A state appeals court has ordered the lower court to restart proceedings over whether an Atlantic City casino exemption from New Jersey's indoor smoking ban is constitutional.
The exemption, which was included in the 2006 Smoke-Free Air Act, allows casinos and their simulcasting facilities to continue allowing smoking indoors. The United Auto Workers union, representing casino floor workers, has been pushing for an end to the exemption due to concerns over worker health and safety. Last year, a lower court judge dismissed the union's lawsuit, ruling that there was no constitutional right to safety and that provisions in the New Jersey Constitution allowed special legislation.
However, the appeals court found that the lower court judge had improperly addressed the plaintiffs' equal protection challenge and had not performed detailed fact findings. The three-judge panel ordered the court to allow the record to be developed and litigated to address disputed projections of revenue loss and to make findings of fact concerning the reliability and credibility of competing expert projections.
The workers' lawsuit argued that the law unconstitutionally singled out casino employees to face the harms of secondhand smoke, violating their rights to safety and equal protection. The appeals court found that the lower court judge had erred in using the wrong test to weigh the constitutionality of the smoking exemption and in relying too heavily on a casino-funded report that predicted significant revenue losses if the exemption were ended.
The court also ruled that the lower court had taken the casinos' study at face value without considering alternative perspectives, including a separate study that found smoking and non-smoking casinos perform similarly.
While the appeals court declined to weigh whether the state's constitution creates a right to safety, it emphasized that such a matter would be better left to the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the New Jersey Constitution. The ruling gives new life to the workers' lawsuit and could potentially lead to changes in the state's laws regarding smoking in casinos.
The exemption, which was included in the 2006 Smoke-Free Air Act, allows casinos and their simulcasting facilities to continue allowing smoking indoors. The United Auto Workers union, representing casino floor workers, has been pushing for an end to the exemption due to concerns over worker health and safety. Last year, a lower court judge dismissed the union's lawsuit, ruling that there was no constitutional right to safety and that provisions in the New Jersey Constitution allowed special legislation.
However, the appeals court found that the lower court judge had improperly addressed the plaintiffs' equal protection challenge and had not performed detailed fact findings. The three-judge panel ordered the court to allow the record to be developed and litigated to address disputed projections of revenue loss and to make findings of fact concerning the reliability and credibility of competing expert projections.
The workers' lawsuit argued that the law unconstitutionally singled out casino employees to face the harms of secondhand smoke, violating their rights to safety and equal protection. The appeals court found that the lower court judge had erred in using the wrong test to weigh the constitutionality of the smoking exemption and in relying too heavily on a casino-funded report that predicted significant revenue losses if the exemption were ended.
The court also ruled that the lower court had taken the casinos' study at face value without considering alternative perspectives, including a separate study that found smoking and non-smoking casinos perform similarly.
While the appeals court declined to weigh whether the state's constitution creates a right to safety, it emphasized that such a matter would be better left to the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the New Jersey Constitution. The ruling gives new life to the workers' lawsuit and could potentially lead to changes in the state's laws regarding smoking in casinos.
just think about it... casinos make tons of cash and they get to keep smoking, meanwhile us regular folks have to deal with secondhand smoke everywhere else 
it's pretty wild that the appeals court is giving the union a reprieve and letting them keep pushing for change 
think about it, they're all about "progress" and "protection", but what's really going on? The fact that they're letting these casino workers suffer just so the casinos can keep making that dough 
is just plain sus... and don't even get me started on this whole "right to safety" thing, I mean what's next? Are they gonna tell us we need special protection from being healthy? 
it's like they're trying to pull the wool over our eyes, but the appeals court seeing through that BS is a good start 
now let's see if they actually do something about it... 
. Those casino owners are willing to risk the health of their employees just to keep on raking it in 
. It's like they're saying "don't bother trying to protect us, we've got deep pockets". But what really gets me is that this exemption has been around since 2006 and yet we still haven't seen any real change 
. Now it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether NJ's constitution actually creates a right to safety, but I think we all know where that's going to lead 
. It'll be a big win for the workers and a loss for corporate interests 
. I mean, who wouldn't want to breathe fresh air while they're trying to make some dough at the tables? But seriously, this ruling makes total sense – the lower court judge basically ignored all these expert projections and just accepted the casino's study as gospel. Like, that's not how it works, right? 
We need more fact-finding and less cherry-picking when it comes to making laws about things like this.
I think its kinda weird that the appeals court is giving a second chance to the union, but also leaving it up to the Supreme Court to decide if there's even a right to safety... 
I don't get it... The UAW union is just trying to protect their workers, and it sounds like they might actually win this thing. 
Maybe we'll see some changes and things will be safer for everyone? 
. Those workers deserve a safe working environment, and I think it's awesome that they're fighting for their rights 
. The fact that there were alternative perspectives on the revenue impact is key – we need more diverse views like that in policy-making 
. Can't wait to see how this plays out and maybe even leads to some positive changes in NJ laws 
Casinos have gotten away with exploiting their employees for years, and it's time they face consequences 
. Can't we just get some clarity on this already? 
. i mean, i get it the workers are trying to protect their health and safety but come on casinos r makin a killing off this exemption lol 
. keep an eye on this one, it's about to get real 