Luond v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise
Mashantucket Pequot Court of Appeals
2016 WL 6946909 (2016)
- Written by Alex Hall, JD
Facts
Paco Luond (plaintiff) was bartending at a casino owned by Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise (the enterprise) (defendant) when a patron placed her purse and a slot-machine redemption ticket on the bar. Surveillance footage showed Luond reach across the bar, pick up the ticket, speak with the patron, then place the ticket behind the bar. Before the patron left, she ordered a beer and left five dollars on the bar, which Luond placed into a tip bucket. Later, Luond added the redemption ticket to the tip bucket. The enterprise investigated the incident and terminated Luond after concluding the ticket was not meant to be a tip. The patron said she did not recall details of the exchange but, upon hearing where the ticket was discovered, she said, “oh, that’s where I left it.” Luond testified that he asked the patron if the ticket was hers and she replied, “no it’s all yours,” and also that people often tipped with redemption slips. Luond appealed his termination to a board of review (the board), which upheld the decision. In reaching this decision, the board improperly considered a confidential record of a prior allegation of theft against Luond. The trial court reviewed the administrative record, found that the board’s consideration of prior discipline impaired the review process, and reversed the decision. The enterprise appealed to the Mashantucket Pequot Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bigler J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 819,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.