Petitioner Amelia Johnson tells board she retrained after 2015 keratin incident; board to deliberate reinstatement

An administrative law judge and a panel of the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology heard the petition for reinstatement of Amelia Johnson on May 18, 2026. The board heard an overview of the underlying disciplinary case from Deputy Attorney General Anita Crawford, who said the board issued Johnson a cosmetology license in 2013 and later filed an accusation alleging incompetence after a November 20, 2015 keratin treatment on a seven‑year‑old that caused the child headaches, a burn to the scalp and significant hair loss. Crawford told the panel that the license was revoked on Nov. 26, 2018, and that Johnson has paid $112 toward a $2,127.50 cost recovery balance.

Crawford summarized the earlier finding: "During the administrative hearing on the matter, the court found no evidence in mitigation and that her testimony was extremely confused and generally not credible," and introduced the petition packet and disciplinary documents as exhibits. The board admitted Exhibits 1–8 into evidence.

Johnson, who appeared virtually, told the board she was not volunteering to testify but answered questions after being sworn. Under questioning she acknowledged she performed a Brazilian blowout/keratin treatment in a private studio at Salon Republic in West Hollywood and that she did not have the required training for that chemical service at the time. "I had not performed the service enough practicing. I did not have the certification," Johnson said, describing the incident as a "total mindless mistake" and saying she now refuses to perform services she has not thoroughly practiced.

Johnson described her post‑revocation rehabilitation: she returned to Santa Monica College, completed theory and practical classes including curly‑hair and perm instruction, continued practicing on the school's salon floor under instructor supervision, and earned several associate degrees and certificates. She said she has limited her outside services to braiding and other work permitted while a student and that she maintains close contact with instructors for guidance. When asked how she would handle a similar request today, she said she would not perform a service without proper training and would take a cautious, consultative approach.

Board members pressed Johnson on specifics: when she graduated, which certificates she holds, whether she submitted transcripts (she said she had not submitted full transcripts but did provide a certificate of excellence and narrative statement), and what she remembers about communications with the child's father. Johnson said she could not recall all details from the 2015 exchanges but denied remembering the alleged threat and acknowledged the relationship with the family's father had deteriorated after the incident.

After extensive questioning from counsel and board members, including Tanya Fairley who identified herself as a licensed cosmetologist and salon owner, the matter was submitted and the board went into closed session to deliberate. The judge told Johnson she would be notified of the decision later by mail or electronically. The record was closed at 11:18 a.m.

Why it matters: The hearing focused on whether Johnson has demonstrated rehabilitation, current competence and safety for the public after a prior disciplinary revocation for a chemical service that caused consumer harm. The board's decision will determine whether Johnson may again be licensed to perform cosmetology services in California.

Next steps: The board will deliberate in closed session and issue a written decision at a later date; Johnson will be notified of the outcome by mail or electronically.