IN THE IOWA ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DIVISION

CENTRAL PANEL BUREAU

____________________________________________________________

ALLYSON SENTER )

d/b/a I DO PRETTY )

207 NE DELAWARE AVE., STE 22 )

ANKENY, IA 50021, )

)

Appellant, ) DIA Case No. 24IWDM0005

____________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Iowa Workforce Development (“IWD”) completed an investigation and determined that

an employer-employee relationship existed between Allyson Senter d/b/a I Do Pretty

(Senter or IDP) and eight workers. Senter appealed IWD’s determination. IWD

transferred the case to the Department of Inspections, Appeals and Licensing (DIAL) to

schedule a contested case hearing. A telephone hearing was held on October 11, 2023.

Senter appeared and testified. She was represented by William Strong. Jeffrey Koncsol

Pretty, and eight workers performing services for Allyson Senter d/b/a I Do Pretty.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In April 2023, IWD received a public tip from a worker performing services for IDP that

possible misclassification of employees was occurring at IDP, a salon that provides hair,

make-up and skin services. Allyson Senter is the sole owner of IDP. Field auditor Deborah

Pendleton was assigned to conduct an audit.

The audit period was years 2020 through 2022. Senter completed a questionnaire and

Docket No. 24IWDM0005

Page 2

weddings they were separately hired to work, or they directly reached out to her to inquire

about helping with wedding parties.

Senter asserted the workers are all independent contractors. All were issued 1099 tax

forms. Senter provided copies of signed “Independent Contractor and Non-Compete

Agreements” (“IC agreements”), for four of the eight employees (Dixson, Schleuter,

For Sara Triplett, Senter explained she “helped manage contracts from home.” She “paid

her hourly for different tasks.” For on-location wedding makeup, Senter stated she paid

Triplett specified amount per person. Triplett’s IC agreement indicates Triplett was paid

different compensation per service.

The IC agreement is a two-page document identical to each worker. The agreement

contains, in relevant part:

1) Performance of Services as Independent Contractor

clients and services being provided, collection of monies, receipts

provided to client

1.6 Communicate with IDP regarding monies received, expenses, client

relationships, venue issues (if any), other pertinent and related

issues regarding booking

1.7 Independent Contractor shall receive instruction from IDP as to

desired performance and results

1.8 Independent Contractor shall maintain, at its own expense, a

professional kit, approved by IDP

1.9 This Agreement shall not be construed as a co-owner or partnership

Independent Contractor

2.4 Independent Contractor shall not be entitled to any sick leave, sick

pay, holiday pay, vacation pay or any other benefits

Docket No. 24IWDM0005

Page 3

3) Compensation

3.1 Independent Contractor agrees to receive compensation from IDP

based on pre-established fees, as outlined in this Agreement

3.2 Compensation per service provided shall be $

________________

4) Authority to Contract

4.1 Independent Contractor shall have no authority to bind, commit or

obligate IDP into any future obligations by any promise or

representation

5) NON-COMPETE

5.1 For a period of three (3) years after the execution of this Independent

Contractor Agreement, Independent Contractor will not directly or

indirectly engage in competition in any way nor associated with any

solicit, take away, or attempt to call on or attempt to redirect IDP

clients to those of Independent Contractors

5.4 Independent Contractor understands that the non-compete

provision of this Agreement is enforceable if violated by a court of

competent jurisdiction

Pendleton mailed questionnaires to determine status of worker (QDSW) to seven

workers. She received responses from five workers: Jenna Schleuter, Meghan Campbell,

Chelsey Dougherty, Danielle Moore, and Sara Triplett.

employees of IDP because IDP sets hours, expectations, and pays employees commission

for services. Some workers indicated the scope of their work with IDP has changed but

the written agreement had not been updated to reflect the changes.

Docket No. 24IWDM0005

Page 4

At least four workers reported that IDP has the right to require fixed hours of work. When

asked to provide their daily routine, the workers indicated that IDP schedules services

based off the availability they have provided. One employee reported that “sometimes”

Senter scheduled her outside of her set hours and that “it is out of [worker’s] control.” The

workers reported their work assignments come through IDP’s online booking website.

They reported being required to report to the salon for scheduled salon appointments, or

indicated she was required to find a replacement or reschedule clients. The rest of the

workers stated no arrangements were made in such situation, or stated “not applicable.”

