DESO-.A and "E$DA $D+AYE !
d/0/a OL+,+A1S BRA+DER+E !
!
Res2ondents# !
DECISION
The 3osmeto4og5 sho2 4i3ense of O4ivia1s Braiderie 67the Sho28! 9hi3h is he4d 05 O4ivia
Desou:a and "enda $dia5e is su0;e3t to dis3i24ine for a44o9ing the un4i3ensed 2ra3ti3e of
3osmeto4og5#
Procedure
On August *< *%%& the State Board of Cosmeto4og5 67the Board8! fi4ed a 3om24aint
see=ing to dis3i24ine the Sho21s 4i3ense# On O3to0er < *%%& Desou:a 9as served 9ith a 3o25
of the 3om24aint and our noti3e of 3om24aint/noti3e of hearing 05 2ersona4 servi3e# On
$ovem0er ( *%%& $dia5e 9as served 9ith a 3o25 of the 3om24aint and our noti3e of
3om24aint/noti3e of hearing 05 3ertified mai4#
On >anuar5 (? *%%) Desou:a fi4ed an ans9er# On Ma5 (@ *%%) 9e he4d a hearing on
the 3om24aint# Assistant Attorne5 Genera4 >amie ># CoA re2resented the Board# Ange4a
Ha0ee0u44ah re2resented Desou:a# $either $dia5e nor an5one re2resenting her a22eared or fi4ed
a res2onse# The matter 0e3ame read5 for our de3ision on August (@ *%%) the date the 4ast 0rief
9as due#
At the hearing the Board offered the reBuest for admissions that it served on Desou:a
and $dia5e# Desou:a ans9ered the reBuest on Mar3h (C *%%)# $dia5e fai4ed to res2ond to the
reBuest served on her# Desou:a did not o0;e3t and 9e admitted the t9o reBuests for admissions
as "etitioner1s EAhi0its & and ) res2e3tive45#
Therefore 9e have 0efore us Desou:a1s res2onses to the reBuest for admissions and
$dia5e1s fai4ure to res2ond to the reBuest for admissions# Desou:a fai4ed to res2ond to one
reBuest for admission D that she 9as 0raiding hair for 3om2ensation#
(
-nder Su2reme Court
Ru4e )@#%( the fai4ure to ans9er a reBuest for admissions esta04ishes the matters asserted in the
reBuest and no further 2roof is reBuired#
*
Su3h a deemed admission 3an esta04ish an5 fa3t or
7a224i3ation of the fa3ts to the 4a9 or the truth of the u4timate issue o2inion or 3on34usion so
4ong as the o2inion 3a44ed for is not an a0stra3t 2ro2osition of 4a9#8
?
That ru4e a224ies to a44
2arties in34uding those a3ting pro se#
&
Se3tion )?<#%C?
)
and our Regu4ation ( CSR ()'?#&*%6(!
a2245 that ru4e to this 3ase# The fo44o9ing fa3ts are undis2uted#
<
(
ReBuest for Admissions E()#
*
Killian Constr. Co. v. Tri-City Constr. Co# <@? S#F#*d G(@ G*C 6Mo# A22# F#D# (@G)!#
?
