Court Opinion

ID: 9687911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:52:59.775897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:32.799869
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Justice
(dissenting).
The basic issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of our statutes prohibiting cosmetologists from cutting the hair of males over 11 years of age.
Code § 1S8.2 authorizes only licensed barbers, barber apprentices and barber students to cut hair for cosmetic purposes but provides an exception “that licensed cosmetologists may cut the hair of any female person and of any male person under twelve years of age.” Code § 157.1 includes the cutting of hair of females and children in the practice of cosmetology. °
Division III of the majority opinion treats the due process and constitutional challenge to this prohibition. The due process question is whether the prohibition has a definite and reasonable relationship to its asserted goal to promote public health and safety. City of Osceola v. Blair, 231 Iowa 770, 2 N.W.2d 83 (1942). The equal protection question is whether the classification involved bears a fair and substantial relation to the same goal. Weber v. Aetna Casulty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 172, 92 S.Ct. 1400, 1405, 31 L. Ed.2d 768, 777 (1972). The specific due process question is whether public health and safety is reasonably served by prohibiting cosmetologists from cutting hair of males over 11, and the specific equal protection question is whether public health and safety is served by saying barbers may cut such hair but cosmetologists may not.
I believe the legislature may prohibit cosmetologists from holding themselves out to be barbers and may separately license these trades, but I do not believe the legislature can constitutionally prohibit cosmetologists from practicing cosmetology on males over 11 years old.
Much of the record relied on by the majority is discredited when examined in the light of state department of health regulations governing cosmetology and barbering. The cosmetology regulations, adopted pursuant to Code § 157.6, are found in chapters 149 and 150, Iowa Departmental Rules (1973), and the barbering regulations, adopted pursuant to Code § 158.7, are found in chapters 152 and 153, Iowa Departmental Rules, supra.
Included in the 2100 hour curriculum mandated for approved schools of cosmetology are 60 hours of demonstration and lecture on sanitation and sterilization, 63 hours on hygiene and grooming, 63 hours on anatomy, 42 hours on dermatology, 42 hours on trichology, 70 hours on chemistry and chemical hair straightening, and 42 hours on safety precautions. Also prescribed are 60 hours of practical instruction on sanitation and sterilization, 49 hours on scalp and hair treatments, 210 hours on hair shaping, 315 hours on hair styling, and 49 hours on safety precautions. Iowa Departmental Rules, supra, at 477.
The 1800 hour curriculum mandated for barber schools does not specify the number of hours to be spent on each subject, but requires 361 hours of demonstrations and lecture, 39 hours of physician’s lectures and 1400 hours of practical instruction. Iowa Departmental Rules, supra, at 481.
The sanitary requirements imposed on cosmetologists are at least as stringent as those imposed on barbers. Cosmetology regulations include:
“150.3(157) Sanitation and disinfection. Except as set forth in 150.3(3) all instruments in use in any cosmetology school or place in which cosmetology is practiced shall each time after use, be cleansed thoroughly with soap and hot *559water and then be immersed at least 20 minutes in an approved disinfectant solution in a covered flat container large enough to immerse completely all instruments, after which they should be dried and placed in a closed cabinet. * * *
“150.3(1) Every cosmetologist shall wash his hands with soap and water immediately before serving each patron.
“150.3(2) Head coverings, hair pins, clips, rollers and curlers shall be washed and sanitized after each use as above directed.
“150.3(3) All metallic instruments with a cutting edge shall be kept clean by wiping carefully after each use with cotton saturated with an approved disinfectant solution. * * *
“150.4(157) Towels, containers and other supplies. A clean and freshly laundered towel shall be used for each patron. A closed cabinet or drawer shall be provided for clean towels and linen and a covered hamper for soiled towels and linen. Whenever a haircloth or •cape is used, as in cutting the hair or shampooing, a newly laundered towel or tissue paper neck strip shall be placed around the neck to prevent the haircloth or cape from touching the skin.
“150.4(1) The headrest of every cos- ' metology chair shall be protected with fresh clean paper or cloth before its use for any patron. Rubber protective headrests are not permitted.
“150.4(2) If a gown is used, each patron shall be furnished a freshly laundered gown.
“150.4(3) Every operator shall have a minimum of 12 finger waving combs and brushes.
“150.4(4) The use of dusters, common powder puffs, nail buffers and sponges is hereby prohibited.
“150.5(157) Dispensers. Fluids and powders shall be applied to patrons from a shaker-type or aerosol dispenser. Creams and other semisolid substances shall be removed from the containers with a clean spatula or similar article. Removing such substances with the fingers is prohibited. Creams shall be kept covered when not in use.
“150.6(157) Permanent wave equipment. Spacers and rods, including rods used in cold waving permanent methods, shall be cleansed with soap and hot water after each use and placed in a closed cabinet.
“150.7(157) Haircutting department. Anyone maintaining a haircutting department within a cosmetology establishment shall observe all rules on sanitation as prescribed for cosmetologists.
“150.8(157) Water — sewer. Every cosmetology school or place where cosmetology is practiced shall be supplied with an adequate supply of potable hot and cold water under pressure. Water shall be applied to a patron by the use of a spray. * * * ”
Iowa Departmental Rules, supra, at 480-481.
Plaintiffs’ assertions that cosmetologists lack training in haircutting and that they are not bound by comparable sanitary standards are untenable.
I do not think the legislature has exposed women and children to greater health and safety risks than men in licensing cosmetologists. Nor do I believe there is any physiological basis for saying there is a greater health or safety hazard when cosmetology is practiced on a man than when it is practiced on a woman.
The keystone of plaintiffs’ argument is that barbers are better trained than cosmetologists to cut male hair and therefore the licensing statutes should protect their exclusive right to do so. The record does not support the premise of this argument. Unisex hair styles are in vogue. Barbers have had to adapt their skills accordingly. Cosmetologists were already trained in the styling, shaping and cutting of long hair and have had less adjustment to make.
*560This case would not have arisen had not a substantial number of men come to prefer what cosmetologists do with hair to what barbers do with hair. The sex classification in the licensing statutes serves no other purpose than to foreclose competition. Licensing statutes may not constitutionally be used for such a purpose. See Gregory v. Quarles, 172 Ga. 45, 157 S.E. 306 (1931); 58 Am.Jur.2d Occupations, Trades, and Professions § 2; 16A C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 510.
The question whether barbers are better suited than cosmetologists to cut male hair should be decided in the marketplace rather than the legislature or courts.
I would strike the prohibition of Code § 158.2 against cosmetologists cutting hair of males over 11 years of age, and I would strike the sex limitation of Code § 157.1, on grounds the prohibition and classification involved violate due process and equal protection.
Therefore I would reverse the trial court.
REYNOLDSON, J., joins this dissent.