Could Louisiana's cosmetology board bar beauty-school students from working or even visiting licensed salons?

Plain-English summary

The Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology asked about a regulation forbidding beauty-school students from frequenting or working in any licensed salon in any capacity, even a salon owned by the student or family. The board's counsel described concerns about inexperienced students serving customers and students being pressured into unauthorized work, alongside concerns that the rule reached too far.

The 1998 attorney general opinion gave standards for evaluating the rule but did not decide whether it was valid. It said that required factual conclusions the office could not make. The opinion pointed to the board's statutory authority to protect public health and welfare, then asked whether the restriction directly advanced a legitimate governmental interest and whether less restrictive provisions could serve the same interest. It said a regulation supported only remotely or ineffectively by its stated purpose could not be sustained.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Cosmetology board members at the time

The office told the board to evaluate the rule's direct connection to its governmental interest and whether narrower restrictions would serve that interest. It left the needed factual findings to the board.

Cosmetology students at the time

The opinion described the rule as covering salon visits and work in any capacity, including in a family-owned or student-owned salon. It did not determine whether that breadth made the rule unlawful.

Salon owners at the time

The office recounted concerns that owners could pressure students into unauthorized activities. It did not find that such pressure had occurred or decide the validity of the rule on that premise.

Common questions

Q: Did the attorney general invalidate the board's ban on student salon visits?
A: No. The office said the regulation's validity depended on factual determinations it could not make in the opinion.

Q: Did the regulation described in the opinion cover unpaid visits and family salons?
A: The quoted rule forbade students from frequenting or working in any licensed salon in any capacity, even one owned by the student or immediate family.

Q: What review did the opinion tell the board to make?
A: It asked whether the restriction directly advanced a legitimate governmental interest and whether that interest could be served as well with less restrictive provisions.

Background and statutory framework

R.S. 37:498 authorized board regulations necessary to protect public health and welfare in using the regulated facilities. The opinion discussed the board's student restriction under that authority and summarized earlier opinions on the connection required between a regulation and a legitimate governmental interest. It expressly left the fact-sensitive application unresolved.

Citations and references

• R.S. 37:498 (board rulemaking authority quoted in the opinion)
• Louisiana Administrative Code Title 46:XXXI.919(L) (student salon restriction quoted in the opinion)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/98-0425

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

~t~t~ ~£ ~isia~a
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION
P O. Box 94005
TEL.: (504) 342-7013
BATON ROUGE
FAX: (504) 342-2090
RICHARD P. IEYOUB
70804-9005
ATTORNEY (3ENERAL

October 22, 1998
OPINION 98-425
14 - Cosmetic Therapy
R.S. 37:498
A regulation of the Board must be reasonably related to a legitimate governmental inter~
Ms. Marsha McNulty, Esq.
and must not only remote supp(
Briggs, Trowbridge, Supple,
for the governmental purpose.
Cremaldi & Curet
Lawless Building
200 Willow Street
Franklin, LA 70538
Dear Ms. McNulty:
This office is in receipt of your request as attorney for the Lou- isiana State Board of Cosmetology regarding certain regulations of the Board that restrict student employment. Of particular concern is the following provision:
Students attending beauty schools shall not frequent or work in any licensed beauty salon in any capacity whatso- ever. This regulation applies even though the student’s iL~h~ediate family or the students themselves might be own- er or have an interest in the beauty salon in question.
This may jeopardize a portion of all of the students’ hours. La. Administrative Code Title 46:XXXI.919(L).
You indicate that the underlying policy consideration for the regulation would appear to be to protect the general public from having inexperienced beauty school students performing professional beauty services on them. Additionally, the regulation would pro- tect students from being taken advantage of by salon owners who could pressure such students into unauthorized activities.
However, you state the Board is concerned that the regulation may be too broad and that such prohibitions may violate various consti- tutional rights of the student such as equal protection, property rights (right to employment), free speech (rights to association and travel), and fundamental rights of a family member to visit with another family member.
R.S. 37:498 authorizes the Board of Cosmetology to prepare regula- tions "as may be necessary to protect the health and welfare of the people of this State in using the facilities controlled hereby." While the courts have recognized these regulations cannot affect fundamental rights, it has further stated if discrimination by suspect classifications as race and religion are not involved, the

Page 2

Ms. Marsha McNulty, Esq.
OPINION 98-425
Page 2

inquiry is whether the regulation is rationally related to a legit- imate state interest. As observed by this office in Atty. Gen. Op. No. 82-733, the exercise of a substantially protected right should only be regulated pursuant to a compelling state interest, and board discretion is vested in the governing body which must only provide objectively ascertainable standards that are reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest, Atty. Gen. Op. 92-

414. However, it must directly advance the governmental interest
     involved and may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the governmental purpose. Moreover, if the governmental interest could be served as well by more limited restrictions, excessive restrictions cannot survive. The answer to the determinations as to whether the regulation in question advances a governmental interest without being too restrictive is a factual conclusion. This office is not in a position to render such findings. However, we hope the guidelines set forth will enable the Board of Cosmetology to resolve the question if the regulations are too broad by asking whether the regulation is directly related to the governmental interest of the Board and, if so, would the interest be served as well by less
     -restrictive provisions.
     We hope this sufficiently answers your inquiry, but if we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
     Sincerely yours.
     RICHARD P. IEYOUB
     Attorney General

                                 BARBARA B. RUTLEDGE
                                 Assistant Attorney General
     

BBR