Briggs v. King C(& S#F#*d <@& <@C 6Mo# A22# F#D# (@G<!#
&
Research Hosp. v. Williams <)( S#F#*d <<C <<@ 6Mo# A22# F#D# (@G?!#
)
Statutor5 referen3es un4ess other9ise noted are to the *%%% Revised Statutes of Missouri#
<
+n some 3ases Desou:a denied admissions as to $dia5e 0e3ause she fai4ed to res2ond# Fe do not 3onsider
these to 0e esta04ished undis2uted fa3ts#
*
Findings of Fact
(# Desou:a and $dia5e ho4d a 3osmeto4og5 sho2 4i3ense for the Sho2 and o2erate it as a
3osmeto4og5 sa4on# The Sho21s 4i3ense is 3urrent and a3tive#
*# The Sho2 is 4o3ated at *% East ?@
th
Street Hansas Cit5 Missouri#
?# Desou:a and $dia5e 9ere 2artners 9ho 3o'o9ned the Sho2#
&# On or a0out >u45 ? *%%? Desou:a fi4ed Arti34es of +n3or2oration 9ith the Missouri
Se3retar5 of State in3or2orating O4ivia1s Braiderie +n3# O4ivia1s Braiderie +n3# does not
3urrent45 ho4d and has never he4d a Missouri 3osmeto4og5 sho2 4i3ense#
)# On A2ri4 @ *%%? the Board 3ondu3ted an ins2e3tion at the Sho2#
<# On A2ri4 @ *%%? Desou:a 9as 0raiding hair for 3om2ensation at the Sho2# Desou:a
did not have a 4i3ense to 2ra3ti3e 3osmeto4og5 in Missouri#
C# On A2ri4 @ *%%? Ade4 Camara 9as 0raiding hair for 3om2ensation at the Sho2#
C

Camara did not have a 4i3ense to 2ra3ti3e 3osmeto4og5 in Missouri#
G# The Board1s ins2e3tor eA24ained that Desou:a $dia5e and Camara 3ou4d not
2erform 3osmeto4og5 servi3es su3h as hair 0raiding for 3om2ensation 9ithout a 4i3ense#
G
@# On >une (% *%%? the Board 3ondu3ted an ins2e3tion at the Sho2#
(%# On >une (% *%%? Desou:a 9as 0raiding hair for 3om2ensation at the Sho2#
@
She did
not have a 4i3ense to 2ra3ti3e 3osmeto4og5 in Missouri#
((# The Board1s ins2e3tor again eA24ained that Desou:a 3ou4d not 2erform 3osmeto4og5
servi3es 9ithout a 4i3ense#
(%
C
"et1r EA# & ReBuest for Admissions E ()# Desou:a did not admit or den5 this reBuest to admit that she 9as
0raiding hair for 3om2ensation#
G
"et1r EA# *#
@
"et1r EA# & ReBuest for Admissions E *&# Desou:a admitted that she 9as 0raiding hair for 3om2ensation#
(%
"et1r EA# ?#
?
Conclusions of Law
Fe have ;urisdi3tion to hear this 3ase#
((
The Board has the 0urden of 2roving that
Res2ondents have 3ommitted an a3t for 9hi3h the 4a9 a44o9s dis3i24ine#
(*
Statutes and 3ase 4a9
instru3t us that 9e must 7se2arate45 and inde2endent458 determine 9hether the esta04ished fa3ts
3onstitute 3ause for dis3i24ine#
(?
Therefore 9e inde2endent45 assess 9hether the fa3ts admitted
are 3ause for dis3i24ine under the 4a9 3ited#
The Board argues that there is 3ause for dis3i24ine under I ?*@#(&% 9hi3h statesJ
*# The 0oard ma5 3ause a 3om24aint to 0e fi4ed 9ith the
administrative hearing 3ommission as 2rovided 05 3ha2ter <*(
RSMo against an5 ho4der of an5 3ertifi3ate of registration or
authorit5 2ermit or 4i3ense reBuired 05 this 3ha2ter or an5 2erson
9ho has fai4ed to rene9 or has surrendered the 2erson1s 3ertifi3ate
of registration or authorit5 2ermit or 4i3ense for an5 one or an5
3om0ination of the fo44o9ing 3ausesJ
K K K
6)! +n3om2eten3e mis3ondu3t gross neg4igen3e fraud
misre2resentation or dishonest5 in the 2erforman3e of the
fun3tions or duties of an5 2rofession 4i3ensed or regu4ated 05 this
3ha2terL
6<! ,io4ation of or assisting or ena04ing an5 2erson to
vio4ate an5 2rovision of this 3ha2ter or of an5 4a9fu4 ru4e or
regu4ation ado2ted 2ursuant to this 3ha2terL
K K K
6(%! Assisting or ena04ing an5 2erson to 2ra3ti3e or offer to
2ra3ti3e an5 2rofession 4i3ensed or regu4ated 05 this 3ha2ter 9ho is
not 4i3ensed and 3urrent45 e4igi04e to 2ra3ti3e under this 3ha2terL
K K K
6(?! ,io4ation of an5 2rofessiona4 trust or 3onfiden3eM#N
((
Se3tion <*(#%&)#
(*
Missouri Real Estate Comm’n v. Berger C<& S#F#*d C%< C(( 6Mo# A22# E#D# (@G@!#
(?
