Login | June 29, 2025
Bill would no longer mandate managing cosmetologist licenses for hair salons
TIFFANY L. PARKS
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 22, 2015
The Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee has heard a wave of testimony for and against a bill that would revise Ohio’s cosmetology licensing standards.
The proposed legislation, Senate Bill 213, is jointly sponsored by Sens. Kris Jordan, R-Ostrander, and Charleta Tavares, D-Bexley.
The measure would establish boutique services as a separate branch of cosmetology and would require each individual wishing to practice that branch to register with the State Board of Cosmetology.
Under the bill, “boutique services,” would include braiding, threading, eye lash extension services and any other beauty service designated by the cosmetology board.
The “practice of braiding” would be defined as utilizing the technique of intertwining hair in a systematic motion to create patterns in a three-dimensional form, including patterns that are inverted, upright or singled against the scalp that follow along straight or curved partings.
It may include twisting or locking the hair while adding bulk or length with human hair, synthetic hair or both and using simple devices such as clips, combs and hairpins.
If enacted, SB 213 would prohibit an individual from practicing a branch of cosmetology in a location other than a licensed facility unless the individual is exempt from the cosmetology law.
The Ohio Association of Beauticians has soundly urged lawmakers to stop the bill’s progress.
“We feel these bills are bad for the small businesses that cosmetologist have, in general, but definitely feel African-American cosmetologists will be harmed by making hairbraiding a registered business,” said OAB President Jesse James Lowe II.
“Why are our businesses targeted?”
Among its other aims, SB 213 would prohibit an individual from using cosmetology to treat or attempt to cure a physical or mental disease or ailment.
The proposal also would create additional penalties for an individual who uses or possesses a prohibited substance at a school of cosmetology or salon.
With regard to licensing, the bill would require newly-licensed individuals with no cosmetology work history to complete a six-month apprenticeship before working in a salon without supervision.
“The efforts that go into training a student to become a professional cannot be replaced by a working salon cosmetologist through apprenticeship,” said Melissa Neal, a licensed cosmetology manager and cosmetology instructor.
“They have many responsibilities in running a small business and this will be an unnecessary burden they have no idea is coming at them.”
In opponent testimony to the bill, Neal questioned if working cosmetologists have been polled to learn if they are in favor of the bill’s provisions.
“This may work for large chains with hundreds of employees but that type of salon is very much in the minority,” she said.
“Taking the education out of a license and setting a lower standard to be met discredits all of the educated professionals who strive to be the best.”
SB 213 would require an applicant for a salon operator’s license to affirm that the applicant will post a toll-free number and online process for customers to report violations of the cosmetology law and ensure compliance with the bill’s apprenticeship requirement.
The proposal would eliminate managing cosmetology licenses and would end the requirement that every salon have a managing cosmetologist present during open hours of business.
Advanced cosmetology licenses would be created to replace managing cosmetology licenses.
The bill would modify application and licensing procedures for cosmetology licenses and increase various fees charged by the board.
The board would be authorized to develop and administer its own examinations or contract with a national testing service to develop or administer examinations.
In general, the bill would expand the list of activities covered under the practice of aesthetics to include enhancement of the skin by skin care, facials, body treatments, hair removal and other treatments.
The measure would clarify the list of activities covered by the practice of manicuring to include cleaning, trimming, shaping the free edge of or applying polish to any individual’s nails and using lotions or softeners on an individual’s hands or feet.
SB 213 also would allow the cosmetology board to investigate and inspect individuals and premises of a person who is alleged to have violated the cosmetology law, regardless of whether that person is licensed by the board.
Salon owner Clara Osterhage said Ohio is currently operating under antiquated laws that are not business friendly.
“SB 213 is a solid start to bringing the laws that govern the cosmetology industry here in Ohio to a contemporary state,” she said.
“SB 213 is specifically focused on preparing the industry for long-term sustainability as a licensed profession in Ohio.”
Osterhage, who has been a franchise owner with Great Clips for 20 years, noted that she’s a job provider for nearly 60 of Ohio’s 11,573 licensed salons.
“Our licensed employees count on me to provide them with the opportunity to earn a good living. It is an obligation that I embrace. I spend my days working to make their opportunities greater and their earnings better,” she said.
“I also work very hard to remove obstacles that get in the way of those goals.”
Osterhage said Ohio is the only state that has a managing cosmetologist license.
“Even I am not qualified to be in charge of or provide immediate supervision over my salons in spite of my 20 years of experience in this business. That makes no sense,” she said.
“In the same way that an MBA is helpful to run a business but is not a necessity, the curriculum for the manager license could be helpful to new business owners, but it should never be required.”
Osterhage said licensees generally seek jobs that will provide them with technical experience and put them in a position to learn on the job.
“We don’t need cosmetology candidates who are knowledgeable about lease negotiations or financial statements. The necessity of a manager’s license mandate must be removed from Ohio’s law,” she said.
“It is a job-entry barrier. It is a salon owner albatross. It serves no logical purpose.”