Civil Rights Act of 1964

Civil Rights Act of 1964

This scenario places DWI in a difficult legal position, because it has a duty to its patrons and a duty to its employees. DWI could acquiesce to the terrorist demands and refuse to allow patrons who appear to be of Arab or Middle Eastern descent, thus ending the threat of violence. However, doing so would place DWI in direct violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. Keeping the business open, on the other hand, places DWI's employees in danger and could violate DWI's obligation to provide its employees with a safe work place. The threats against the guests and the property made DWI aware of potential danger, and an employee was injured as a result of that danger. DWI has a duty to ensure that the injured employee receives appropriate care and compensation. It also has a duty to protect its other employees, who have understandably, been reluctant to return to work since the sniper attack. In addition to legal duties, DWI has to worry about financial concerns. If DWI has to shut down the casino until the threats can be traced and eliminated, they will lose revenue during any down time. In addition, any type of shut down may be seen as acquiescence to the terrorist demands, and several groups have threatened to boycott DWI if it gives in to the blackmail.

DWI absolutely cannot bar patrons on the basis of race or national origin. Combined Title II and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 absolutely bar discrimination on the basis of race or national origin in public accommodations, enjoin establishments from such discrimination, and establish rules for desegregation (P.L. 88-352, 201 et seq. And 301 et seq.). The affected business, the Queen of the Nile, is a casino/hotel, which firmly falls within the definition of public accommodation. The constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has already been determined; in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), the Supreme Court the Act to determine if Congress could prohibit discrimination in accommodations. The challenge in that case was that if a hotel was not likely to serve customers traveling interstate, then the Commerce Clause could not be used to justify a law impacting that hotel's obligation to serve potential patrons. However, the Supreme Court struck down that challenge and affirmed the idea that the Commerce Clause could be used to justify laws for all hotels. Likewise, in Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), the Supreme Court was called upon to determine if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could constitutionally be applied to restaurants. Although the Supreme Court did not suggest that all restaurants had the possibility of serving interstate travelers, it still found that the Commerce Clause applied because much of the food served in restaurants moves within the stream of commerce, thus triggering Commerce Clause application. The combined result of those two cases is that all public establishments in the United States are barred race-based discrimination. Therefore, DWI absolutely cannot acquiesce to the terrorists' demands and attempt to bar any of its Arab-American or Middle-Eastern customers.

Resolution of that issue still leaves DWI with an important concern about moving forwards in its business. As clear as DWI's legal position is towards its potential patrons, it may also have a legal duty to its employees to provide them with a safe workplace. According to Gary Watkins, while there is no definitive law stating that employers will be responsible for their employees who experience workplace violence, both the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act 181 of 1993) and the common law support the idea that employers can be held responsible when their employees are injured as a result of workplace violence (2008). Generally, this is the case when a person's job puts them at increased risk for violence, such as when that person is a cashier. Casino employees already work in an environment that increases the potential for violence; casinos generally feature a lot of money on the premises, a substantial amount of drinking alcohol on the premises, and people who have lost a significant amount of money. Due to these factors, even without the additional threats of violence from the terrorists, it seems clear that DWI would have some type of protective duty towards its employees. Combined with the fact that there have been specific threats made against the hotel by a terrorist group that has shown its willingness to carry out those threats, it would be absolute disaster for DWI to move forward in its business without addressing those threats. Moreover, it is clear that DWI's internal security staff is inadequate to deal with these threats, given that one sniper attack has already occurred. DWI needs to immediately inform law enforcement. It should begin by calling the local police force and reporting the shooting and the threats, then contacting the state police, the FBI and homeland security. The FBI, the primary federal investigation organization, and homeland security, which specifically deals with terrorist threats, may have the resources necessary to identify the source of the terrorist threat and eradicate it in a timely fashion. DWI should work with those agencies to develop a safety plan for its casino. DWI should also make the threats public, so that its employees and its potential customers have knowledge of the threats and can make an informed decision about whether to come to the casino.