Board hears petition from Aying Elmer; video evidence and new training certificates presented

The State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology held a reinstatement hearing for petitioner Aying Elmer (recorded under case BC202521210) where both a video submitted by the petitioner and supporting training certificates were discussed on the record. Administrative Law Judge Sean Gavin presided and Deputy Attorney General Caitlin Dougherty presented the license history and prior administrative rulings.

Dougherty summarized the board's prior proceedings, including an administrative law judge's proposed decision finding that Elmer interfered with an inspection, and the board’s adoption of that decision on Aug. 24, 2021, resulting in revocation and assessed costs of $11,667.50. Dougherty said the record included a 2021 denial of reconsideration and a 2024 denial of an earlier reinstatement petition. "Because the burden is on petitioner, I have no further statements, but reserve the right to question petitioner today," Dougherty said.

Elmer testified (through a Hmong interpreter) that she did not intend to physically assault an inspector and said she had completed sanitation training and an anger‑management course. "I also took an anger management course and got a certificate for that," she said, attributing prior conduct in part to being overwhelmed after the death of her husband.

Elmer submitted a video recorded in the shop and told the board the footage shows she did not grab or drag an inspector out of the establishment. The board viewed the video on the courtroom screens after counsel and the judge resolved an administrative‑hearsay objection to portions of petitioner’s attachment files; the judge admitted the petition packet with attachment 2 received as administrative hearsay, and explained that board members could consider those pages for weight but not as independent proof.

Board members probed inconsistencies in Elmer's timeline and whether she accepted responsibility. President Fairley read passages from a police report in the packet that documented an eyewitness reporting Elmer "put her hand on Cabrillo's arm" and a later statement that Elmer "admitted that she did put her hand on the Sutter's arm, but she did not attempt to use physical force." When asked directly by Board Member Weeks whether she accepts responsibility for touching the inspector, Elmer said, "It was a light touch... I did not pull on them."

Elmer's daughter, Elora Elmer, testified as a character witness and described efforts by family members to train and re‑educate the petitioner in sanitation and regulatory compliance, and said the shop's patrons want the petitioner back. Several board members said they were persuaded by evidence of continuing education and the family support structure, but others focused on the prior findings and public‑safety concerns. Dougherty asked the board to consider whether the submitted rehabilitation was sufficient to meet the burden for reinstatement.

The petitioner and the people’s counsel each submitted the matter, and the judge closed the record. The board will deliberate in closed session and will issue a written decision; no public vote was recorded at the hearing.