Kennedy v. Missouri Real Estate Commission C<* S#F#*d &)& &)<')C 6Mo# A22# E#D# (@GG!#
&
Su0divisions 6<! and 6(%!
The Board argues that Res2ondents vio4ated the 4a9 and assisted in the un4i3ensed
2ra3ti3e of 3osmeto4og5#
(&
Se3tion ?*@#%?% statesJ
+t is un4a9fu4 for an5 2erson in this state to engage in the
o33u2ation of 3osmeto4og5 or to o2erate an esta04ishment or
s3hoo4 of 3osmeto4og5 un4ess su3h 2erson has first o0tained a
4i3ense as 2rovided 05 this 3ha2ter#
Se3tion ?*@#%(% RSMo Su22# *%%& defines 3osmeto4og5 as fo44o9sJ
6&! “Cosmetology” in34udes 2erforming or offering to
engage in an5 a3ts of the 34assified o33u2ations of 3osmeto4og5 for
3om2ensation 9hi3h sha44 in34udeJ
6a! “Class CH!airdresser” in34udes arranging dressing
3ur4ing singeing 9aving 2ermanent 9aving 34eansing 3utting
04ea3hing tinting 3o4oring or simi4ar 9or= u2on the hair of an5
2erson 05 an5 meansL or removing su2erf4uous hair from the 0od5
of an5 2erson 05 means other than e4e3tri3it5 or an5 other means
of ar3hing or tinting e5e0ro9s or tinting e5e4ashes# C4ass CH'
hairdresser a4so in34udes an5 2erson 9ho either 9ith the 2erson1s
hands or 9ith me3hani3a4 or e4e3tri3a4 a22aratuses or a224ian3es
or 05 the use of 3osmeti3 2re2arations antise2ti3s toni3s 4otions
or 3reams engages for 3om2ensation in an5 one or an5
3om0ination of the fo44o9ingJ massaging 34eaning stimu4ating
mani2u4ating eAer3ising 0eautif5ing or simi4ar 9or= u2on the
s3a42 fa3e ne3= arms or 0ustL
60! “Class "O manicurist” in34udes 3utting trimming
2o4ishing 3o4oring tinting 34eaning or other9ise 0eautif5ing a
2erson1s fingernai4s a2245ing artifi3ia4 fingernai4s massaging
34eaning a 2erson1s hands and armsL 2edi3uring 9hi3h in34udes
3utting trimming 2o4ishing 3o4oring tinting 34eaning or
other9ise 0eautif5ing a 2erson1s toenai4s a2245ing artifi3ia4
toenai4s massaging and 34eaning a 2erson1s 4egs and feetL
63! “Class C# !airdressing and manicuring” in34udes
a44 2ra3ti3es of 3osmeto4og5 as defined in 2aragra2hs 6a! and 60!
