Source: http://www.ij.org/nevada-makeup-backgrounder-2
Timestamp: 2014-07-24 21:29:09
Document Index: 454439087

Matched Legal Cases: ['in fine', '§ 644', '§ 644', '§ 644', '§ 644', '§ 644', '§ 644']

Nevada Makeup - Backgrounder	Read more on this case
Putting a New Face on Liberty:
Nevada Makeup Artists Fight for Their Right to Teach
Nevada law recognizes that makeup artists are different from cosmetologists—who focus on cutting and styling hair, cleansing and caring for the skin, and manicures—by exempting them from the state’s cosmetology licensing scheme. Yet both women could face fines of up to $2,000 for doing nothing more than teaching makeup artistry without a cosmetology instructor’s license and not operating their makeup artistry schools as state-licensed schools of cosmetology. Makeup artistry includes the theory, technique and application of makeup for the retail and entertainment industries. Makeup artistry encompasses a broad range of skills and techniques not taught in cosmetology schools including, but not limited to, advanced color theory, applying different types of stage and high-definition film makeup, and the use of an airbrush machine.
Lissette Waugh and Wendy Robin are makeup artists based in Las Vegas, Nevada, who have a combined 40 years of experience working in the entertainment industry. Lissette opened L Makeup Institute and Wendy opened Studio W to teach aspiring makeup artists the art and artistry of applying makeup for the film, television, retail and fashion industries. But the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology is trying to silence the two entrepreneurs by shutting down their schools. Nevada law recognizes that makeup artists are different from cosmetologists—who focus on cutting and styling hair, cleansing and caring for the skin, and manicures—by exempting them from the state’s cosmetology licensing scheme. Yet each woman could be subject to up to $2,000 in fines for doing nothing more than teaching makeup artistry without a cosmetology instructor’s license and not operating her makeup artistry school as a state-licensed school of cosmetology. If anyone can practice makeup artistry in Nevada, then anyone should be free to teach it. Wendy and Lissette do not teach cosmetology and their classes do not satisfy any of Nevada’s required coursework to obtain a cosmetology license. The Board’s decision to force Lissette and Wendy to obtain cosmetology instructor’s licenses means they would need to spend hundreds of dollars and around 700 hours of training in subjects that have nothing to do with makeup artistry.[1] Additionally, they would have to convert their makeup artistry schools into full-scale cosmetology schools, meaning that they would have to teach irrelevant courses on things like hair coloring, facials and manicuring and install useless equipment like shampoo bowls, facial chairs and manicure tables.[2] The Board’s actions do not make any sense because makeup artists are exempt from Nevada’s cosmetology licensing scheme.[3] Cosmetology is different from makeup artistry and cosmetology schools do not teach makeup artistry. If the Board has its way, Wendy and Lissette will either have to stop teaching makeup artistry, or they will have to obtain licenses and start teaching classes that have nothing to do with makeup artistry. But there is no valid reason for the Board to force makeup artistry schools to teach cosmetology.
