Judge sided with casino economics over worker safety – appeals court demands proof
Six thousand casino workers won a second chance to challenge New Jersey's workplace smoking exemption after an appeals court found flawed legal reasoning.
The January 26, 2026 ruling from New Jersey's Appellate Division keeps alive a constitutional challenge that could reshape how courts evaluate workplace safety exemptions across industries.
At the center of the dispute is a carveout in New Jersey's 2006 Smoke-Free Air Act. The law bans smoking in virtually every workplace across the state except casinos. Casino workers represented by UAW Region 9 and Casino Employees Against Smoking's Effects argue this exemption violates their constitutional right to equal protection by exposing them to health hazards that other workers are shielded from.
A lower court judge had dismissed the case entirely, accepting the casino industry's argument that banning smoking would trigger drastic revenue losses. The appeals court reversed that dismissal, saying the judge made a fundamental error by applying the wrong legal standard.
Here's why that matters. New Jersey has its own way of evaluating equal protection claims that differs from federal law. Instead of simply asking whether there's a rational reason for treating workers differently, state courts must balance three factors: what right is affected, how much the restriction intrudes on that right, and what public need justifies it.
The appeals court said...
Who: A California federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against Apple Inc. Why: The judge determined the complaint failed to plausibly allege that Apple’s claims of carbon neutra...