of this su0divisionL
(&
$dia5e is deemed to have admitted that the 3ondu3t demonstrated in3om2eten3e gross neg4igen3e
misre2resentation and dishonest5# Desou:a s2e3ifi3a445 denied this# Fe a33e2t Desou:a1s denia4 over $dia5e1s
deemed admissions# +n an5 event as noted a0ove 9e inde2endent45 assess 9hether the fa3ts admitted are 3ause for
dis3i24ine under the 4a9 3ited#
)
6d! “Class E est!eticians” in34udes the use of
me3hani3a4 e4e3tri3a4 a22aratuses or a224ian3es or 05 the use of
3osmeti3 2re2arations antise2ti3s toni3s 4otions or 3reams not to
eA3eed ten 2er3ent 2heno4 engages for 3om2ensation either
dire3t45 or indire3t45 in an5 one or an5 3om0ination of the
fo44o9ing 2ra3ti3esJ massaging 34eansing stimu4ating
mani2u4ating eAer3ising 0eautif5ing or simi4ar 9or= u2on the
s3a42 fa3e ne3= ears arms hands 0ust torso 4egs or feet and
removing su2erf4uous hair 05 means other than e4e3tri3 need4e or
an5 other means of ar3hing or tinting e5e0ro9s or tinting
e5e4ashes of an5 2ersonM#N
There is no genuine dis2ute that Res2ondents a44o9ed un4i3ensed individua4s to 2ra3ti3e hair
0raiding at the Sho2 on A2ri4 @ *%%? and >une (% *%%?# Desou:a denies that hair 0raiding is
in34uded in the definition of 3osmeto4og5 0ut 9e disagree# Cosmeto4og5 in34udes 7arranging
dressing # # # 9aving # # # or simi4ar 9or= u2on the hair#8
()
Hair 0raiding fits into this des3ri2tion#
Therefore individua4s 9ere engaging in the 2ra3ti3e of 3osmeto4og5 at the Sho2#
(<
The Board
3ontends and Desou:a and $dia5e admit that the individua4s 9ho 9ere 0raiding hair at the
Sho2 did not have 4i3enses to 2ra3ti3e 3osmeto4og5 in Missouri#
Desou:a and $dia5e vio4ated and assisted and ena04ed un4i3ensed individua4s to vio4ate
I ?*@#%?% 9hi3h reBuires a 4i3ense to 2ra3ti3e 3osmeto4og5# Therefore 3ause eAists to
dis3i24ine the sho2 4i3ense under I ?*@#(&%#*6<! and 6(%!#
Su0division 6)!
The Board argues that a44o9an3e of and assistan3e in the un4i3ensed 2ra3ti3e of
3osmeto4og5 demonstrates mis3ondu3t gross neg4igen3e in3om2eten3e misre2resentation and
dishonest5# Mis3ondu3t is the 9i44fu4 doing of a 9rongfu4 a3t#
(C
Gross neg4igen3e is a deviation
()
Se3tion ?*@#%(%6&!6a! RSMo Su22# *%%&#
(<
This is 3onsistent 9ith our determination in 2rior 3ases# tate Bd. o! Cosmetology v. Bandou and
"ohnson $o# %&'%*%% CS 6>u45 (< *%%&!L tate Bd. o! Cosmetology v. Baya $o# %*'%)<C 6Se2t# ?% *%%*!#
(C
#race v. Missouri #aming Comm’n$ )( S#F#?d G@( @%%'%( 6Mo# A22# F#D# *%%(!#
<
from the standard of 3are so egregious as to demonstrate a 3ons3ious indifferen3e to a
2rofessiona4 dut5#
(G
+n3om2eten3e is a genera4 4a3= of or a 4a3= of dis2osition to use a
2rofessiona4 a0i4it5#
(@
Dishonest5 is a 4a3= of integrit5 or a dis2osition to defraud or de3eive#
*%

Misre2resentation is a fa4sehood or untruth made 9ith the intent and 2ur2ose of de3eit#
