Former U. S. Congressman Joseph Cao, who, 11 years ago, filed a class action lawsuit against the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) alleging discriminatory practices and who is now teamed up with the Pelican Institute with both of them having waited almost a year for Attorney General Liz Murrill to issue an opinion entailing whether the LSBC has jurisdiction to proceed with consideration of issuing a Declaratory Judgment.
[Editor’s Note: The following feature is derived from a collection of videos of meetings of the LSBC from 2015 as a result of complaints regarding alleged abuses by the LSBC received from Vietnamese manicurists mere days after Sound Off Louisiana was formed].
Fifty years ago, actress Tippi Hedren graciously offered a program for 20 Vietnamese women to learn the profession of being manicurists. The result was a complete revolution of the nail salon industry. By 2021 (the latest stats readily available), the industry has become an $8.4 billion powerhouse industry which is dominated by Vietnamese operators. According to Nails, a publication devoted to the nail salon industry, 51 percent of nail salon operators nationwide are Vietnamese.
In Louisiana, nail salon operations are heavily dominated by the Vietnamese community. According to former Congressman Joseph Cao’s testimony before the Louisiana Senate Commerce Committee on June 8, 2015, 90 percent of the approximate 2,250 nail salons existing in Louisiana at that time, or around 2,000 salons, were Vietnamese.
Despite this fact, let’s watch LSBC Executive Director, Steve Young, explain, in 2015 why, in the history of the LSBC, the Vietnamese community has never had a representative (that changed effective August 4, 2025):
LSBC Executive Director, Steve Young, in 2015, defends the fact that there is no Vietnamese representation on the LSBC.
According to several interviews we conducted with Vietnamese nail salon owners in 2015, they openly embrace competition and actually tout the fact that they made a practice of routinely undercutting the competition’s price by 30-50%.
They are recognized by Nails to have a stellar reputation for high-quality work, and, according to our sources from 2015, they actively support their struggling relatives in Vietnam.
Back in 2015, numerous Vietnamese nail salon operators informed Sound Off Louisiana that the LSBC routinely targeted them for harassment and alleged discriminatory inspections designed to drive them out of business.
Very importantly, about 2-1/2 years ago, after an administrative hearing entailing a Vietnamese nail salon owner, Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns heard LSBC Executive Director Steve Young all but confirm the manicurists’ claims!
The exchange between Young and the owner transpired out in the hallway after the hearing (therefore not available for videotaping), but we’re going to reproduce to the best of Burns’ recollection the near-verbatim quote that Young made, and Burns would have no qualms placing his arm in a polygraph machine to test that recollection. Here’s that near-verbatim statement by Young:
You need to be appreciative of what we’re doing! There used to literally be a nail salon on every corner. At least now you’re able to make a couple of nickels in the profession.
That sure sounds like a concerted effort to thin out the number of nail salon operators to us, but here’s the problem: It is the responsibility of the MARKETPLACE to weed out competition. That is NOT the responsibility of any regulator overseeing any industry!
The Vietnamese nail salon owners buttressed and detailed their claims in a class action lawsuit Cao filed on February 6, 2014. After the filing of the suit, Sound Off Louisiana began attending LSBC meetings and quietly obtaining the stories and plights of some Vietnamese operators.
The suit alleged that the LSBC, its Executive Director (Young), one of its then-attorneys, Celia Cangelosi (who was named personally as a defendant but severed ties with the LSBC about 4-5 years ago), and at least two of its then-inspectors, Sherrie Stockstill and Margaret Keller (also both named as defendants and who are no longer with the LSBC) subjected the Vietnamese operators to being, “harassed, intimidated, falsely imprisoned, and arbitrarily discriminated against.”
The suit was settled with the terms not disclosed; however, Sherrie Stockstill resigned almost immediately upon the suit being settled. Keller retired within the last year or so.
The lawsuit detailed 8-9 incidents including operators being subjected to repeated “inspections” wherein tactics were allegedly deployed by the LSBC that allegedly forced some operators to sell their businesses to escape the relentless attacks.
We have now been attending LSBC meetings for a decade and, just as we openly stated on another blog prior to forming Sound Off Louisiana, little appears to have changed since we made the following statement on that blog:
The LSBC appears to be a vehicle for impeding competition and creating a self-generating source of revenue to provide a cash cow for the attorneys who serve under contract with them and pay the Board’s salaried staff.
While the “inspectors” of the LSBC earn average salaries of around $35,000 (prior to factoring in any alleged “gifts” on the part of those whom they inspect), the LSBC payroll approximates a staggering $1.1 million a year!
