Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Board of Cosmetologists
300 A.2d 367, 268 Md. 32 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that prohibits schools of beauty culture from charging for services rendered by students, allowing them only to charge for the actual cost of materials, is a valid exercise of the state's police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Facts:
- In 1935, the Maryland Legislature enacted laws to regulate the occupation of hairdressers and beauty culturists, which originally prohibited beauty schools from making any charge for student treatments or materials.
- In 1947, the Legislature amended the law, permitting students with over 500 hours of training to perform clinical work on the public.
- This 1947 amendment also changed the pricing rule, allowing schools to charge for the 'actual cost of materials used' but continuing the prohibition on charging for the service itself.
- In 1961, the Legislature added a provision making it unlawful for any school to advertise a list of prices for student services outside the school building.
- For many years following the 1947 amendment, the State Board of Cosmetology did not enforce the statute's pricing restrictions.
- On March 6, 1962, a newly-constituted Board of Cosmetology sent a letter to private beauty schools in Maryland, instructing them to reduce their prices to comply with the 'cost of materials' provision.
- This action prompted fifteen private beauty schools and the Maryland Association of Beauty Schools, Inc. to challenge the law.
Procedural Posture:
- The Maryland Association of Beauty Schools, Inc. and fifteen private schools filed a petition in the Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City against the State Board of Cosmetology.
- The schools sought a declaration that Article 43, § 537 was unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent its enforcement.
- The trial court issued an interlocutory injunction against the Board to maintain the status quo.
- After the Board's demurrer was overruled and its Answer was filed, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The Chancellor (trial court judge) denied the schools' motion for summary judgment and granted the Board's motion.
- The Chancellor's decree declared that Article 43, § 537(a) was constitutional, but retained jurisdiction to refer the issue of defining 'cost of materials' to the Board for rulemaking.
- The schools (appellants) appealed the decree upholding the statute's constitutionality to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute that prohibits beauty schools from charging for services performed by students and limits charges to the cost of materials used constitute an unconstitutional exercise of the state's police power?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Donnell, J.
No, the statute is a constitutional exercise of the state's police power. The regulation of cosmetology is directly related to public health and safety due to the use of chemicals, dyes, and electrical apparatuses. The legislature could rationally conclude that limiting charges to the cost of materials ensures that beauty schools prioritize their primary function of education over operating as commercial, 'cut-rate' beauty shops. This restriction fosters a better learning environment by removing the pressure on students to please paying clients, thereby allowing for more effective instruction. Furthermore, the statute prevents schools from circumventing licensing laws that prohibit unlicensed individuals from practicing cosmetology for compensation. The court rejected the appellants' argument of estoppel, holding that the state cannot be prevented from enforcing a public welfare statute due to the prior inaction or apathy of its administrative agents.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the broad scope of a state's police power to regulate professions to protect the public, even when such regulations impose significant economic constraints on businesses. The ruling establishes that a state's interest in maintaining the educational integrity of vocational schools and ensuring the competence of future practitioners is a legitimate basis for what is effectively price control. The court's firm rejection of the estoppel and laches claims against the state is a critical takeaway, affirming that government agencies do not forfeit their authority to enforce public welfare laws simply through a period of non-enforcement. This precedent strengthens the hand of regulatory bodies and puts regulated industries on notice that they cannot rely on historical administrative inaction as a defense against future enforcement.
