Rosenthal v. State ex rel. Nevada Gaming Commission, No. 11856

• Docket Nº: No. 11856
• Citation: 620 P.2d 874, 96 Nev. 959
• Case Date: December 31, 1980
• Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Page 874

620 P.2d 874 96 Nev. 959 Frank ROSENTHAL, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Nevada ex rel. the NEVADA GAMING COMMISSION and
Nevada Gaming Control Board, Respondents. No. 11856. Supreme Court of Nevada. Dec. 31, 1980.

Page 875

Goodman, Oshins, Brown & Singer, Chartered, and Oscar B. Goodman, Las Vegas, for appellant.

Richard H. Bryan, Atty. Gen., and Patricia Becker and Raymond D. Pike, Deputy Attys. Gen., Carson City, for respondents.

[96 Nev. 960] OPINION

THOMPSON, Justice:

This case is sequel to State of Nevada v. Rosenthal, 93 Nev. 36, 559 P.2d 830 (1977), where we noted the distinction between the status of one who seeks to acquire a gaming license and the status of one who possesses a work permit as a gaming employee. The former does not have existing privileges, but is attempting to acquire them. The latter does have an existing privilege and is entitled to receive notice and a hearing before his privilege to work as a gaming employee can be nullified. In that case we found it permissible for the Gaming Commission to deny Rosenthal's application to be licensed as a key employee of Argent Corporation, but impermissible automatically to revoke his work permit as a gaming employee without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. The statutes and regulations then in effect which would allow such automatic revocation could not stand for want of fairness.

Because of that decision, Rosenthal could no longer direct the Nevada operations of Argent Corporation since he had been denied a state gaming license. He became Food and Beverage Director for the Stardust Hotel and later its Entertainment Director for a salary of $65,000 a year. Believing that Rosenthal, in the mentioned positions, continued to significantly influence gaming, the Commission deemed Rosenthal still to be a key employee and once again directed him to submit an application for a gaming license.

[96 Nev. 961] The Gaming Control Board and the Gaming Commission, meeting in joint session, denied Rosenthal a license. In reviewing that decision, the district court found that there was evidence to support a determination that Rosenthal was a key employee, and not suitable to be licensed. The court also found that Rosenthal's work permit had expired. ¹

Page 876

On this appeal it is Rosenthal's primary contention that he has the right to work in the gaming industry, and that this right has been denied without due process of law.

1. Following the Rosenthal decision by this court the 1977 legislature amended the Gaming Control Act. (The legislature also amended the Act in 1979. All references herein are to the 1977 enactments.) A portion of the reworded Act, NRS 463.165 and 463.560, provides that if an employee required to be licensed is denied a license because of lack of good character, honesty or integrity, the gaming licensee by whom he is employed shall terminate his employment upon notification by registered or certified mail to the licensee of that action.

Such an automatic revocation of one's privilege to work as a gaming employee in a capacity other than that of a key employee was condemned by this court in the first Rosenthal case under statutes and regulations then in effect. In our view NRS 463.165 and 463.560 are equally infirm for want of procedural due process.

Here, as in the first Rosenthal case, the hearing before the Board and...