Meanwhile, Vietnamese operators, who supply much of the funds through which they are harassed, are forced to literally beg the Board for permission to work. Consider this couple’s plea to the LSBC after moving from Texas and attempting to obtain a license through reciprocity:
2015 video of Vietnamese couple pleading with the LSBC for permission to work. Instead, the LSBC Members grilled the wife of the couple about her Vietnamese High School diploma and debated whether the Vietnamese translator for the diploma should be “approved.” [Note: Louisiana requires the “equivalent” of a 10th grade education to practice cosmetology, hence the debate.] She had been issued a diploma from Belaire High School in Baton Rouge, which, along with dozens of similar students who received such diplomas, resulted in the shutdown of school owner Willie Payne’s cosmetology school because the diplomas he issued were fraudulent and the students had never set foot on Belaire’s campus and would not even know how to find the school.
A common complaint of Vietnamese operators in trying to work with the LSBC is the obvious language barrier. WBRZ (Baton Rouge Channel 2)’s then-investigative reporter Lee Polowczuk asked Young way back then why the LSBC has never seen fit to hire a Vietnamese translator. Here’s Young’s response:
In this 2015 interview, Young clearly indicates that his only concern is having a Vietnamese translator for hearings and not everyday interactions with the Vietnamese community.
Regarding the above applicant’s struggles to obtain a license through Louisiana’s reciprocity with Texas, many Vietnamese salon operators became very concerned way back then when they noted on the April 2015 LSBC agenda an item labeled “California reciprocity.”
Vietnamese citizens often immigrate to California and practice as manicurists before relocating to Louisiana, and one salon operator informed Sound Off Louisiana back in 2015 that he personally knew of 15 manicurists who, at the time of that agenda item, planned to relocate to Louisiana within weeks.
Those operators were therefore concerned about the agenda item. Accordingly, Sound Off Louisiana attended the meeting and provided the following videotaped coverage of the discussion to those concerned:
Young openly ponders suspending reciprocity with California due to their authorities indicating that they would be, “no longer placing their seals on their certifications.”
As evidenced by the preceding clip, several then-members and Young indicate, regarding California licensing authorities, that, “you cannot get a live person on the phone.”
That statement, especially when combined with the statement that California licensing authorities were taking the utterly bizarre measure of, “removing their seals from their certification documents,” prompted Sound Off Louisiana to contact the authorities.
We had no difficulty whatsoever getting them on the phone. Furthermore, we were told that Young’s statement was false and that they’d experienced a temporary machine failure but that a new color-printed seal was being incorporated into their documents! All we can say now is the same thing we said way back 10 years ago: Wow!!
With that revelation from the California licensing authorities to Burns, Sound Off Louisiana made a public records request of the LSBC for whatever documentation Young referenced in the previous video clip indicating that California was removing its seal.
What we got was this email which actually confirmed what California licensing authorities said to us over the phone. Young sure came across as being absolutely determined to suspend California reciprocity and slow the expansion of Vietnamese nail salon operators in Louisiana (i.e. anoint himself to perform the function of the marketplace)! We want to quote what the California licensing authorities stated in the correspondence so that it can be directly contrasted with what Young stated above:
The California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology has received the two sets of certifications that you have returned. Unfortunately we will not be able to comply with your request to affix a state board seal due to a mechanical defect.
We will ensure that all future copies come in color, with the state seal printed in the top right corner.
That sure seems like a very isolated incident of a mechanical failure, which is precisely what the “impossible to get on the phone” California regulators told us! Notice that, in the future, “copies will come in color, with the state seal printed in the top right corner.”
Upon seeing these videos, several Vietnamese nail salon operators informed Sound Off Louisiana that they had even more anxiety over the California reciprocity dilemma.
One operator even informed us that a relative who wished to reside in Louisiana with family was about to expend $4,000 in California and spend the necessary time to get a license, and the family became very concerned that Louisiana may not honor the California license.
Accordingly, on behalf of the those concerned, we at Sound Off Louisiana, asked that the item be placed up for discussion again at the next meeting.
Our request was denied, and we were informed by LSBC attorney Sheri Morris that California and Louisiana authorities had “reached an agreement.” We reiterated our desire for any such “agreement” to be discussed at the next meeting; however, our request was denied.
Another common complaint among Vietnamese operators back in 2015 was that the LSBC itself could not decide what was legal and what was not!
One operator indicated that he was licensed by an LSBC official only to be informed by a subsequent inspector that he failed to have proper equipment nor adequate space for conducting his operations.
