Thiam d/b/a Rama Hair Braiding Salon v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs
Pa. Cmwlth Court – 7-25-23
Unreported memorandum opinion**
Held: “[W]e hold that Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to establish that the Law’s limited license requirements set forth in Section 5(b)(3)(i) are unconstitutional as applied to her as they are violative of Petitioner’s constitutional right to pursue her chosen occupation under article I, section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
While it may be reasonable for the Legislature to regulate the natural hair braiding industry, the requirement for 300 hours of training and an examination in English to ensure Petitioner, who has practiced the art of natural braiding for most of her life, is properly trained in basic areas like sanitation, anatomy, and scalp care and possesses the cognitive and manipulative skills necessary to braid hair is unduly burdensome.
Petitioner and Dr. Edi testified regarding the difficulty Petitioner and others in the Philadelphia area face in finding a school to meet the Law’s requirements, which will make it nearly impossible for Petitioner to hire licensed natural hair braiders to operate the Salon. They also spoke of the costliness of such training and the unavailability of accommodations to address Petitioner’s language barrier. Moreover, the Law is not reasonably related to protecting the safety and health of patrons of the Salon, where Petitioner uses no chemicals, dyes, or heat, and she has been practicing her craft for most of her life without complaint. Nixon, 839 A.2d at 287; Gambone, 101 A.2d at 637. For these reasons, we reverse the Board’s March 8, 2022 Order.
++++++++++++
** An unreported decision of the Commonwealth Court can be cited “for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent” under 210 Pa. Code 69.414 (citing judicial opinions in filings).
