Gage v. Missouri Gaming Commission

Treva Gage and Shari Douglas (defendants), who worked at the Isle of Capri casino in Boonville, Missouri, each held an occupational gaming license issued by the Missouri Gaming Commission (the commission) (plaintiff). Gage served as manager of management information systems (MIS), and Douglas served as senior MIS support specialist. Each had access to the information-technology (IT) room, where various computer systems were located. A surveillance camera monitored the IT room. On July 28, 2003, Denise Wilson, a third casino employee, covered the lens of the surveillance camera as a prank. It remained covered for 33 minutes while Douglas was present. That same day, after the incident, Douglas asked Gage what she should tell security officers if questioned. Gage instructed Douglas to say that Gage was changing her clothes in the IT room during that time and forgot to uncover the surveillance camera when she was finished. The following day, the casino’s surveillance manager and Missouri Highway Patrol investigated the incident, and both Gage and Douglas provided investigators with the false story. Four days later, Gage and Douglas admitted that the story was a lie. After the investigation, the commission issued preliminary disciplinary orders notifying Gage and Douglas that their licenses were subject to revocation. The preliminary disciplinary orders alleged violations of various Missouri gaming laws and regulations based on making false statements to commission agents, failure to prevent the incident, and failure to promptly notify the commission of the incident. The orders provided specific citations to the provisions of Missouri laws and regulations that were allegedly violated, although the orders did not recite the full text of those statutes and regulations. The orders also included a high-level summary of the factual allegations. Following a hearing, Gage’s and Douglas’s licenses were revoked, and they appealed. On appeal, Gage and Douglas argued that the disciplinary orders provided inadequate notice of the specific charges against them, thus denying their rights to due process.