Appeal from Kent, John H. Vander Wal, J.
T. M. Burns, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and M. F. Cavanagh, JJ.
1. Licenses -- Statutes -- Constitutional Law -- Cosmetologists -- Barbers.
A statutory restriction which prohibits licensed cosmetologists from cutting the hair of any male person, while licensed barbers may cut the hair of both men and women, insofar as it prevents cosmetologists from rendering to male patrons the same haircutting services they may lawfully provide to female patrons, is unreasonable and unconstitutional as violative of due process and equal protection (US Const, Am XIV; Const 1963, art 1, §§ 2, 17).
2. Constitutional Law -- Equal Protection -- Statutory Classification.
A statutory classification or differentiation between similarly situated groups or persons must bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state purpose or be based upon a ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to a legitimate object of the legislation in order to satisfy equal protection requirements.
3. Constitutional Law -- Due Process -- Regulation of Business -- Regulation of Occupation.
A statute which regulates the right to do business or practice an occupation must bear a real and substantial relationship or at least a reasonable relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare in order to satisfy due process requirements.
4. Licenses -- Constitutional Law -- Barbers -- Cosmetologists -- Statutes.
The purpose of regulating both barbers and cosmetologists is to secure qualified practitioners and insure sanitary facilities, and there is no apparent rational or reasonable relation between these objectives and a statutory restriction which limits the haircutting activity of cosmetologists to female persons (MCLA 338.752; MSA 18.132).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cavanagh
John McDonald was convicted in district court of cutting the hair of a male person without being a licensed barber. Defendant appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed. Defendant appeals by leave granted.
Following a bench trial, defendant, a licensed cosmetologist, was convicted of cutting the hair of a male person, contrary to § 55 of the Barber Licensing and Regulation Act of 1968, as amended, MCLA 338.1655; MSA 18.117(55). Defendant was fined $1000 and placed on probation for six months. On appeal to circuit court, his conviction was affirmed. Application for leave to appeal was granted by this Court as were the motions of the Michigan Cosmetology Association, Inc, and the Michigan State Barbers' Association, Inc, to file an amicus curiae brief.
Section 3 of the Barber Licensing and Regulation Act permits a licensed barber to cut the hair of "any person". MCLA 338.1603; MSA 18.117(3). However, § 2 of the cosmetology act permits a licensed cosmetologist to cut the hair of "any female". It expressly does not authorize a cosmetologist to cut or clip the hair of any male person, ...