Another operator appeared to suffer a similar plight as evidenced by the following utterly embarrassing video segment from the April 2015 LSBC meeting:
April, 2015 LSBC meeting entailing an utterly embarrassing segment in which one LSBC attorney, Sheri Morris, has to literally educate another LSBC attorney, Celia Cangelosi, that nails can’t be done in an esthetics salon!
As evidenced in the clip, LSBC attorney Morris has to educate attorney Cangelosi that nails can’t be done in an esthetic salon. Cangelosi says “somebody” told them they could “do this,” but she emphasizes it was “not someone from the Board.”
Sound Off Louisiana has been told by many Vietnamese operators that, contrary to what Morris and Cangelosi claim in the video (that “friends told them that,”) it was in fact LSBC officials who told them they could operate, only to come behind months later and issue violations!
Even in the video above itself, Cangelosi admits, “Somebody licensed them.” Who can do that other than the LSBC?
In yet another instance at the same meeting, the LSBC demonstrates that it is completely inept at being able to provide guidance to its licensees regarding acceptable “cheese graders.”:
LSBC’s then-prosecutor Cangelosi emphasizes that accurate specifications for acceptable “cheese graders” needs to be established.
Another nail salon operator told Sound Off Louisiana that his salon was cited for violations and, when he informed the inspector that a beauty salon nearby operated in the same identical manner as him with the same equipment and space allocation, the investigator told him, “There are different rules for you guys.”
Further, when he complained to the investigator that he may challenge via an administrative hearing on the issue, she said, “You may as well pay the fine now. If you challenge it, they’re just going to add $500 administrative costs, and there is no way you can win!” When he inquired how that could be possible for his operation to be treated so differently than the nearby beauty salon, the investigator responded, “They can do whatever they want!”
[Note: Sound Off Louisiana was provided audio evidence of the discussion contained in the above two paragraphs, and we maintain it to this day. We have, however, honored the wishes of the nail salon operator not to publish the audio file because of fear of retaliation from the LSBC.]
Yet another complaint of Vietnamese operators a decade ago was the haphazard manner in which Young is “notified” of violations. Sensing this may be an issue, Polowczuk (the Channel 2 investigative reporter), asked a question in that regard. Let’s watch Young’s response:
Young indicates that finding violations is a matter of, “being in the right place at the right time.”
Young indicated back then that he had 11 inspectors who are spread thin in their districts; however, many Vietnamese salon operators told us that Young’s statement is “flatly false.”
They indicated to us back then that, after a complaint “mysteriously” appears in front of Young, that inspectors are shifted to their districts to concentrate on them and that the inspectors make it a point of showing up on Saturdays to provide the maximum negative impact to their salons’ operations.
Further, the operators flatly rejected any notion that these Saturday visits are “inspections,” and refer to them as “raids.” The infamous “Stockstill inspection (raid)” referenced in the linked-lawsuit at the outset of this feature was a Saturday “inspection (raid).”
In summation, our extensive interviews with nail salon operators 10 years ago resulted in them indicating that, instead of permitting them to practice their trade in Louisiana, the LSBC gets bogged down on high school education levels and whether a Vietnamese high school transcript, for which students typically graduate in only 10 years versus 12 in the U. S., meets the equivalent requirement for a 10th grade education in the United States.
As we advance 10 years later, Cao and the Pelican Institute have patiently waited for almost a year for Attorney General Murrill to issue an opinion.
We stated on the video on the prior feature (and have stated repeatedly to many folk privately over the last five months) that we do not believe Murrill is going to issue an opinion, and we believe that the LSBC knew that full well when they requested the opinion.
There simply is no favorable outcome for the Attorney General’s Office no matter which way an opinion may go on the matter. Furthermore, the potential of a huge and high profile embarrassing loss in 19th JDC could very realistically transpire irrespective of what her opinion may state.
If such an opinion sides with the LSBC, Murrill would surely find herself in 19th JDC defending her opinion as it would most certainly be challenged by the Pelican Institute and Cao.
If such an opinion sides with Pelican and Cao, Murrill would almost certainly end up defending a suit filed by Pelican and Cao after the LSBC failed to provide the requested relief from a Declaratory Judgment.
No doubt sensing that litigation is inevitable, the maneuver of requesting the opinion was an excellent stall tactic, but our belief is that Pelican and Cao have been abundantly patient. It is, in our opinion, therefore time for litigation to be filed in 19th JDC, likely a Writ of Mandamus, seeking to command the LSBC to do its job (as it should have been forced to do a year ago) and permit arguments for a Declaratory Judgment, and let us all see just where all the chips land!