That is why on June 19, 2012, Lissette and Wendy teamed up with the Institute for Justice, a national public interest law firm that protects the rights of entrepreneurs, to file a federal constitutional lawsuit against the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology. They seek to vindicate their constitutional rights to teach and to earn an honest living by operating their businesses as they see fit without having to comply with an arbitrarily applied government licensing scheme. Nevada’s Cosmetology Licensing Scheme
Lissette and Wendy recognized that aesthetics and cosmetology schools do not teach makeup artistry. That is why they opened their own schools: to prepare aspiring makeup artists to work in the entertainment, print-photography, advertising and retail industries. Lissette opened L Makeup Institute in April 2010. She learned makeup artistry at a specialized makeup artistry school in California, and over the past 20 years she has had a successful career as a celebrity makeup artist at fashion shows and photo shoots in Las Vegas. She was also the makeup director at the Bellagio and has worked with many high-profile clients including Salma Hayek, Paris Hilton and Arnold Schwarzenegger, among others. Wendy opened Studio W in Honolulu, Hawaii, in 2003, and she opened a second, temporary location in Henderson, Nev., in 2010 with plans to move into a larger permanent location. Wendy trained as a makeup artist in Hollywood and has over 20 years of experience working with celebrities, including Matt Damon, Carmen Electra and James Earl Jones. She has also worked on many television shows, movies, and music videos, including “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and “Beverly Hills: 90210.”[7] Shut Up, or Shut Down
Wendy closed her temporary location in Nevada because of the Board’s demands, and now offers only small classes in rented space at irregular intervals. Despite the interest in and popularity of her class, Wendy could not risk investing in a large permanent location under the Board’s looming threat to shut her down. Absent the Board’s actions, Wendy would secure a permanent location and begin offering classes again on a regular basis. Government Needs to Get Out of the Way
Imposing Nevada’s cosmetology requirements on Lissette and Wendy makes no sense because they do not teach—and do not want to teach—cosmetology. Sadly, lawmakers often impose occupational licensing laws like Nevada’s that broadly define a regulated occupation and give state boards the power to enforce these licensing schemes. Even more troubling, state boards are controlled by members of the licensed industry who have a financial incentive to enforce the law to fence out any new business they perceive as a competitive threat.[10] Examples of this all-too-common phenomenon include traditional African hairbraiding and eyebrow threading. These safe and natural centuries-old techniques are not taught in cosmetology schools, but state cosmetology boards often require braiders and threaders to obtain cosmetology licenses to practice. Overbroad licensing laws like Nevada’s cosmetology licensing scheme force entrepreneurs out of business by requiring them to comply with onerous, arbitrary and unnecessary requirements. By cutting the bottom rungs off the proverbial economic ladder, occupational licensing stifles creativity and entrepreneurship and prevents individuals—especially women and minorities[11]—from climbing to the top.
A 2012 Institute for Justice report titled License to Work[12] examined state occupational licensing laws for low- and moderate-income occupations. It found that Nevada ranks among the nation’s most burdensome places to work.[13] The report, which examined 102 licensed occupations, including makeup artists,[14] in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, measured the burdens imposed by these licensing laws and concluded that the licensing of lower-income occupations is not only widespread and onerous but also irrational and arbitrary.[15] Nevada requires a license for 55 of the 102 occupations the Institute studied, making it one of the most broadly and onerously licensed states.[16] The report found that Nevada is the most expensive state in which to work in a licensed low-or moderate-income occupation, with average fees of $505.[17] It also requires an average of 601 days of education and experience and two exams, resulting in the third most burdensome licensing laws.[18] Oftentimes, the severity of the licensure requirements is not warranted by the nature of the work. Legal Challenge: Defending Freedom of Speech and Economic Liberty
Shira RawlinsonCommunications Coordinator901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900Arlington, VA 22203(703) 682-9320 ext. 229srawlinson@ij.org [1] Nev. Rev. Stat. § 644.1955.
[2] Id. §§ 644.190, .080, .395, .400, .117, .380. [3] Id. § 644.190(4) (“A person employed to render cosmetological services in the course of and incidental to the production of a motion picture, television program, commercial or advertisement is exempt from the licensing requirements of this chapter if he or she renders cosmetological services only to persons who will appear in that motion picture, television program, commercial or advertisement.”); id. § 644.460(d), (e) (exempting from the cosmetology licensing scheme “[r]etailers, at a retail establishment . . . when engaged in the demonstration of cosmetics” and “[p]hotographers or their employees . . . if the photographer or his or her employee does not advertise cosmetological services and provides cosmetics without charge to the customer.”).
[8] Under Nevada law, an individual must be a licensed cosmetology or aesthetics instructor to teach any branch of cosmetology in a licensed cosmetology school. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 644.190, .193. But makeup artistry is not a branch of cosmetology. [9] Id. § 644.460(d).
[14] Thirty six states license makeup artists, usually by including makeup artistry in the definition of either cosmetology or aesthetics. Only one state—Louisiana—has a separate license specifically for makeup artists. Id. at 165. [15] Id. at 33.