All workers except one claimed that IDP supervised or reviewed their work. In explaining

the supervision, one worker stated that Senter reviewed her portfolio and “recommended

training” with her. Two workers explained that they were required to submit photos of

their work and tag IDP on social media accounts. One worker stated that Senter provided

feedback in-person at the salon, or provided feedback on pictures if services were

provided on-site. Only one employee stated IDP had a probation period for new staff. All

workers asserted that IDP has the right to direct and control the manner in which the

previously agreed-upon compensation structure. IDP does not provide any employee

benefits. The workers reported that IDP provides office facilities, business cards, order

blanks, and price lists. The workers reported that they have expenses, and that both they

and IDP provide equipment, supplies, materials, and tools necessary to perform their

work. The workers do not pay rent for a booth or chair at the salon.

Two of the five workers who responded to the QDSW indicated they performed services

for others while they worked for IDP, and that they were required to obtain IDP’s approval

for it. They all indicated the existence of a non-compete clause in the IC agreement. All

workers reported that IDP can discharge them at any time. Four of the five workers stated

If problems or complaints arise, the workers reported that they contact Senter with those

issues. Three workers indicated IDP was responsible for resolving problems or

complaints, while two workers indicated both they and IDP were responsible for finding

Docket No. 24IWDM0005

Page 5

resolution. If the worker’s services are not satisfactory, two employees stated they can be

removed or reassigned from a booking, or not be paid for services. It is unclear from the

responses if IDP or the client would withhold payment, or if the worker would agree to

the booking removal or reassignment.

Sara Triplett performed work as a make-up artist and as salon manager. Specifically, on

to the salon for meetings, events, payroll, and supervision of other employees. She

indicated IDP has the right to direct and control her work, specifying that IDP tells her

what posts to publish, how to respond to individuals, to write a handbook, etc. She gets

her assignments from Senter, or they are initiated by staff. Triplett provided a log of

services she provided from June 2021 to March 2023. She logged hours as “salon

manager” on 6/23/21, 7/1/21, 7/7/21, 7/13/21 and 7/21/21, a total of 11 hours during that

time period. There are no time entries for her work as salon manager until March 3, 2022,

at which time Triplett entered 25 hours for “salon work” for December 2021 to February

2022. She then logged 12 hours on March 31, 12 hours on April 30, 15 hours on June 30,

17 hours on July 31, 30 hours on October 2, and 20 hours on October 31, 2022.

included a photo and name of the workers, the type of services they provided, and short

biographical information written by the workers. The information included directing

customers how to view their work, which included both IDP social media hashtags and

the worker’s separate social media business accounts.

Other IDP social media posts were also reviewed as part of the audit. In May 2022, a post

on IDP’s Facebook page welcomed Jenna Schleuter, referring to her as “our newest team

member.” A post from March 2022, stated, “We are hiring!!! Looking for a cosmetologist,

lash artist and makeup artist to join our team!” The post included a group photo of Senter

with the workers, all of whom are wearing the same shirts with the IDP name on the front.

On May 8, 2023, Pendleton emailed Senter her initial findings with a determination that

the eight workers subject to the audit should be classified as employees. Senter was given

opportunity to provide any additional evidence to support IDP’s position. She provided a

Docket No. 24IWDM0005

Page 6

seven-page letter detailing how IDP operates, and why the salon workers are rightfully

considered independent contractors. Senter explained that IDP is solely her business and

she files tax returns as a sole proprietor. She started IDP in California, prior to moving

and registering the business in Iowa. IDP has been primarily an “on-site location” for

weddings to provide make-up and hair services for bridal parties. The independent

contractors that offer services to the brides (clients) are licensed and experienced to

salon location. This space is available to the independent contractors to provide hair

styling and make-up services. The independent contractors are licensed in their

respective fields. They determine what hours to work, how often, what to wear, and how

to interact with clients to provide beauty services. The contractors determine their rate

for services rendered. Senter stated the independent contractors maintain their own

separate businesses, client lists and work where they want. IDP has a scheduling system

for requesting appointments, but the independent contractor has the option to accept or

decline an appointment. The workers are paid based on the services completed. Senter

stated that an option was provided for contractors to pay rent for a booth, but they elected

to receive payments based on booked clients and services at the salon, instead of having

• Chelsey Dougherty – a stylist who has worked for herself for 11 years.

