Gemza

What is Gemza?

Participants broadly accepted the principle that gambling information should be transparent and accessible, but many reported difficulty interpreting or using it effectively in practice. 

Technical data such as odds and rules were often obscured by delivery timing that came too late to influence decisions. 

This sense of understanding was also described as something that needed to be maintained continuously, rather than achieved only once and then relied upon. 

What is Gemza?

The NLRB ruled after the election that Red Rock took steps to prevent a fair union vote, and Red Rock sued in response, although the ruling was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last month. After the court denied a rehearing request on 6 August, it also subsequently denied Station’s request for a stay pending SCOTUS relief on 24 August.

Red Rock may still petition SCOTUS to hear the case, and the court could still choose to do so, but in the meantime the casino must comply with the NLRB ruling. The ruling requires the casino to recognise and bargain with the union upon request, post employee rights notices and other measures.

“The NLRB decision overturned the clear vote of Red Rock team members rejecting the Culinary Union,” Station said in a statement. “The decision prevents any company from granting benefits to its employees if it is aware of union interest in unionising the company’s employees and nullifies the Red Rock team members’ vote to be union-free, all because Station Casinos treated its team members too well.”

What is Gemza?

Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.

IPI now has until this Friday to find a new lawyer to carry the six-case workload Hasselback had, but will most likely use this as an excuse to delay the ongoing legal battles. It won’t get very far with that, though, and perhaps Judge Kennedy expected IPI to try something. She added in her ruling that the attorney’s exit “may cause some delay, [but] that delay is not so much so that it would cause significant prejudice or adversely and materially affect the plaintiff.”