Ergonomic Mats for Casino Dealers

[RFingers]

Hello, I live in Maryland, and I know a lot of people that work at MGM National Harbor in Maryland. One issue that the casino dealers are putting up with is whether or not they are allowed and/or should be provided ergonomic mats to stand on while dealing. A casino dealer stands for 8-10 hours straight while they help make money for the casino. This puts a tremendous amount of strain on a person's feet, ankles, shins, and knees. When management was asked about providing these mats to the dealers, they communicate that the presence of these mats will tear up the carpet. One thing to keep in mind is that the security department uses these for the security guards that stand at the entrances of the casino.

My question is whether or not a casino should legally be forced to provide these mats to the dealers. Also, if not, could a casino be held liable for negligence if an employee suffers injuries from prolonged standing?

Thank you for your advice.

Edit - Do you think there is a legit discrimination claim for allowing security guards to use these mats but not the dealers. FYSA: I am not a dealer, I WAS a customer.

 

[cbg]

There is not a law requiring employers to provide ergonomic mats to casino dealers, no. An employer may or may not end up having an increase in workers comp claims if they do not, but the dealers cannot and will not be allowed to file negligent suits or suits of any other kind. A work related injury can only be rectified through workers comp.

 

[xylene]

Contact OSHA... when there is a new president.

Get quality shoes and quality insoles. Heel cups are an amazing option. (former warehouse worker)

 

[adjusterjack]

My question is whether or not a casino should legally be forced to provide these mats to the dealers.

No.

Also, if not, could a casino be held liable for negligence if an employee suffers injuries from prolonged standing?

No. The only recourse to an employee is workers compensation.

Do you think there is a legit discrimination claim for allowing security guards to use these mats but not the dealers.

No. It is not illegal discrimination.

 

[RFingers]

Reply to adjusterjack

Why do you think it is not illegal discrimination?

Thank you for your reply.

 

[cbg]

I'll answer the question.

Because what position you hold is not, in the majority of cases including this, a characteristic protected by law. If the differing characteristic is not one protected by law, then it is not illegal discrimination.

 

[RFingers]

Reply to adjusterjack

Thank you for the information.

 

[RFingers]

Response

I'll answer the question.

Because what position you hold is not, in the majority of cases including this, a characteristic protected by law. If the differing characteristic is not one protected by law, then it is not illegal discrimination.

Thank you for this answer. I appreciate how you stick to the facts. I am sure that you are a great lawyer. Thanks again.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Why do you think it is not illegal discrimination?

Thank you for your reply.

Federal law prohibits discrimination against an employee by an employer on the basis of the employee’s race, color, national origin, citizenship, sex, religion, age (if the employee is at least age 40 or older), disability, and genetic test information. Maryland law prohibits discrimination against an employee by an employer on the basis of the employee’s race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or genetic information. Discrimination by an employer against an employee based on anything other than these protected characteristics is not illegal discrimination.

Thus, giving different benefits to employees who perform different functions (e.g. giving mats to security guards but not to dealers) is only illegal discrimination if it has the effect of discriminating based on one of the characteristics I just mentioned in the previous paragraph. For example, if all the guards were white and all the dealers were black then there may be a problem with illegal discrimination based on race because it could appear that the reason for the different treatment was the race of the employees rather than the job they perform.

 

[adjusterjack]

Thank you for the information.

It appears that my link to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website has been deleted.

I wonder why.

Here it is again with the list of prohibited types of discrimination:

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/

 

[quincy]

It appears that my link to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website has been deleted.

I wonder why.

Here it is again with the list of prohibited types of discrimination:

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/

What an odd deletion. The EEOC government link is a good link to really good information.

Because I am one who reports posts with links with some frequency, I just wanted to say I had nothing at all to do with any link-removals in this thread.

 

[adjusterjack]

What an odd deletion. The EEOC government link is a good link to really good information.

Because I am one who reports posts with links with some frequency, I just wanted to say I had nothing at all to do with any link-removals in this thread.

I didn't think you did.

Who is M. M-a-r-t-i-n?

Part of my post #4 was edited out by him/her.

Maybe he/she deleted the EEOC link for some reason although OP apparently got it before the deletion.

 

[quincy]

I didn't think you did.

Who is M. M-a-r-t-i-n?

Part of my post #4 was edited out by him/her.

Maybe he/she deleted the EEOC link for some reason although OP apparently got it before the deletion.

That is the name of the moderator. The moderator edited your post for some reason. I don't know why.

The link should not have been edited out, though - unless perhaps you wrote the link wrong and it directed to a different site by mistake?

I know I once wrote out a link wrong and it directed to a Cocaines Anonymous site ... which totally puzzled the original poster who was looking for information on California small claims.

 

[Zigner]

The admin is only human - mistakes happen

 

[quincy]

The admin is only human - mistakes happen

I actually consider the moderator super human. Trying to keep posters in line on this site is not an easy task.