• Danielle Moore – she was a freelance makeup and lash artist. She sets

• Jessica Thomas – She is not with IDP, and has her own salon. All of her

• Liz Hinds – She worked once with a lash client and never returned and

• Meghan Campbell – She has been an independent make-up artist for 10

Docket No. 24IWDM0005

Page 7

• Sara Triplett – she was contracted to help with office-related duties. She

are inconsistent with the audit evidence previously obtained and reviewed. No follow-up

was conducted with Senter or the workers to further investigate the inconsistencies.

On June 21, 2023, Pendleton completed the audit of IDP, finding eight workers were

misclassified by IDP as independent contractors when they should be considered

employees. The workers determined to have been misclassified by IDP were: Ashley

Dixson, Chelsey Dougherty, Danielle Moore, Jenna Schleuter, Jessica Thomas-Reynolds,

Liz Hinds, Meghan Campbell, and Sara Triplett. The notice of decision cited the following

factors for the determination:

• The work was performed under the name of the employer.

• The worker(s) had a continuing relationship with the employer.

• The employer set the prices, accepted payments from clients, and

• The worker(s) did not have a sales tax permit or operate their own

• The worker(s) did not pay rent for a booth or chair.

• The worker(s) worked schedules set and provided by the employer.

• The worker(s) were required to provide the services personally.

• The employer would require workers to report services completed each

Docket No. 24IWDM0005

Page 8

licenses are not associated with IDP. IDP also submitted Facebook information showing

Jenna Schleuter and Danielle Moore have their own business pages under which they

advertise their services. The listed contact information on the Facebook pages make no

reference to IDP or include contact information for IDP, but only to the individual stylist.

IDP also submitted work logs for Dougherty, Campbell, and Triplett. All workers used the

same template form to track services provided. The form contains five columns with the

although some payments were a month apart.

At hearing, Senter testified that she operated IDP by herself as a sole proprietor. Over the

years, she brought on independent contractors to assist with providing hair, make-up and

skin services. She described them as a collective group of people that work together to

provide these services. Most of the time, the independent contractors reach out to her and

indicate they are looking for more work. To use wedding/bridal services as an example,

one person is unable to do a dozen make-up applications and hair styles on their own.

When they reach out to Senter, the workers are looking to join forces with a team so that

they do not miss out on this work. In response to the Facebook post that indicated IDP

whenever they need to for their appointments. The workers provide Senter with their

availability, and the services are scheduled based on the availability the worker has

provided. A client has the option to book online on IDP’s website or by calling the salon.

Clients have the option to select different team members, and based on the services and

availability, a client is able to book services with a specific team member. Senter does not

assign bookings. When booked through the website’s online booking, the stylist receives

a notification and has the ability to accept or decline an appointment. Workers have the

ability to reschedule clients. They are not required to perform any certain number of

appointments or services, they decide how much they want to work. The workers are

allowed to switch their appointments amongst each other.

required, but only available to them as an option to reduce their cost when purchasing

supplies and products. The worker remains responsible for the cost of purchasing and

replacing items in their kits.

Docket No. 24IWDM0005

Page 9

Senter also testified that she has a shared supply closet for in-salon work. The workers

are given the option to participate in sharing certain supplies, such as shampoo, color and

developer, that Senter purchases in bulk with her professional discounts. The workers

discuss and choose which products they want purchased for the shared supply closet. The

fees that workers pay to IDP for services rendered is used to pay for rent, shared supply

the workers if they want her feedback. Ultimately, the workers are in control of how they

perform the work. Senter testified that she does not have mandatory meetings for

workers. In the past, she has hosted meetings prior to the wedding season to allow

workers opportunity to discuss issues, ideas, or suggest changes or additions to the

products, or the fee structure. The meetings are optional, arranged by Senter sending a

group text message to determine when workers would be available. There is no penalty if

a worker does not attend the meeting, other than they miss out on the information being

shared.

Senter is not aware of any of the independent contractors listing IDP as their place of

During onboarding, contractors are presented with the IC agreement. The compensation

section is blank when presented. Senter testified the workers have the ability to negotiate

the pay structure with IDP at the time of signing. They can also request to modify it after

signing, and she has done that with workers as well. If the workers provide services at the

salon, they leave a portion of the fee to the salon as agreed upon in their independent

contractor agreement.

Senter testified the client fees for services listed on the website were agreed upon by the

workers. Senter inputs the fees in the booking system and the fees are visible to everyone

including the clients. When a client clicks on a specific stylist, that stylist’s pricing shows

to track the services they provide, how much they collected in payments, and who worked

on the services. They are accessible to the team members at the salon. It provides a way

for them to cross-check each other’s records, as they work as a team for certain services,