Workers Take Their Quest to Ban Smoking in Atlantic City Casinos to a Higher Court

AP

11:15 JST, September 7, 2024

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) — Workers seeking to ban smoking in Atlantic City’s casinos on Friday asked an appeals court to consider their request, saying a lower court judge who dismissed their lawsuit did so in error.

The workers, calling themselves Casino Employees Against Smoking Effects, filed an appeal of a Superior Court judge’s dismissal of their lawsuit that sought to end smoking in the nine casinos.

Judge Patrick Bartels said on Aug. 30 that the workers’ claim that they have a Constitutional right to safety “is not well-settled law,” and he predicted they would not be likely to prevail with such a claim.

The appeal seeks so-called “emergent relief,” asking the appellate division to quickly hear and rule on the matter.

“It is past time to allow casinos the exclusive right to poison their workers for claimed profits,” said attorney Nancy Erika Smith, who filed the appeal.

New Jersey’s indoor smoking law prohibits it in virtually all workplaces — except casinos. The workers contend that constitutes an illegal special law giving unequal protection to different groups of people.

Whether to ban smoking is one of the most controversial issues not only in Atlantic City casinos, but in other states where workers have expressed concern about secondhand smoke. They are waging similar campaigns in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Kansas and Virginia.

Currently, smoking is allowed on 25% of the casino floor in Atlantic City. But those areas are not contiguous, and the practical effect is that secondhand smoke is present in varying degrees throughout the casino floor.

The casinos oppose ending smoking completely, saying it will cost revenue and jobs. But many casino workers dispute those claims, saying smoke-free casinos operate profitably in many parts of the country.

A bill that would end smoking in the Atlantic City casinos has been bottled up in the state Legislature for years, and its chances for advancement and enactment are unclear.