Nevada cosmetology board hears complaint alleging long-running recordkeeping failures at Las Vegas school

The Nevada State Board of Cosmetology on March 30 held a disciplinary hearing over complaint C-2026-0018, which alleges that the Cosmetology Institute of Las Vegas failed to maintain required student time and curriculum records and failed to correct repeated deficiencies. The Board opened the day with roll call and then heard public comments, including a procedural objection from the school’s attorney over conflicting meeting times posted on the Board website.

The attorney for the Cosmetology Institute of Las Vegas, Elizabeth Brennan, told the Board she had screenshots showing the posted start time for the hearing changed on the Board website during the morning and said she believed the discrepancy could prejudice the public and the respondent and asked that her due‑process objection be preserved. Board counsel and staff responded that formal service and the agenda bore the correct time and that they intended to proceed while preserving the objection for appeal.

Board staff presented a detailed compliance account. Chief Compliance Officer Janie Huggin and Chief Operating Officer Bertha Jackson testified that beginning in 2024–2025 the Board increased document requests and audits of school records after finding enrollment, withdrawal and transcript discrepancies. Staff cited repeated email directives and inspections across dozens of student files and said some schools’ practices — including inconsistent use of performance sheets and differences among proprietary timekeeping systems — complicated verification of students’ hours.

“Student time records are required; the final time record must be compiled from students’ original records and maintained for inspection,” Janie Huggin said while walking the Board through NAC 644A provisions staff rely on in reviews. Bertha Jackson described dozens of exhibits and repeated communications asking the school to supply missing enrollment and withdrawal documentation.

Denise Dixon, owner of the Cosmetology Institute of Las Vegas, testified the school has operated since March 2015, described awards and community work, and said she had not intentionally falsified records. Dixon acknowledged prior citations and corrective actions for sanitation and equipment and said the school has corrected those items. She told the Board she requested guidance from staff and received a December 24, 2025 email of suggested changes; she said she has since revised internal procedures, held staff training, added administrative support and offered affected graduates a path to complete missing time at no additional charge.

“Once I received the list of discrepancies, I modified our standard operating procedures and held a training with my staff,” Dixon said. “I take accountability for the issues staff identified and I am implementing fixes.”

Board members probed specific topics including: whether instructor initials are required on student performance sheets (the Board’s regulations make the student responsible for maintaining curriculum records and permit a registrar/instructor to initial time-record edits), how schools use biometric or app-based clocks and geofencing, whether field trips and free community boot camps complied with Board rules, the status of laser equipment and other technical training tools, and how many students’ licensing applications remain incomplete because their school records did not reconcile.

Board staff said 34 students’ files had been reviewed and that some have been approved while others were issued letters of credit or denied pending additional work on their files; staff said multiple applicants will have individual remedies and that some matters may return to the Board. The hearing record includes dozens of exhibits: inspection reports, emails requesting missing documentation, citations and corrective‑action notices.

The Board did not take a final disciplinary vote at the March 30 session. Both sides rested their cases; the Board and counsel agreed to schedule a future date for closing statements and deliberation. The respondent’s due‑process objection over the posted meeting time was entered on the record and preserved for appeal.

What happens next: The Board confirmed that the matter remains open. Several affected applicants who were denied by staff have petitioned for review and may be heard individually. The Board indicated it will set a future session for closing arguments and possible action; counsel asked the Board to attempt to coordinate dates to permit counsel and witnesses to appear.

Why it matters: State regulations require cosmetology schools to document students’ training hours and to maintain final time records for inspection. Licensing depends on accurate enrollment and completion documentation; when student files do not reconcile, applicants can be blocked from testing and receiving their licenses. The Board’s action and its outcome will affect students, the school’s staff, and the local cosmetology labor pipeline.

The Board meeting record and admitted exhibits will be part of the administrative record for any subsequent appeal. The Board did not announce a final disciplinary outcome at the close of the March 30 session.