An ex-employee of William Hill has filed a lawsuit against Caesars Entertainment for the defilement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The lawsuit, which was filed by Joseph Pugliese in the US District Court of New Jersey, accuses the William Hill employer of failing to cater to his special needs. Pugliese states that he has suffered from arthritis for many years, which causes him to quit his cashier job at the William Hill Sportsbook at Oceanport NJ after his employer failed to cater to his special needs.
According to Pugliese, William Hill’s failure to cater to the employee’s special needs constitute constructive discharge, which is also sometimes referred to as constructive termination. As per the employment laws of the country, constructive discharge, dismissal, or termination takes place when an employee resigns due to the employer creating an unconducive or hostile workspace, which then causes an employee to resign involuntarily.
Pugliese states that he applied for a post and was hired as a cashier and ticket writer at the Caesars Sportsbook, which was rebranded after Caesars Entertainment acquired William Hill in late April last year. Caesars completed the acquisition of the $3.7 billion acquisition of William Hill and quickly announced plans that it would be selling off William’s non-US assets.
Pugliese is said to leave his post on January 6th, 2021 after his arthritis continued to worsen, leading to excruciating pain in his back. Pugliese claims that he requested his employer on several occasions to cater to his special needs only for his requests and letters to go unanswered. The former employee went into extensive detail during the court hearings stating that his post as a cashier would require him to sit for extended periods in a chair that was uncomfortable.
He also claims that the extended periods of sitting worsened his arthritis and caused him to develop lower back problems. According to the former William Hill staff member, he on several occasions requested to have his chair changed.
However, the brand refused to accept his request claiming that if they had changed the chair for the employee, they would have been required to spend thousands of dollars to make sure that all the employees were provided new chairs. Something that the casino brand was not prepared to take on.
What we cover
What is the ex-William Hill employee seeking?
The ex-employee is seeking reimbursement for pay, as well as benefits. Pugliese is pursuing an order prohibiting discrimination and retaliation against any employees that face similar problems in the future. Because his condition worsened due to the poor working environment, Pugliese believes that he is eligible for compensation for all pay, as well as any benefits that he would otherwise have received.
Pugliese is not the only employee to have filed a lawsuit against the casino giant. At the end of May 2021, an old employee of Caesars Entertainment sued the brand, as well as its retirement money manager owing to issues concerning a 401(K) plan. Employees in the country are entitled to various benefits and programs which will vary from one employment place to the next.
The more senior the employee, the more options one has at their disposal. Numerous employees depend on 401 (K) programs for their retirement and retrenchment plans. On this occasion, it appeared as though Caesars missed the mark when their 401(K) plan was not at par according to former employee Maggie Thompson.
Maggie filed a lawsuit against Caesars and Russell Investment, which handles the casino brand’s retirement funds. According to the lawsuit filed against Caesars, both Russell Investments and its boss violated fiduciary responsibilities, which resulted in employees shorted by more than $100 million in benefits. Based on the contents of the lawsuit, Caesars opted to bring in an outside firm, which benefited from the outsourcing as Russell Investments transferred most of the investment options to its proprietary funds.
The lawsuit, which was filed in the District Court of Nevada, claims that Russell Investment acquired control of the investment menu included in the retirement plan in 2017. The investment firm is later said to have filled the plan with funds that were not successful, meaning that the interests of the participants were not paid any mind. Russell Investments later released a statement to deny all allegations made in the lawsuit.
The ex-Caesars employee admonished the brand for failing to properly manage the fund. This class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of the participants of the 401 (K) programs in question. The class-action lawsuit targeted Caesars Entertainment Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan, as well as Russell Investments for moving $1.4 million to funds that they knew were struggling.
Caesars Entertainment Corporation Savings & Retirement Plan is also being sued by the participants for dropping the 401(k)-investment matching plan, which it ceased to support for a while in 2009. The matching plan did not start back up again until 2012- 3 years after the fact. Even after Caesars started making matching contributions, the Savings and retirement plan capped the level to $600 for each participant yearly.
The class-action lawsuit claims that this amount was way below the 50% match that Caesars had formerly postulated. It is said that when Caesars turned over management of the plan to Russell Investment, it failed to supply subsequent oversight for the fund, which consequently led to mismanagement. The employees are therefore suing the casino giant for violating 1974’s Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Last year in September 2020, an ex-employee of Harrah’s Southern California, (whose parent brand is Caesars Entertainment) filed a lawsuit against Caesars alleging that the tribal casino reopened the casino floor despite safety concerns regarding the ongoing pandemic.
Final Thoughts
As Caesars continues to do everything in its power to cement its brand as the top gambling company in the country, it will want to make sure that it settles any lawsuits lodged against it. Not only will this improve the overall perception of the brand among the general public, but among potential employees as well.
