A contentious legal battle has unfolded in Louisiana, where a plaintiff has challenged the state's cosmetology regulations, alleging they infringe on her constitutional rights. On June 20, 2019, Ashley-Roxanne N’Dakpri filed a complaint against the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology and its executive director, Steve Young, in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court of East Baton Rouge Parish.
The case revolves around N’Dakpri's assertion that the Board's requirement for an Alternative Hair Design permit to practice hair braiding is unconstitutional. The Louisiana Cosmetology Act mandates that individuals engaging in hair braiding must obtain this special permit, which involves completing 500 hours of instruction. N’Dakpri argued that this requirement violates her right to practice her chosen occupation without unreasonable government interference. She sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the permit requirement, and nominal damages of $1.00 for alleged violations of the Louisiana Constitution.
N’Dakpri's petition also contended that several statutes and regulations under the Cosmetology Act were unconstitutional both on their face and as applied. Specifically, she targeted La. R.S. 37:563 (defining terms used in the Act), 37:581(A) (prohibiting unlicensed cosmetology practice), and 37:584 (authorizing special permits). Additionally, she challenged regulations LAC 46:XXXI.1101 (creating special permits), LAC 46:XXXI.1105 (regulating Alternative Hair Design services), and LAC 46:XXXI.1107 (setting curriculum requirements).
The defendants responded with objections of no cause of action and no right of action. While the trial court overruled these objections for the Board itself, it dismissed claims against individual board members and ordered the Board to file an answer within 15 days.
In January 2022, one plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims without prejudice. Later that year, N’Dakpri amended her petition to include a statutory claim under La. R.S. 49:968(F), arguing that the Board’s rule was not necessary or narrowly tailored to fulfill legitimate public health objectives.
However, in April 2023, the trial court dismissed this statutory claim due to prematurity since N’Dakpri had not exhausted administrative remedies by first seeking a determination from the Board regarding the rule’s validity.
The case proceeded to trial on July 12, 2023, focusing on N’Dakpri’s constitutional claims after another plaintiff failed to appear at trial and was dismissed from the case. At trial’s end, based on N’Dakpri’s failure to meet her burden of proof demonstrating that there was no real and substantial relationship between the regulation and public health objectives, the court granted an involuntary dismissal in favor of the Board.
Representing N’Dakpri were attorneys F. Evans Schmidt from New Orleans; Keith Neely, Andrew H. Ward, Betsy Sanz from Arlington; Jaimie Cavanaugh and Lee U. McGrath from Minneapolis; Sherri M. Morris; Christina Berthelot Peck; Evan P Fontenot; Dominick J Abrams; Melissa A Walker from Baton Rouge; Karen Reiners Winfrey among others.
Defending were Liz Murrill Attorney General Phyllis E Glazer Assistant Attorney General Baton Rouge Louisiana
Judges Welch Wolfe Stromberg presided over this case identified as Case ID C684468 Sec25