When you think of a casino, flashing lights, the jingle of slot machines, and clouds of cigarette smoke often come to mind. However, this scene might soon change in New Jersey, paving the way for smoke-free casinos.
New Jersey’s appellate division has just reopened a legal challenge against the state rule that allows smoking in casinos while banning it elsewhere.
This decision requires a fresh examination of whether this exception is fair under the New Jersey Constitution. The United Auto Workers (UAW) and Casino Employees Against Smoking’s Effects (CEASE) are leading the challenge, advocating for equal health protections for casino workers and pushing for smoke-free casinos.
It's a battle that's been brewing since before last summer, and even a retired New Jersey senator has joined the fight.
The Court's Decision
The most recent ruling saw a panel of state appeal judges send the case back to a lower court for a more thorough reexamination.
Previously, the case was dismissed based only on written submissions, without a full hearing, which the appellate court found inadequate. A detailed review is needed to ensure a fair decision and advance the possibility of smoke-free casinos.
The appellate court highlighted two main issues:
- The use of an incorrect legal standard
- Lack of evidence
The trial court failed to apply New Jersey’s specific three-part test for ensuring fair treatment under the law. Instead, it used a simpler federal standard.
The case was dismissed prematurely, without live testimony or a detailed analysis of potential revenue loss and worker health impacts. The appellate court emphasized the need for a full examination of the evidence and expert credibility, especially as it relates to creating smoke-free casinos.
The plaintiffs argue that allowing smoking in casinos violates three key state constitutional protections: the right to safety, rules against preferential treatment for certain industries, and guarantees of fair treatment. While the court didn’t fully accept a “fundamental right to safety,” it did acknowledge the need to explore the other two claims in detail, which could impact the future of smoke-free casinos.
What's Next for the Case
The lower court previously relied heavily on a study funded by casinos, which predicted job losses and revenue declines if smoking were banned.
Competing studies suggesting that smoke-free policies may not significantly impact revenue were not thoroughly examined. The appellate decision calls for the trial court to apply New Jersey-specific legal standards and carefully evaluate all evidence, particularly economic claims and the health effects on casino staff, as part of the push toward smoke-free casinos.
And if you're wondering, 21 states across the country already have thriving smoke-free casinos. In fact, in Pennsylvania, the most successful casino has even voluntarily adopted a smoke-free policy.
When Could Atlantic City Have Smoke Free Casinos?
For now, smoking is still allowed in certain casino areas, but this legal challenge gives workers an opportunity to fight for healthier work environments and the establishment of smoke-free casinos.
As the case returns to the trial court, several key topics will be reassessed:
- Health Impact Evidence: Testimonies and studies on the effects of secondhand smoke on casino workers’ health, central to the case for smoke-free casinos.
- Economic Impact Analysis: A balanced review of various economic studies predicting potential changes in revenue and employment related to smoke-free casinos.
The outcome will be crucial in determining whether the casino smoking allowance is legally valid under New Jersey’s equal protection laws, and it could significantly influence the path toward smoke-free casinos.
Implications for Atlantic City’s Casinos and Workforce
Smoking is permitted in designated areas of casinos for now, but this revived legal challenge gives workers renewed hope for better workplace health standards. If the evidence supports the challenge, significant changes could promote improved health outcomes for casino employees, aligning with the vision of smoke-free casinos.
The ruling highlights that the initial court process did not apply the correct legal approach. The trial court’s mistake in adopting a simplified review method, rather than New Jersey’s comprehensive equal protection analysis, led to this reevaluation and strengthens the case for smoke-free casinos.
This ongoing legal battle could set a new standard for worker health in the casino industry.
As the case unfolds, it may pave the way for smoke-free casinos, ensuring that both workers and visitors can enjoy a safer, healthier environment. While the legal journey may be lengthy, the possibility of meaningful change in New Jersey’s gaming industry is on the horizon, offering renewed hope to those advocating for smoke-free casinos.
