One day after grand opening of hair braiding facility, Wadvisha Chavis lets Cosmetology Board know she does not need a manager, thus demonstrating why IJ’s litigation needs to succeed.

Advertisement of Wadvisha Chavis’ grand opening of a her hair braiding facility, which transpired one day prior to her arguments before the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology that she does not need a manager in her facility.

We are happy to report that today’s meeting of the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) did not have all the drama that the prior meeting of August 2, 2021 had.  That was certainly a favorable development.  As most subscribers and visitors know by now, we felt we had little choice but to expose what may be behind LSBC Chairman Edwin Neill III’s obvious anger issues at that prior meeting.

Near the end of that feature, we updated everyone on the status of The Institute for Justice’s ongoing litigation against the LSBC entailing hair braiding.  From that feature:

Before we wrap up this feature, however, we need to address one more issue, and that is the ongoing litigation which the Institute for Justice (IJ) filed against the LSBC regarding hair braiding.  As we previously reported, IJ’s Lee McGrath attempted to work with the LSBC to avoid litigation.  However, as we reported, the LSBC members let McGrath’s words to them go in one ear and out the other, thus triggering the litigation.

Little was noted to have transpired in the public filings entailing the lawsuit since its original filing on June 20, 2019.  That all changed on September 10, 2021, however, when IJ filed this Motion for Summary Judgment.  When one party files a Motion for Summary Judgment, it is asserting that there are no issues of material fact existing in the matter and that the moving party (IJ in this instance) is entitled to a judgment in its favor as an operation of law without the need for a trial.  IJ is posing just such an argument in the just-linked Motion.

As of the date of this publication (Tuesday, October 5, 2021), Judge Wilson Fields has not yet set the matter for a hearing.  Once he does, IJ will pose oral arguments supporting its Motion, and the LSBC will pose its own oral arguments (after first submitting an Opposition Memorandum no less than eight days prior to the hearing) for why it feels IJ’s Motion should be denied.

As fate would have it, Ms. Wadvisha Chavis celebrated the opening of her new hair braiding facility on Sunday, October 10, 2021, the day prior to today’s LSBC meeting.  Understandably, Chavis was very excited; however, that did not stop her from showing up at today’s LSBC meeting to let the members know that she sees no reason for the LSBC to place an unnecessary burden upon her of requiring a “manager” (i.e. licensed cosmetologist) anytime the facility is open.

Chavis, who completed the LSBC’s hair braiding permit process (which itself requires 500 hours), presented very professionally to the LSBC her rationale for why she should not need a “manager” in her newly-opened facility.

 Of course, what unfolded was the classic battle between a state bureaucrat (in the person of LSBC Executive Director Steve Young) and a budding entrepreneur about whether and why such added red tape and cost exists for operating a hair braiding facility.  Let’s take a look at Chavis’ full presentation and the discussion thereof:

Chavis states her case for why no manager should be needed at her facility, and the LSBC discusses why such a manager is required and a possible compromise.

Notice how Chavis stresses the hardships placed upon her and others (Chavis emphasized being a single mom) and contrasts Texas’ far less onerous requirements to practice hair braiding in that state.

We want to make sure everyone is aware of one thing.  That “compromise” we reference in text beneath the video is the fact that the LSBC decided to let eyebrow threaders operate facilities that focus solely and exclusively on eyebrow threading.  Those facilities are not required to have a “manager” (i.e. licensed cosmetologist) onsite.  We want to ensure that nobody is fooled into believing that the LSBC took that action out of the goodness of their collective hearts!

Quite the contrary, the LSBC’s actions regarding eyebrow threaders transpired ONLY as a result of yet another instance wherein IJ had to sue the LSBC.

It’s time for Louisiana to have leadership in the Governor’s Mansion, at the Legislature, and at the local governmental level (in sharp contrast to small business/farmer obstructionist St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars) that will enable our hard-working citizens to simply work for a living without needless bureaucratic red tape and unnecessary added costs such as that presently being crammed down Ms. Chavis’ throat by the LSBC!

It’s our sincere hope IJ’s litigation on the hair braiding succeeds and that Chavis and any other aspiring hair braider can practice freely and without regulation in Louisiana!

CLICK HERE to see the October 11, 2021 LSBC meeting in its entirety.

If you would like to be added to our Sound Off Louisiana email list to be notified of future posts, simply go to our home page and scroll to the bottom (mobile devices) or to the top of the right-hand column (desktops).  Supply your email address within the subscribe box.  You’ll then receive an automated email from Word Press, and all you have to do is click on the blue “confirm follow” bar contained within that email, and you’ll begin receiving great posts such as the preceding one above.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.