SCRANTON – A federal judge has granted summary judgment in dismissing a discrimination lawsuit against a Northeastern Pennsylvania casino that five New York plaintiffs of Indian ancestry brought forward after they said they received unfair treatment 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, 2023 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, 2023, 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.”
On March 7, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Malachy E. Mannion issued a memorandum opinion which threw out the casino’s initial dismissal motion.
“For purposes of this motion to dismiss, the complaint must be construed ‘in the light most favorable’ to plaintiffs. Construed in that light, it does not allege two distinct circumstances (English-only rules at table games and permission to speak one’s native language elsewhere). It alleges that, while other patrons were permitted to speak their native languages when gambling at defendant’s casino, plaintiffs were not. And their language is averred to be ‘native to India and widely spoken there.’ This language-race link suggests that discrimination based on speaking Punjabi could double as discrimination based on Indian race. The Court concludes that these facts together are sufficient to raise an inference that defendant intentionally discriminated against plaintiffs based on their Indian race,” Mannion said.
“There appears to be no dispute that plaintiffs, as paying customers, have alleged a contractual relationship with defendant…plaintiffs here allege that defendant discriminatorily interfered with their right to enjoy contractual terms equal to those allegedly enjoyed by other patrons: namely, the right to converse in their native language while gambling. They have thus successfully plead discrimination concerning one of the statute's enumerated activities. Because plaintiffs have set out a prima facie case of discrimination under Section 1981, defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied as to Count I.”
Mannion also found that the plaintiffs properly pled a count under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, finding once again that “plaintiffs’ allegation that other patrons were allowed to speak their languages on the ‘gambling floors’ need not be materially distinguished from their allegation that they were not allowed to speak Punjabi.”
Furthermore, Mannion found that the plaintiffs advanced a proper claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
UPDATE
However, the casino filed for summary judgment on March 18, which plaintiffs responded to with an opposition filing on April 15.
On July 31, Mannion issued a memorandum opinion granting the summary judgment motion, finding the casino had put forward a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for asking the plaintiffs to cease conversing in their native language.
“It is undisputed that plaintiffs were speaking Punjabi while playing Roulette and stacking bets on one another’s maximum bets, and that exceeding the Roulette table maximum by bankrolling is prohibited. Considering these circumstances, the court deems defendant’s evidence sufficient to permit the conclusion that there was a non-discriminatory reason for its enforcement of the English Only rule against plaintiffs,” Mannion said.
“Because (1) it could have appeared to [floor supervisor] Ms. Jennifer Weidner and [dealer] Mr. Wayne Williams that plaintiffs were attempting to collectively circumvent the table maximum by combining their chips, (2) Defendant has an interest in enforcing its prohibition on patrons circumventing table maximums by bankrolling, and (3) Plaintiffs’ conversing in a language not understood by the dealer could have obstructed defendant’s efforts to curb such behavior (by allowing plaintiffs to verbally coordinate violations undetected), defendant had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for requiring plaintiffs to speak English while playing. And these reasons warrant the same conclusion even if there was no English Only policy. That is, defendant has presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to require plaintiffs to speak English while betting at a live table game whether there actually was a policy to that effect or not. So the court finds plaintiffs’ suggestion that ‘there was no non-discriminatory reason’ for defendant’s actions unavailing.”
Likewise, Mannion found that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden for their claims brought under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
“The Court need not determine whether plaintiffs have shown that they were denied the full enjoyment and benefits of defendant’s establishment or that similarly situated persons were treated more favorably. That is because the Court concludes that plaintiffs have not sustained their ultimate burden of producing evidence that defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for requiring them to speak English while placing bets at the Roulette table was pre-textual. They have thus failed to establish the existence of an essential element of their Section 2000a disparate treatment claim: Intentional discrimination. So defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this claim,” Mannion stated.
“Because it concludes that defendant is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ section 2000a claim, and because a PHRA claim is governed by the same standard, the court concludes that defendant is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ PHRA claim also. For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.”
The plaintiffs were represented by Vern S. Lazaroff of Lazaroff & Fetzko in Port Jervis, N.Y., plus Mary Jo Whateley and Michael H. Sussman of Sussman & Goldman, in Goshen, N.Y.
The defendant was represented by Donald D. Gamburg and Adam Malz 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