Lawyers for casino employees of Wynn Las Vegas have filed a class action suit citing the negative health effects of second hand smoke exposure. This is the second high profile casino employee group to file suit against employers and follows a similar action by workers at Caesar's Palace (a Harrah's property) which filed litigation proceedings this past July. The Kamber Edelson law firm from Chicago is involved in the litigation of both groups and suits.
The suit alleges that chronic employee exposure to second hand smoke leads to an array of ill - health symptoms including eye irritation, coughing, sore throat, wheezing, asthma, headaches, and ingestion of carcinogenic toxins and chemicals. Further, the legalese in the suit includes evidence of measures taken by some Vegas casinos (eg Bellagio and Palazzo) to reduce exposure to smoke by employees.
As pointed out in a previous Las Vegas Examiner article , casinos everywhere have always resisted smoking bans in their establishments because of the high correlation of gambling, gamblers, and smoking. They've resisted it because they expected such bans to negatively effect revenues and their bottom lines. The fact that there are numerous smoking bans in other public gathering venues and not in casinos is a direct testament to casino ownership and management's power and political influence, particularly in Las Vegas. The new City Center Aria casino (see earlier Examiner article) has installed directional air removal methodology to reduce second hand smoke exposure for dealers at the gaming tables. This same venue along with a few others have designated "no smoke" corridors in some sections of their casinos. It has been logically argued that instituting "partial smoking ban " areas within enclosed spaces (like casinos) is analogous to enactment of "no peeing zones" in a swimming pool.
This second high profile lawsuit in my opinion just hastens the eventual enactment of complete smoking bans in casinos or provisions for completely smoke - free areas. That process will likely require years of transitional change and countless future suits of various kinds. There is too much credible scientific evidence associating second hand smoke with health issues in those exposed. Add those facts to the already enacted smoking bans in the majority of other types of public gathering places along with the potential monetary risk assumed by casino ownership in defending an ever escalating number of similar suits and it seems casino smoking bans are inevitable. Though I'm all for the private libertarian right to smoke and limited intrusion of government on personal and business entity liberties, there's too much real health and financial risk associated with the alternatives. I have no idea how long this transitional process will entail or all the intricacies involved, but careful consideration of all the elements ultimately leaves one convinced that a general casino smoking ban is just a proper, right move. Again, the long - standing political power and "money talks , BS walks" influence of casino ownership and management with regard to smoking ban resistance appears to be in the early stages of it's demise. This end will no doubt be accelerated by judgements for the plaintiffs in these two above noted suits should that occur.
In defense of the casino's monetary position in the current economic downturn, these prospective future smoking bans and required smoke - free areas will obviously involve a huge capital investment for the architectural and structural construction retrofits that will be required for compliance. Most of the casinos are hard pressed to even consider such a capital investment under the present fiscal conditions. Maybe they could build a spanning wall and divide the casino into totally separate smoking and non-smoking subsections. Or...?
Cheers...
Charles Higgins
COMMENTS QUESTION: Do you think a complete smoking ban in casinos is inevitable and proper? Why or why not?
Comments
Didn't she see smokers when she applied for the job? Many casino workers in Illinois now breathe all the fresh air they want to after they got laid off. Now everyone will have to sign waivers to keep their job.
These lawsuits are not as big a slam-duck as you might think. These type of cases are stuill pretty rare, despite the fact thousands work in smoky places like casinos and the helth effects of secondhand smoke have been recognized by medical experts and governments for more than 20 years.
The problem is it is difficult to prove the secondhand smoke exposure took place in one location. This Wynn dealer says she has worked in casinos for 20 years. I am sure Wynn will point out he has far better air-handling equipment than whatever casinos she worked at in the past, and she cannot prove the exposure at Wynn caused her problem.
Either way, this will take years to resolve.
Mike:
No way do I believe it's a slam dunk..I just think it's headed that direction. I realize as well that they sign waivers at their hiring. We'll see what transpires.
Cheers..
That's the one complaint my mom has when she goes to the casino. She can't breath and she coughs all the time because of the smoke.
Well if the casinos switched to Crown7's alternative to smoking then there would be no problems....www.crown7.com! there is no second hand smoke and no nasty smell or ash...I carry them at my casino and it has saved my rear end big time.
I am sure that eventually, even Vegas casinos will be nonsmoking, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon, even with these lawsuits. The last thing casinos want is a gambler leaving a machine, walking accross the floor to an exit, standing around for 7 minutes thinking about how much money they have lost.
And I wonder which federal court will take the case. The casinos have a near-perfect record of winning cases in Nevada. There have been secondhand smoke cases filed by dealers in Atlantic City that were denied class status. I don't know if any money was eventually paid out, but no AC casinos have gone smokeless yet.
Mike:
Indeed, that court track record has been the case, particularly in Nevada because casinos drive the general economy and wield smothering power in relation to these smoking bans. I fully agree that considerable time will elapse and billions will be spent prior to a final enactment of these smoking concerns; it just appears to me that it's directed that way.
I agree generally. Remember that Nevada voters passed a smoking ban in 2006 that banned smoking almost everywhere except bars without food service and casinos.
Unlike here in Michigan and most other casino states, the anti-smoking lobby in Nevada did not even try to get smoking banned in casinos. They knew lawmakers would not go for it and their own polls said voters wouldn't, either.
Whenever it is banned in Nevada, it will either be voluntarily by the casinos or they will have considerable clout in writing the state law, which will have a long phase-in or allow for smoking rooms with slots, etc.
Would love to see all of the smoke out of the casinos.
it's hard to believe how things have changed. i remember smoking on airplanes & flicking ashes into those Tiny ashtrays. a fire could have started very easily.
All casino employees should breathe clean air at their place of work!
Casino employees are the exemption in the law, therefore, they are discriminated against! An exemption means someone does not get the same protection as everyone else, they are left out!
(Interesting that casino "executives" don't breathe cigarette smoke in their offices)
Nobody has the choice to breathe, no matter where they work!
There is no need of smoking bans in this country.
The owners can put a sign on the door:
This is a smoking venue
This is a non-smoking venue
This solution gives the owners and the public choices.
Isn't this what America is all about??
I cannot stand to be around smoke and feel that the casinos are losing lots of business by not having non-smoking casinos. Just walking through the casino, even when they say they have high-efficiency smoke-eater machines, the whole area reeks to a non-smoker like me. I hope the casino employees win their case.
A thoughtful and excellent commentary and presentation of pros and cons. I think that in a 100 years, probably less, future generations will look back and regard smoking with the same quaint curiosity and disdain as using snuff, or hunting whales.
If more smokers used products from whitecloudecigoutlet.com, there wouldn't need to be bans.
Interesting article. Here in Chicago we have a smoking ban and I think even many smokers don't mind. I have heard a lot say they like it because it makes them smoke less due to having to go outside in cold Chicago weather. Many bars were concerned it would affect them, but I think they have found out that it has not. The casinos may find out the same thing that their profits will not be hurt by a ban. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
As an attorney, I can tell you that there is no such thing as a slam-dunk case. Sometimes the ones that you expect to lose are winners and visa versa. Maybe it will get to the point that they will have a smoking casino and a non-smoking casino in the same hotel. That would probably solve and resolve everything.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!