Bentley v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs
179 A.3d 1196
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Bentley, a licensed cosmetologist, was convicted of multiple felonies (2013–2014) unrelated to cosmetology and served prison time; she was paroled and employed as a hairstylist when the Board acted.
- The Board issued an Order to Show Cause under CHRIA §9124(c)(1) (felony conviction) seeking suspension of her cosmetology license; a hearing occurred on December 8, 2016.
- At hearing, certified conviction records were introduced; Bentley presented extensive mitigation: remorse, rehabilitation, steady employment, strong support system, and positive workplace testimony.
- The hearing examiner credited Bentley’s mitigating evidence, recommended staying a suspension until parole completion, and rejected the Bureau’s request for a two-month active suspension.
- The Board, however, adopted most factual findings but expressly did not adopt any of the hearing examiner’s 11 findings on mitigation and imposed a three-year suspension (with possibility of probationary reinstatement after one year).
- The Commonwealth Court vacated the Board’s adjudication and remanded, holding the Board capriciously disregarded Bentley’s mitigation and must reconsider mitigation before imposing discipline under CHRIA in light of the Beauty Culture Law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board capriciously disregarded mitigating evidence | Bentley: Board ignored uncontradicted, credited findings of mitigation and offered no explanation for rejecting them | Board: (implicit) as ultimate factfinder it may decline hearing examiner’s findings and impose discipline under CHRIA | Court: Board capriciously disregarded mitigation; vacated and remanded for consideration of mitigating evidence |
| Whether suspension was an abuse of discretion because convictions unrelated to cosmetology | Bentley: three-year suspension unreasonable; convictions remote and unrelated to professional practice | Board: CHRIA authorizes suspension for felony convictions; agency discretion to discipline | Court: Did not resolve on merits; explained Board must relate sanction to regulation of profession and consider Beauty Culture Law limits when exercising CHRIA discretion; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Station Square Gaming L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd., 927 A.2d 232 (Pa. 2007) (defines capricious disregard of evidence)
- Balshy v. Pennsylvania State Police, 988 A.2d 813 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (adjudicator must explain treatment of overwhelming critical evidence)
- Grenell v. State Civil Service Comm'n, 923 A.2d 533 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (courts require explanation when agency departs from contrary critical evidence)
- Burnworth v. State Bd. of Vehicle Mfrs., Dealers & Salespersons, 589 A.2d 294 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (weight given to mitigating evidence is agency discretion)
- Ake v. Bureau of Prof. & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Accountancy, 974 A.2d 514 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (court corrects abuses of discretion in penalties)
- Pellizzeri v. Bureau of Prof. & Occupational Affairs, 856 A.2d 297 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (board is ultimate factfinder and not bound by hearing examiner)
- Bucks County Pub. Intermediate Unit No. 22 v. Dep't of Education, 529 A.2d 1201 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (agency not required to adopt hearing examiner findings)
- Kirkpatrick v. Bureau of Prof. & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Barber Examiners, 117 A.3d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (Beauty Culture Law does not expressly provide for discipline based solely on criminal convictions)
- Nguyen v. Bureau of Prof. & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Cosmetology, 53 A.3d 100 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (board must compare mitigation evidence to seriousness of misconduct)
- Foose v. State Bd. of Vehicle Mfrs., Dealers & Salespersons, 578 A.2d 1355 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (agency discretion in disciplinary matters)