*(

Res2ondents had noti3e that the5 shou4d not a44o9 un4i3ensed o2erators to 0raid hair for
3om2ensation# Desou:a 9as 2resent at 0oth ins2e3tions# Des2ite that noti3e and =no94edge
Res2ondents 3ontinued to a44o9 the un4i3ensed 2ra3ti3e of 3osmeto4og5 at the Sho2# Therefore
Res2ondents1 0ehavior 9as intentiona4 and is mis3ondu3t#
The Board a4so a44eges that Res2ondents demonstrated gross neg4igen3e and
in3om2eten3e 05 a44o9ing and assisting this un4i3ensed 2ra3ti3e# Be3ause 9e have a4read5 found
that Res2ondents1 3ondu3t 9as intentiona4 9e do not find that the5 had the 4esser menta4 state of
3ons3ious indifferen3e# Fe find that t9o instan3es of a44o9ing un4i3ensed individua4s to 2ra3ti3e
3osmeto4og5 sho9s a 4a3= of a dis2osition to use a 2rofessiona4 a0i4it5#
The Board a44eges that Res2ondents demonstrated dishonest5 and misre2resentation# Fe
have no eviden3e 9hat Res2ondents to4d their 34ients a0out their 4i3ensure status and the Board
fai4ed to 2rodu3e an5 other eviden3e to su22ort its 34aim# Therefore 9e 3annot ma=e this
determination#
Res2ondents1 a44o9an3e of and assistan3e in the un4i3ensed 2ra3ti3e of 3osmeto4og5
demonstrates mis3ondu3t and in3om2eten3e# Be3ause this un4i3ensed 2ra3ti3e o33urred at the
Sho2 3ause eAists 2ursuant to I ?*@#(&%#*6)! to dis3i24ine the sho2 4i3ense#
(G
%uncan v. Missouri Board. !or &rch’ts$ 'ro!’l Eng’rs ( )and urv’rs C&& S#F#*d )*& )?? 6Mo# A22#
E#D# (@GG!#
(@
"ohnson v. Missouri Bd. o! *ursing &dm’rs (?% S#F#?d <(@ <&* 6Mo# A22# F#D# *%%&!#
*%
MERR+AM'FEBSTER1S COLLEG+ATE D+CT+O$ARY ??? 6(%
th
ed# (@@?!#
*(
Id# at C&&#
C
Su0division 6(?!
The Board argues that Res2ondents vio4ated 2rofessiona4 trust and 3onfiden3e 05
a44o9ing the un4i3ensed 2ra3ti3e of 3osmeto4og5 at the Sho2# "rofessiona4 trust is the re4ian3e on
the s2e3ia4 =no94edge and s=i44s that 2rofessiona4 4i3ensure eviden3es#
**
+t ma5 eAist not on45
0et9een the 2rofessiona4 and his 34ients 0ut a4so 0et9een the 2rofessiona4 and his em24o5er and
3o44eagues#
*?
A44o9ing un4i3ensed 2ra3ti3e is a vio4ation of 2rofessiona4 trust 0e3ause the
genera4 2u04i3 9ou4d 0e4ieve that someone 9or=ing in a sa4on had 3om24eted the 2ro2er training
for 4i3ensure =ne9 the 2ro2er 2ro3edures and 9ou4d 0e res2onsi04e to the Board for an5
vio4ations of the 2ra3ti3e a3t# Therefore 3ause eAists to dis3i24ine the sho2 4i3ense under
I ?*@#(&%#*6(?!#
Summary
The 3osmeto4og5 sho2 4i3ense for the Sho2 he4d 05 Res2ondents is su0;e3t to dis3i24ine
under I ?*@#(&%6)! 6<! 6(%! and 6(?!#
SO ORDERED on Se2tem0er *? *%%)#
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>OH$ ># HO""
Commissioner
**
Trieseler v. Helm+acher (<G S#F#*d (%?% (%?< 6Mo# (@&?!#
*?
Cooper v. Missouri Bd. o! 'harmacy CC& S#F#*d )%( )%& 6Mo# A22# E#D# (@G@!#
G