Judge Deals Out Cardroom Workers From Poker Games
"There is a clear, logical connection between regulating cardroom operations and prohibiting cardroom employees from gambling where they work," Administrative Law Judge G.W. Chisenhall wrote.
June 07, 2022 at 12:06 PM
3 minute read
Siding with state regulators, an administrative law judge ruled that pari-mutuel cardroom employees aren't allowed to play poker at their worksites.
The state Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering has the authority to ban cardroom employees from placing wagers where they work as part of the agency's regulatory oversight, Administrative Law Judge G.W. Chisenhall wrote.
"There is a clear, logical connection between regulating cardroom operations and prohibiting cardroom employees from gambling where they work," Chisenhall wrote.
The decision came in a case filed by a Marion County pari-mutuel operator, which argued that a rule prohibiting cardroom staff members from placing wagers where they work exceeded the agency's rule-making authority.
Lawyers for South Marion Real Estate Holdings LLC, which operates as Oxford Downs, filed the challenge in March.
Florida law gives the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering "full authority and power to make, adopt, amend, or repeal rules relating to cardroom operations … and to regulate the authorized cardroom activities in the state."
The law also requires cardroom employees to have occupational licenses issued by the state.
The disputed rule, which has been in effect since at least 2004, says cardroom workers with occupational licenses "are prohibited from participating in authorized cardroom games at the cardroom facility where they are employed."
But attorneys for the Marion County cardroom argued that the law doesn't specifically grant gambling regulators the authority to ban workers from playing poker where they are employed.
While the law "contains provisions restricting participation in authorized games, none of the provisions restrict cardroom occupational licensees from participating in authorized games at the facility where they are employed," lawyers with the Lockwood Law Firm argued in the March petition.
Additionally, "nothing in [the law] authorizes the division to adopt rules imposing additional restrictions on who can participate in authorized games," they wrote.
The law restricts people younger than 18 as well as "anyone objectionable, undesirable, or disruptive" from participating in authorized games, the lawyers argued.
"These provisions do not specifically authorize the division to adopt rules regulating who can participate in authorized games," they added.
But attorneys for the state argued that the prohibition "fits squarely within" the Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering's rule-making authority.
The challenged rule "regulates cardroom operations by establishing who can play at such cardrooms," the state's lawyers wrote in a response filed in April.
Chisenhall agreed that state law gives the agency "a grant of legislative authority" for the rule.
"Therefore, it is unnecessary for the authorizing statute to explicitly delineate every conceivable subject matter within an agency's rulemaking purview," Chisenhall wrote Monday.
The law gives regulators "broad authority to regulate cardroom operators, and prohibiting cardroom employees from gambling where they are employed is logically and integrally related to cardroom operations," Chisenhall wrote in the 13-page order.
"Distilled to its essence, petitioners' (Oxford Downs') argument on this point is that the authority to adopt rules relating to cardroom operations does not encompass the authority to adopt a rule prohibiting cardroom employees from participating in authorized cardroom games where they work," Chisenhall wrote. "However, what is a more basic aspect of cardroom operations than deciding who may, and may not, patronize a cardroom?"
Oxford Downs intends to appeal the order, attorney John Lockwood told The News Service of Florida on Monday.
Dara Kam reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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