Abstract
IN MASTRO V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OF REVENUE, A DEALER LICENSE APPLICATION WAS DENIED due to the plaintiff-applicant’s shoplifting conviction seven years earlier.1 The licensing procedure for prospective casino employees2 is far different from entertainers performing in casino venues.3 Why, for example, is one individual denied a license to work in a casino because of a sevenyear-old shoplifting conviction, and a band with ten prior arrests between them able to perform in the same casino without similar investigation? This article focuses on the regulation of “Group IV” employees, who provide goods and services unrelated to gaming.4 The principle point of this article is little more than common sense. A position entrusting someone to deal cards or handle large sums of cash logically opens that individual to investigation by a state regulatory commission. Alternatively, one hired to sing in a casino lounge or hall should not be subjected to similar investigation. This common sense approach is based upon important legal distinctions made in the gaming industry dependant upon a given employee’s position in and around a casino. Three methods are used in regulating casino entertainment. Gaming law in Nevada, New Jersey, and Illinois illustrate these three approaches, respectively.5 All three generally find an employee handling cash and oversight duties should be of suitable character and subject to thorough investigation, and, since entertainers do not pose a substantial threat to the casino’s operations or the integrity of the games, they should not be similarly regulated. However, the three approaches employ a few distinct differences.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
