Bone v. State Board of Cosmetology

275 Cal. App. 2d 851, 80 Cal. Rptr. 164, 1969 Cal. App. LEXIS 1991
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedAugust 26, 1969
DocketCiv. 33194
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 275 Cal. App. 2d 851 (Bone v. State Board of Cosmetology) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bone v. State Board of Cosmetology, 275 Cal. App. 2d 851, 80 Cal. Rptr. 164, 1969 Cal. App. LEXIS 1991 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinions

FILES, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for an injunction against the State Board of Barber Examiners and the State Board of Cosmetology. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, upon the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.

The sole issue is the constitutionality of Business and Professions Code section 6522, as amended in 1967, which provides that a cosmetologist’s license does not authorize the holder to cut hair in an establishment which is primarily engaged in haircutting—i.e.—a barbershop.

Plaintiff is a licensed cosmetologist. He operates two eosmetological establishments under the business name of “Sherman’s Shapers” which specialize in the styling and [853]*853cutting of men’s hair. He alleges that the defendants have threatened to enforce section 6522 against him “civilly, administratively and criminally,” and will thereby force him to discontinue his business unless defendants are enjoined by the court. Although he does not allege the fact, the parties and the trial court appear to have assumed that plaintiff is not a licensed barber, and his business establishments are not managed by a licensed barber.

Enforcement of the statute would make it impossible for plaintiff to continue to operate a business which is essentially a barbershop, using only licensed cosmetologists instead of licensed barbers.

California has long maintained separate licensing systems for cosmetology and for barbering. Each is administered by its own professional board, under its own statute.1 Business and Professions Code section 6520 defines the practice of barbering2 and section 7321 defines the practice of cosmetology.3

Except under certain exclusions and exceptions provided [854]*854in the statute, it is a misdemeanor to practice barbering or cosmetology without a license to do 4

The two licensing boards have prescribed quite different courses of instruction and training as a qualification for licensing.5 Cosmetologists are trained in several subjects not. required of barbers. Student barbers are required to perform 550 operations of haircutting and shaping, as opposed to 75 operations required of cosmetology students.

The statutes recognize that there is some overlapping between the two vocations. Section 7324, in the Cosmetology Act, exempts, among others, “Barbers, insofar as their usual and ordinary vocation and profession is concerned” when engaged in certain enumerated practices. The Attorney General has ruled that this exception does not authorize a licensed barber to practice his profession in a cosmetological establishment. (39 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 66 (1962).)

Section 6522, in the barbering law, read as follows prior to the 1967 amendment: “The provisions of this chapter do not apply to: (a) Persons authorized by the law of this State to practice medicine and surgery or osteopathy or chiropractic or persons holding a drugless practitioner certificate under the laws of this State, (b) Commissioned medical or surgical officers of United States army, navy or marine hospital service, (c) Registered nurses, (d) Persons practicing beauty culture.

“However, the provisions of this section do not authorize any of the persons exempted to shave or trim the beard, or cut the hair of any person for cosmetic purposes except that persons included in subdivision (d) may cut the hair. ’ ’

That section was the subject of comment and judicial interpretation in Mains v. Board of Barber Examiners (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 459 [57 Cal.Rptr. 573]. Mains was not a registered barber, but held a certificate (under Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6549) authorizing him to conduct a barbershop. He was a licensed cosmetologist, and he engaged in cutting hair in his shop. The hoard suspended the barbershop certificate upon the ground that an unlicensed barber was cutting hair therein. It was the board’s position that although the phrase “Persons [855]*855practicing beauty culture” in section 6522 meant “persons licensed to practice cosmetology,” the exception granted by section 6522 did not apply to a cosmetologist who was cutting hair in a barbershop. The majority of the appellate court disagreed, holding that “section 6522 expressly authorizes a licensed beauty-culturist-cosmetologist- to operate in a barbershop. . . .” (249 Cal.App.2d at p. 465.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 2000
Laufenberg v. Cosmetology Examining Board
274 N.W.2d 618 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1979)
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1978
Green v. Shama
217 N.W.2d 547 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1974)
Maryland State Board of Barber Examiners v. Kuhn
312 A.2d 216 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1973)
Bone v. State Board of Cosmetology
275 Cal. App. 2d 851 (California Court of Appeal, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
275 Cal. App. 2d 851, 80 Cal. Rptr. 164, 1969 Cal. App. LEXIS 1991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bone-v-state-board-of-cosmetology-calctapp-1969.