Mount Airy Casino Settles $2.3 million Wage Violation Suit

Written by

Share on social media

Pennsylvania’s Mount Airy Casino Resort has agreed to a $2.3 million settlement in a class-action suit that alleged multiple wage and tip-payment violations affecting table games dealers, according to Casino.org. 

Key Takeaways:

  • Nearly 700 current and former dealers eligible for payouts averaging over $2,000
  • Settlement addresses alleged uncommunicated tip credit, improper tip pooling, and wage miscalculations
  • Final approval hearing scheduled for February 19 in Wilkes-Barre to execute the wage violation settlement

Wage Violation Settlement Covers Tip Credits and Overtime Claims

Roughly 696 current and former employees who worked at Mount Airy between February 7, 2022, and May 8, 2025, are eligible for payouts averaging more than $2,000 and no less than $100, with at least $1,474,000 allocated directly to employees and the balance covering attorneys’ fees and administration. 

The suit, filed in February 2025 by former dealers Jennifer Mak and William Neidig, accused the resort of taking an uncommunicated tip credit, improper tip pooling with non-tipped supervisors, rounding employees’ time to underpay wages, and miscalculating overtime.

“The failure to give tip credit notice gives rise to both unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages,” the suit stated. The original complaint sought as much as $5 million and that the plaintiff class expanded substantially during litigation.

Final Approval and Payouts Set for Early 2026

A final approval hearing is scheduled for February 19 in Wilkes-Barre to execute the wage violation settlement, and court filings will determine individual distributions. The settlement comes as Pennsylvania regulators continue to step up enforcement across the gaming sector. According to Department of Labor guidance cited in the complaints, as reported by Poker News Daily, valid tip-pooling must be limited to employees who “customarily and regularly receive tips,” a point central to the plaintiffs’ claims. The company has not disputed that it negotiated the settlement.