Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
A Wynn Las Vegas employee recently sued the resort, claiming it is an unsafe workplace due to secondhand smoke. But some in the gaming industry doubt Las Vegas casinos will go smoke free anytime soon.
The federal lawsuit filed Oct. 20 seeks class action status and alleges the casino encouraged patrons to light up and disciplined workers if they complained.
The court filing accuses Wynn of breaching its duty to provide a safe workplace for employees and seeks damages of more than $5 million. Wynn dealer Kanie Kastroll has suffered asthma and other health problems while working for Wynn, her lawyers allege. Kastroll retained Chicago-based class action law firm Kamber Edelson for her lawsuit.
Jump to full article »
When I moved here I considered smoking in casinos anachronistic and have advanced to viewing it as a necessary evil. I remember an interview with the late Joe Strummer (of Clash fame) who told me that allowing smoking inside casinos was his favorite part of Las Vegas.
Viewing smokers in a casino now reads to me as a visible sign that the rules that apply elsewhere do not apply in Las Vegas. . . .
I do not have an opinion here. I don't mean that as a cop-out. I simply do not know nearly enough about the science and health risks of second-hand smoke. I am a nonsmoker. Yet there is a part of me that feels Las Vegas would lose yet one more bit of our unique formula of freedoms and permissiveness that allows people to do things profoundly unhealthy for them during their Vegas vacation. I have always--without evidence, I admit--- thought that many of the smokers I see in resorts are really Vegas smokers, who don't actually have a cigarette habit back home but indulge themselves in all ways while visiting Sin City.
A Wynn Las Vegas employee is suing the hotel-casino, claiming it is an unsafe workplace because of secondhand smoke.
The federal lawsuit filed Tuesday, which seeks class action status, alleges the casino encouraged patrons to light up and disciplined workers if they complained.
The court filing by Wynn dealer Kanie Kastroll accuses Wynn Las Vegas of breaching its duty to provide a safe workplace for employees and seeks damages of more than $5 million.
Kastroll has suffered asthma and other health problems while working for Wynn, her lawyers allege. Kastroll has retained Chicago-based class action law firm Kamber Edelson.
The firm may be best known for its class action lawsuit against the makers of the Thomas the Tank toy. That lawsuit, which was based on claims the toy used lead paint, was settled for $30 million.
Wynn Las Vegas is the second major resort operator to be hit with a lawsuit recently because of secondhand smoke dangers.
A proposed class action seeks to force The Wynn Hotel and Casino to protect its workers on the casino floor from second-hand smoke. Kanie Kastroll, a dealer at the Wynn, says she suffers with asthma, and the "second-hand smoke she is exposed to ... exacerbates her condition."
Wynn "is aware of the health risks posed by exposure to second-hand smoke," but "has failed to adequately address the problem ... in the gaming area of its casino."
The hotel forbids dealers from designating certain tables as "smoke-free," and they can't request customers to blow smoke away from the table or to move their ashtrays, the lawsuit states. They're also told not to fan their hands at tobacco smoke.
Kastroll says the Wynn even encourages its customers to smoke. "Cocktail servers bring cigars and cigarettes to customers at the gaming tables," and that the hotel gives free smokes to gamblers.
A second Las Vegas Strip casino is being sued over allegations that the health of employees is being affected by second-hand smoke.
A suit seeking class action status to represent all affected workers was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas by Wynn Las Vegas employee Kanie Kastroll against the casino resort and its parent company Wynn Resorts Ltd.
The suit was filed by law firms including KamberEdelson LLC of Chicago, which in July filed a similar suit against Harrah's Entertainment's Caesars Palace hotel-casino.
Attorneys for Harrah's and Caesars have not yet filed their answer to that complaint. That suit has also not completed the significant legal hurdle of being certified as a class action. . . .
The suit alleges exposure to smoke is causing eye irritation, coughing, sore throat, sneezing, shortness of breath, dizziness, wheezing, tightness in the chest, asthma, headache, nausea and ingestion of cancer-causing chemicals and toxins.
The first homicide in recent Storey County history was allegedly committed Sunday night because the suspect was denied a cigarette, officials said.
Killed was Eileen Pruitt, 47, who succumbed to injuries suffered from a fatal beating, allegedly at the hands of 22-year-old Ryan Bonnett, 22.
Storey County Assistant Sheriff Gerlad Antinoro said witnesses reported that Bonnett brutally beat Pruitt after she denied his request for a cigarette.
The Nevada Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act has the Nevada State Division of Health preparing to strengthen penalties for the ban on smoking in bars.
Shortly after the Sept. 24 court ruling, health authorities began writing a "working draft" of proposed regulations for the Southern Nevada Health District. A copy of the draft rules obtained by the Business Press calls for penalties as severe as health permit revocation for taverns that fail to enforce the smoking ban.
Other proposed rules include a requirement for a "proprietor" of any "indoor place of employment," where smoking is prohibited, to "request" that those lighting up there "stop smoking immediately." . . .
The draft of regulations is still a work in progress and not ready for public input, spokeswoman Martha Framsted said.
"It is still a draft," she said. "It is not finalized and we are still getting input from the local health authorities, the Southern Nevada Health District, the Washoe County Health District and the Carson City Health and Human Services Division."
The Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of the state's indoor smoking ban, but rejected criminal enforcement of the voter approved measure.
In their 34-page opinion, the justices found in favor of civil actions against violators of the ban, but ruled that that Clark County District Judge Doug Herndon properly found criminal enforcement unconstitutional. They rejected arguments from the state attorney general's office appealing that finding.
Several Las Vegas businesses appealed civil penalty, which call for fines of up to $100, arguing the law violates equal protection guarantees because it exempts gambling areas in large casinos--those with nonrestricted gaming licenses--as well as stand-along taverns and strip clubs.
They argued "no rational reason exists" to allow smoking in one place but not another based solely on what type of gaming license the business holds. . . .
In his dissent, Cherry said the majority's reasoning for allowing smoking in casino areas but not others businesses "misses the mark."
The majority, he said, "ignores the reality that the dangers of secondhand smoke are the same whether the smoking is in a nonrestricted or restricted gaming licensee's business."
The Nevada Supreme Court on Thursday agreed with a district judge's ruling upholding the voter-approved ban on indoor smoking.
Clark County District Judge Douglas Herndon earlier upheld the constitutionality of civil penalties imposed for violating the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act of 2006. But he ruled the criminal penalties contained in the act are unconstitutionally vague.
“We conclude that the district court correctly ruled that ... the statute is constitutional for civil enforcement but unconstitutionally vague for criminal enforcement,” the majority opinion stated. . . .
The lone dissent was by Justice Michael Cherry. He said allowing or banning smoking based on whether a business has a restricted or non-restricted gaming license is an arbitrary difference with no rational basis.
The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that a voter-approved ban on smoking in such places as schools and indoor places of employment was constitutional.
But the court held that the criminal sanctions could not be imposed because the language was vague.
Voters in 2006 approved a change in the law to ban smoking in such places as schools and indoor places of employment. But the law exempted gaming areas in casinos, stand-alone bars, strip clubs and brothels.
The passage was immediately challenged by businesses including Flamingo Paradise Gaming, Terrible’s Hotel and Casino, the Nevada Tavern Owners Association and Cardivan Corporation.
Clark County District Judge Douglas Herndon ruled the law was unconstitutionally vague for criminal enforcement. But it survived the test for civil enforcement.
Chief Justice James Hardesty, who wrote the majority Supreme Court opinion, said the criminal portion of the law failed to provide sufficient notice of what conduct is prohibited and it allows for arbitrary enforcement.
He said it was unclear whether a business owner was required to stop somebody from smoking in these restricted places and whether the owner has to call the police if the person doesn’t stop.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without ** oral argument.
An improperly disposed-of cigarette is being blamed for a fire that happened at a home on South Arlington Avenue early Wednesday, Reno fire officials said.
The occupant of the residence received first-degree burns that covered 15 percent of her body after re-entering the home to attempt to retrieve her pets.
She was not identified.
Now, because of the smoke-free law in Nevada, we intend to visit more often and will spend more of our hard-earned vacation dollars in Las Vegas. We just returned to Illinois after spending a full week on the Las Vegas Strip and visiting some other great vacation spots in Nevada — and we loved the smoke-free air. What a tremendous change for the better out there!
Every Nevada voter should be proud of your smoke-free law, and supporters need to fight to protect it from the tobacco company lobbyists, pro-tobacco politicians and others who want you, your family, friends and loved ones to go back to being forced to breathe in disgusting and health-harming secondhand smoke.
Dear Mr. Czehowski:
This is in response to your letter to the OSHA San Francisco Regional Office, asking for clarification of a 1990 letter of interpretation regarding OSHA's asbestos standards. We understand that the State of Nevada has adopted standards identical to those of Federal OSHA and intends to follow the Federal enforcement policy. Your letter was forwarded to OSHA's national office for response . . .
The employer shall ensure that employees do not smoke in work areas where they are occupationally exposed to asbestos because of activities in that work area. (emphasis added)
As we explained in our 1990 letter to Mr. Sledge, the Agency determined that the health risk for smoking employees exposed to asbestos is substantially higher than nonsmoking ones. We explained in the preamble to the rule that "[t]his is an expansion of the present smoking ban, which, as in most OSHA health standards, is confined to regulated areas where exposures are elevated." (55 FR at 3726, February 5, 1990). The smoking ban in the asbestos standards does not specify a level of exposure. However, the exposure must have its source in the workplace. We have explained that this means that an employee who works in areas where there are operations that disturb asbestos, such as asbestos abatement and renovation activities, may be occupationally exposed, regardless of whether that employee disturbs or handles the asbestos.
State unemployment rate outlook grim Discrimination suit filed against Sahara Hotel Rio pool closed after drug, prostitution arrests Two suspects sought in convenience store clerk attack Back to school amid swine flu: What parents need to know Authorities arrest suspected scam artist in Vegas Police warrant outlines Dr. Murray investigation details Police investigate North Las Vegas home invasion County to Prive: Time to call it a night School librarian accused of having sex with teen
A study that took nearly four years to complete concluded what many people already know or fear: Some employees in the gaming industry show physical changes in their body during their shift, and it's due to secondhand smoke.
As News 3 Investigator Mitch Truswell reports, it was a Caesars Palace employee who helped get the study started. But it came at quite a price.