Quick Summary
Kenneth Uston (the plaintiff) a competent blackjack player, was denied entry at the blackjack tables of the Resorts International Hotel Inc. (the defendant) due to his card-counting strategy. The hotel claimed Uston had an unfair advantage.
This prompted Uston to file a lawsuit against the hotel, backed by the argument that his exclusion was not legally justified.
The Court ruled in Uston’s favor, affirming no valid legal basis justifying his exclusion.
Rule of Law
An individual enjoying lawful access to public properties must ensure neither harm to the premises’ security nor disruption of essential functions to retain this entitlement.
Facts of the Case
Kenneth Uston (the plaintiff), a skilled blackjack player known for his effective card-counting strategy, was denied access to Resorts International Hotel’s (the defendant’s) blackjack tables. The hotel argued that Uston’s strategy tilted the odds in his favor.
Uston filed a lawsuit, reasoning that the hotel lacked a legal basis, whether in common law or statute, to ban him due to his winning strategy. The initial court ruling favored Uston, finding no valid reason for his exclusion.
Dissatisfied with the verdict, Resorts appealed, insisting that Uston’s card-counting strategy disrupted fair play and it was a justified reason for his exclusion.
Issue
Can a casino owner legally ban a customer like Uston from using card-counting in blackjack?
Holding and Conclusion
No.
While a business such as a casino enjoys liberties in its operation, it cannot unjustifiably exclude individuals when it has expressly invited public participation. Uston’s manner of playing blackjack does not amount to disorderliness or petty offense, which can warrant expulsion.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court made it clear that businesses serving the public, like casinos, have a duty to welcome and serve everyone unless there’s a valid reason, like security concerns.
This ruling expands the traditional idea of reasonable access, which used to apply only to inns and transportation services, to all public businesses.
In Uston’s case, his card-counting strategy didn’t threaten security or break any laws. The Court emphasized that when businesses invite the public in, they must respect individual rights and can’t exclude people without good reason.
So, this decision means that any business open to the public must treat everyone fairly and can’t unfairly kick people out, which adds new aspects to private property rights, access responsibilities, and individual rights.
Relevant FAQs of this case
Can a public business, such as a restaurant or store, refuse service to a customer without a valid legal reason?
No, public businesses cannot refuse service without a valid legal reason.
- For example: If a restaurant denies service to a customer solely based on their race or religion, this would be considered discrimination and a violation of the customer’s rights.
What criteria might a court use to determine whether a business's exclusion of a customer is justified or discriminatory?
Courts consider the following criteria to determine justification or discrimination in business exclusion:
- Legitimate Reason: Whether the business had a legitimate reason for the exclusion, such as security concerns or disruptive behavior.
- Non-Discrimination: Whether the exclusion was based on protected characteristics like race, gender, or religion, which would be discriminatory.
- Consistency: Whether the business consistently applies its exclusion policies to all customers or selectively targets individuals.
- Proportionality: Whether the response to the customer’s behavior was proportionate to the alleged offense.
References
Was this case brief helpful?