Segal McCambridge Legal Blog

As detailed at the Indiana Law Blog

In a fractured, 3-1 decision, the state’s high court rejected the claims of an Indianapolis card counter who argued casinos shouldn’t be allowed to kick him out just because he’s skilled at playing blackjack.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Indiana casinos have the right to kick out card counters and anyone else they don’t like, so long as it’s not discriminatory.

For those who are not familiar with the concept of “card counting,” blackjack card counters keep track in their mind of the cards that have already been played from the decks to be used in the game. When the remaining cards favor the player over the casino, a card counter increases the bet to try to boost his or her winnings.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in October 2009, that card counters have a right to play because casinos can only prohibit patrons according to the rules of the Indiana Gaming Commission. The state’s gaming regulatory agency does not specifically prohibit card counting.

The Indiana Supreme Court overruled the Coutr of Appeals and sided with Grand Victoria Casino, located in Rising Sun, Indiana, that casinos — like any business — have the right to exclude any visitor or customer so long as they do not discriminate against a minority group protected by law.

Justice Brent E. Dickson, dissented. He said casinos only exist in Indiana because state law and regulations have allowed them to exist and that casinos have no rights — such as the common law right of exclusion — beyond those specifically granted by the state.

“Permitting a casino to restrict its patrons only to those customers who lack the skill and ability to play such games well intrudes upon principles of fair and equal competition and provides unfair financial advantages and rewards to casino operators,” Dickson said. “I am not persuaded that such schemes are supported or protected by any common law right or privilege.”

Justice Robert D. Rucker, did not participate in the case.

The decision is Donovan v. Grand Victoria Casino

From Reuters

NEW YORK, May 17 (Reuters) – Pharmaceutical company Novartis AG (NOVN.VX) (NVS.N) engaged in a pattern of discrimination against women at one of its divisions, a U.S. jury ruled on Monday, awarding compensatory damages of $3.3 million to 12 women and soon to be determined punitive damages to a larger group.

Some 5,600 current and former employees of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp, a U.S. division of the Swiss company, alleged in a class-action lawsuit that they were systematically denied promotions, paid less and subjected to discrimination while working at the company.

The jury awarded compensatory damages to 12 women of the group who testified at trial. It also said Novartis should pay punitive damages to the entire class of 5,600, delivering the verdict after a six-week trial in U.S. district court in New York.

The amount of the punitive damages would be decided by the jury on Tuesday after separate arguments before presiding Judge Colleen McMahon.

Plaintiff Marjorie Salame, to whom the jury allotted $540,500, testified that after she reported being raped by a doctor during a company outing, managers started questioning her work performance and one supervisor blamed her for what happened.

Most of the women worked as sales representatives for the drugmaker. The lawsuit was filed in 2004.

In court papers, other women said complaints made to the company’s human resources division were routinely ignored, and pregnancies were often the source of discrimination.

Novartis said it was disappointed by the verdict and will consider an appeal.

“Throughout our history and, in particular, in the time frame of this lawsuit, (Novartis) has continued to be recognized for its commitment to an inclusive environment that fosters the career goals of all employees,” a company spokeswoman said.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Steven Wittels on Monday praised the verdict, saying “this jury has sent a message to Novartis —- Get your house in order! Change your culture: the ‘old boys network’ will not be tolerated.”

The plaintiffs sought up to $200 million in damages, including back pay, lost benefits and adjusted wages.

Novartis attorney Richard Schnadig said in his summation on May 10 that “this case, at bottom, is meritless; has no merit whatsoever, statistically or anecdotally.”

Other plaintiffs attorney David Sanford, in his summation the next day, said the case was about “Novartis’ culture of indifference.”

“That environment allowed discrimination to reign for years unabated, without controls, without training, without supervision, without oversight, without leadership to do the right thing, in the right way, at the right time,” Sanford said.

The case is Velez et al v Novartis Corporation, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 04-09194.