SCRANTON – Five New York plaintiffs of Indian ancestry maintain their claims that they were discriminated against at a Northeastern Pennsylvania casino for using their native language of Punjabi while gambling.
Surjeet Bassi, Jaswinder Chilana, Tajinder Singh, Surjit Singh and Darshan Singh Chilana of New York first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 30 versus Mount Airy, No. 1, LLC (doing business as “Mount Airy Casino Resort”), of Mount Pocono.
“On Jan. 12, 2023, the plaintiffs all traveled from their residences/businesses in Orange County, New York to utilize the facilities at defendant’s resort. As they played blackjack, defendants conversed without disturbance or interruption in their native language, Punjabi, which is native to India and widely spoken there, and the table host gave them no direction to desist in so speaking. Defendant posted no signs prohibiting or limiting plaintiffs or any other guests from so conversing in their native languages,” the suit said.
“Indeed, on prior visits to the resort’s gambling floors, plaintiffs had heard others speaking in their native languages, whether Spanish or Yiddish, without interruption or disturbance, and had spoken in Punjabi without incident or comment in the presence of defendant’s agents. Likewise, while defendant had a policy manual governing the operation of its casino facility, it did not prohibit or purport to prohibit or limit, guests or gamblers from speaking in their native languages as they gambled.”
The suit added that a casino employee demanded the plaintiffs cease speaking in Punjabi while they gambled, and told them if they refused and continued to do so, that they would be escorted from the casino by security.
The plaintiffs’ suit continued that they did not receive an answer to their question to casino staff inquiring whether the alleged policy was in writing, and that they had frequented the casino for several years and spoken their native language while gambling, and had never been reprimanded for doing so.
“Embarrassed, upset and threatened with escort by security, plaintiffs decided to leave the casino and did so. The following day, a hostess employed by defendant, contacted plaintiff Jaswinder Singh, who carried the highest membership status issued by the defendant casino and was a frequent patron at the resort and its gambling operation. This hostess invited plaintiff Jaswinder Singh to the defendant facility, offering him hospitality, but Singh raised issue with the treatment he and his co-plaintiffs had received the prior day,” the suit stated.
“On behalf of the defendant, the hostess replied in writing [text] that plaintiffs could not converse in their native language while gambling. On account of this edict, plaintiffs have experienced humiliation, embarrassment and the feeling of being second-class citizens, excluded from the ability to speak with each other as they choose to do while engaging in the public accommodation defendant provides. On account of this unlawful edict, plaintiffs are denied access to the defendant’s publicly-available resort.”
The casino defendant filed to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on May 4, arguing that it did not violate federal nor state laws in its treatment of the plaintiffs during their visit.
“Plaintiffs were allowed to remain at the casino and enjoy the live table games so long as they abided by the same rules that applied to all other patrons. By plaintiffs’ own admission, they were not forced to leave the casino on Jan. 12, 2023. Plaintiffs merely claim that they were informed of the English-only rule that applies at the casino’s live table games and were told to cease from speaking in Punjabi. Plaintiffs proceeded to leave the casino on their own volition. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs fail to allege they were denied the right to contract or fully participate in a public accommodation. As such, plaintiffs’ claims under Section 1981, Title II, and PHRA should be dismissed,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“In the complaint, plaintiffs merely allege that they were asked to stop speaking Punjabi at the blackjack table while the game was in progress. They fail to allege that the English-only rule does not apply equally to every patron of the casino who is sitting at an in-progress table game, regardless of their second language other than English. Plaintiffs also fail to allege that the rule was applied to them on the basis of their Indian heritage or their native language Punjabi. Further, plaintiffs’ complaint is devoid of any allegation that Mount Airy’s English-only rule was applied at any time other than when plaintiffs were participating in a live game. To the contrary, the complaint admits that the rule was applied only at a live game – ‘as they played blackjack, plaintiffs conversed in their native language, Punjabi. In addition, plaintiffs fail to allege that they were treated any differently than other Mount Airy patrons in terms of being permitted to enjoy the casino table games.”
The defendant also contends that the plaintiffs did not suffer disparate treatment, and the casino did not forcibly remove the men from the casino.
“Plaintiffs fail to plead that they were denied the full benefits and enjoyment of playing live table games or that they suffered any disparate treatment with regard to Mount Airy’s rules for such games. Indeed, plaintiffs do not allege that the English-only rule interfered with their enjoyment of the game. In fact, plaintiffs are bilingual and therefore could have remained at the table, spoken English, and continued to enjoy Mount Airy’s live table game,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Plaintiffs fail to allege that they were treated any differently than any other Mount Airy patron. There is no allegation that other patrons were allowed to speak in a language other than English while seated at a live table game. And finally, plaintiffs do not allege that they were forced to leave the casino. To the contrary, plaintiffs were allowed to remain at the table and fully participate in the public accommodations offered by Mount Airy so long as they adhered to the English-only rule while participating in a live table game. Rather than comply with this limited table games rule, plaintiffs chose to leave the casino. Consequently, in the absence of facts showing a denial of services of or disparate treatment with respect to live table games, plaintiffs’ Title II and PHRA claims fail as a matter of law and should be dismissed.”
UPDATE
In a May 15 oppositional response brief, counsel for the plaintiffs stated their clients had properly pled their discrimination claims against the casino.
“The complaint does not assert that the casino had an ‘English-only’ policy or any reason or rationale supporting any such policy. Indeed, the complaint asserts that the casino had no such policy and did not enforce any such policy generally. Rather, when plaintiffs sought any such policy from several members of the casino staff, they were not shown anything. Nor did the casino have any signs announcing such a policy. The complaint alleges that several of defendant’s agents, including a manager, enforced a ‘non-Punjabi on the gambling floor policy’, even though other native language speakers were permitted to use their languages in the same circumstances and, of course, English speakers were so permitted,” the brief stated.
“In short, these East Asian Indian plaintiffs were told: Stop speaking your language or we will have security escort you out of here. This is an elementary form of discrimination and exclusion and deprived them of equal access to the facility. Plaintiffs do allege disparate treatment and plainly allege that the treatment was on the basis of their language, an attribute of their ethnic identities and national origin.”
Per plaintiff counsel, the defendants “distorted” the complaint’s allegations by arguing that no claims of disparate treatment were pled – when in fact, counsel maintains, other patrons of the casino speaking other languages were permitted to do so, just not the plaintiffs speaking Punjabi.
“Defendant’s repetitious reference to ‘live table game rules’ is dehors the complaint and a makeweight. As noted in the complaint, the plaintiffs asked for any rule which prohibited their speaking in their native language and were provided none. No signs adorned the live gaming tables. And, they had heard and observed others speaking their native tongues on the gambling floors with no like demand or ultimatum,” the brief concluded.
For counts of violating 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief enjoining the defendant from preventing the plaintiffs from freely using their native language, Punjabi, while participating in the activities offered by the defendant in interstate commerce or punishing them for so doing, attorney’s fees, costs and any other and further relief which the interests of law and equity require.
The plaintiffs are represented by Vern S. Lazaroff of Lazaroff & Fetzko, in Port Jervis, N.Y.
The defendant is represented by Donald D. Gamburg of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:23-cv-00550
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com