Gambling at Work: Everybody Out of the (Office) Pool
Super Bowl LIII is right around the corner, and March Madness will be upon us in the blink of an eye. You know what that means, right? Betting, brackets, office pools ... and potential civil and criminal liability. So sorry to put a damper on the fun.
January 28, 2019 at 09:24 AM
5 minute read
Super Bowl LIII is right around the corner, and March Madness will be upon us in the blink of an eye. You know what that means, right? Betting, brackets, office pools … and potential civil and criminal liability. So sorry to put a damper on the fun.
In 2018, Americans reportedly bet upwards of $4.5 billion on Super Bowl LII, and money wagered through office pools surely contributed to that total. With sports betting occurring in plain view on the office floor, what, if anything, should Florida employers do? Organize and participate in the pools? Look the other way as it occurs? Adopt policies that ban all workplace gambling (and all the fun)?
Legal Concerns
While office pools are widespread, they are illegal in many states, including Florida, when “real money” changes hands. In fact, in Florida, “whoever sets up, promotes or plays at any game of chance … for the disposal of money or other thing of value … shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,” Fla. Stat. Section 849.11. Yes, it is a crime. We do not often hear about law enforcement breaking down the workplace door to cuff the IT director who picked the Patriots by three, but the law is the law, so Florida employers beware!
In May 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Murphy v. NCAA, struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which had prohibited state-authorized sports gambling, with a few exceptions (including, of course, a carve-out for Nevada). Declaring the PASPA unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held that the regulation of sports gambling falls within the purview of the states, not the federal government.
Since Murphy, many states have legalized sports gambling in some capacity. Florida has not taken any legislative action, so, at least for now, the office pool remains illegal here in the Sunshine State.
Employers also run the risk of civil liability arising out of a workplace sports pool. Because the pool is illegal, an employee who suffers an adverse employment action (such as a demotion or termination) after voicing opposition to employer organization or sponsorship of the workplace pool could, theoretically, attempt to assert a whistleblower claim. Of course, the employee ultimately would bear the burden of proving the causal connection between the “blowing of the whistle” and the challenged adverse action.
Practical Concerns
Increasingly, employers are viewing office pools as a cybersecurity threat. Click-happy employees attempting to upload or update a bracket, or trying to catch the last few minutes of a game, inadvertently may subject the employer's computer system to a crippling cyberattack. That attack could expose highly sensitive information belonging to the employer, its employees, and even its customers. In the end, the employer may pay a heavy price for the security and data breach.
And then there is the drain on productivity. At least one report estimated the cost of lost productivity at $6.3 billion during March Madness. With March Madness games televised during work hours and water cooler discussions (about the game and the commercials) on the Monday following the Super Bowl, the loss of productivity is easy to understand.
It is not all negative news. Many believe that office pools increase workplace camaraderie and morale. In many workplaces, the office pool is viewed as a “legitimate” excuse to socialize, build relationships, and, of course, circulate companywide emails announcing the pool or bracket rules (including the deadline to turn in your money to the organizer). Many employees find themselves socializing with co-workers with whom they interact very little during the rest of the year. That's a good thing.
Are Office Pools Worth the Risk?
As long as office pools remain illegal in Florida, employers in Florida should refrain from actively organizing, sponsoring and promoting sports betting in the workplace. In an effort to distance the company from any legal problems, employers may even want to consider expressly prohibiting management-level employees from participating in office pools. Then, as for the rest of the workforce, employers should weigh the pros and cons and decide whether to implement policies that reduce exposure (such as policies regulating computer and internet usage) while, perhaps, safeguarding a little fun.
Andrew Rodman is a shareholder and member of the board of directors at Stearns Weaver Miller. In his labor and employment law practice, Rodman has represented employers in counseling and litigation for more than 20 years. He is a frequent lecturer on labor and employment law issues and a contributor to the firm's employment law blog, BelaborThePoint.com.
Thomas Raine, a law clerk with the firm, is a JD/MBA candidate at the University of Miami.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTurning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being
5 minute readTrending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250