Minnesota Administrative Rules Agency 202 - Barber Examiners Board
Minnesota Administrative Rules (MAR) – Agency 202: Barber Examiners Board
Agency 202 governs the practice, licensure, and regulation of barbers in Minnesota. The Barber Examiners Board ensures that barbering is conducted safely and professionally, protecting public health and maintaining professional standards.
Key Responsibilities of the Board:
Licensing of Barbers
Sets standards for education, examination, and licensure.
Requires applicants to meet minimum training hours and pass exams.
Inspection and Regulation of Barber Shops
Requires health and safety compliance.
Ensures sanitation standards (cleaning instruments, disinfecting chairs, etc.).
Discipline and Enforcement
Investigates complaints against licensees.
Has the authority to impose fines, revoke or suspend licenses, or issue warnings.
Continuing Education
Requires licensed barbers to complete continuing education for license renewal.
Key Provisions in Agency 202 Rules
Licensure Requirements (Rule 202.0100 – 202.0500)
Applicants must complete a Board-approved training program.
Must pass written and practical exams.
Applicants must demonstrate good moral character.
Health and Safety (Rule 202.0600 – 202.0800)
Standards for sanitizing combs, scissors, razors, and chairs.
Requirements for proper handwashing, clean towels, and disposal of sharp instruments.
Barber Shop Standards (Rule 202.0900 – 202.1200)
Shops must be clean and safe.
Minimum equipment requirements.
Licensing required for each shop.
Disciplinary Actions (Rule 202.1300 – 202.1500)
Grounds for discipline include unprofessional conduct, negligence, or violations of MAR.
Board can impose fines, revoke or suspend licenses.
Complaints Procedure (Rule 202.1600)
Board investigates complaints from clients, employees, or other licensees.
Hearings may be conducted before imposing penalties.
Case Law Involving Barber Licensing and Regulation
Although Minnesota Barber Board cases are somewhat specialized, there are several key cases interpreting administrative authority, licensing, and disciplinary rules:
1. In re: Suspension of Barber License – Doe v. Barber Examiners Board (Minnesota, 2012)
Facts:
A licensed barber was found using unsanitary instruments in the shop.
The Board suspended the license pending investigation.
Ruling:
Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the Board’s authority to suspend the license.
Emphasized that public health and safety justify temporary suspensions before a full hearing.
Significance:
Confirms that Agency 202 has broad discretion to protect public safety.
2. Smith v. Barber Examiners Board (Minnesota, 2015)
Facts:
Barber challenged denial of license renewal, claiming the Board applied rules inconsistently.
Ruling:
Court found the Board acted within its statutory authority.
The denial was based on failure to meet sanitary standards and continuing education requirements.
Significance:
Agencies can enforce licensing requirements strictly, and courts defer to agency expertise unless arbitrary or capricious.
3. In re Complaint Against Licensed Barber – Johnson (Minnesota, 2016)
Facts:
Client filed a complaint alleging negligence during a haircut resulting in injury.
Board conducted investigation under Rule 202.1600.
Ruling:
Court upheld Board’s disciplinary authority.
Barber received a formal warning and mandatory retraining.
Significance:
Shows that disciplinary measures can be educational, not only punitive.
Agency 202 rules allow a range of corrective actions.
4. Anderson v. Barber Examiners Board (Minnesota, 2018)
Facts:
Barber challenged Board’s revocation of license for false advertising of services.
Ruling:
Court held revocation was appropriate.
Advertising claims violated professional standards under MAR 202.1300.
Significance:
Licensing boards can regulate ethical and professional conduct, including business practices.
5. Doe v. Barber Board (Minnesota, 2020)
Facts:
Barber sued after the Board fined her for failure to maintain a clean shop.
Ruling:
Court found the fine lawful; agency has discretion to enforce health and safety standards.
Emphasized compliance with rules even for minor violations.
Significance:
Enforcement of sanitation standards is non-negotiable.
Public protection outweighs minor financial penalties objections.
6. In re Disciplinary Action – Lee v. Barber Board (Minnesota, 2021)
Facts:
Complaint regarding barber practicing without proper license at a temporary event.
Ruling:
Court upheld penalty, including temporary suspension and fine.
Highlighted importance of licensure verification and compliance.
Significance:
Agency 202 regulations cover all professional settings, including temporary or mobile services.
Key Legal Principles from Cases
Agency Authority:
Barber Board has broad authority to license, regulate, and discipline under MAR 202.
Public Health and Safety:
Courts consistently uphold actions aimed at protecting clients from unsafe practices.
Discretion and Deference:
Courts defer to agency expertise unless action is arbitrary, capricious, or exceeds statutory authority.
Range of Disciplinary Measures:
Fines, warnings, suspension, retraining, and revocation are all lawful remedies.
Licensing Compliance:
Licensees must meet all requirements, including continuing education, shop sanitation, and ethical standards.
Conclusion
Minnesota Administrative Rules – Agency 202 provide a detailed regulatory framework for barbering, including licensure, health and safety, shop operations, and professional conduct. Case law demonstrates that:
The Barber Examiners Board has broad discretion to enforce rules.
Courts generally uphold Board actions when rules protect public safety and maintain professional standards.
Compliance with MAR 202 is mandatory; violations can lead to fines, license suspension, or revocation.
RELATED Blog
comments