## Facts

- Paco Luond worked as a bartender at a casino owned and operated by Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise (the Enterprise).
- While Luond was tending bar, a patron placed her purse and a slot-machine redemption (cash-out) ticket on the bar (about $81.50).
- Surveillance video showed Luond reach across the bar, pick up the redemption ticket, speak with the patron, and then place the ticket behind the bar.
- Before leaving, the patron ordered a beer and left five dollars in cash on the bar; Luond placed the cash into a tip bucket.
- Later, Luond placed the redemption ticket into the tip bucket as well.
- The Enterprise investigated and concluded the ticket was not intended as a tip or gift, and that Luond should have treated it as lost property.
- The Enterprise terminated Luond for alleged violations of its Standards of Conduct (theft or appropriation of property of others) and its Lost and Found Policy (requiring a found slot redemption slip to be turned over to security personnel).
- The patron said she did not recall the details of the exchange, but when told where the ticket was found, she responded, “oh, that’s where I left it.”
- Luond testified that he asked the patron whether the ticket was hers and she replied, “no it’s all yours,” and he also testified that patrons sometimes tip with redemption slips.
- Luond appealed the termination through the Enterprise’s internal process to a Board of Review, which upheld the termination.
- In the internal appeal, the Board of Review considered a confidential record of prior, “inactive” discipline involving an earlier theft allegation against Luond that should not have been included in the record for the appeal.
- Luond sought review in the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court, which reversed the Board’s decision based on the inclusion and consideration of the inactive discipline.
- The Enterprise appealed to the Mashantucket Pequot Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board of Review’s finding that the patron’s redemption ticket was not intended as a tip or gift to Luond.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board of Review’s finding that Luond knew (or reasonably should have known) the redemption ticket was lost or stolen property rather than his to keep.
3. Whether the Board’s inclusion and consideration of confidential, inactive prior discipline required reversal, or instead amounted to harmless error.

## Decision

- The Mashantucket Pequot Court of Appeals reversed the Tribal Court’s judgment.
- The court held there was substantial evidence supporting the Board of Review’s findings that (a) the ticket was not intended as a tip or gift and (b) Luond knew the ticket was lost or stolen.
- The court concluded that the Board’s improper inclusion/consideration of inactive prior discipline was error but was harmless on this record.
- The court reinstated the Board of Review’s decision upholding Luond’s termination.

## Legal Principles

- In review of an internal employment appeal decision, courts do not reweigh the evidence; they ask whether the decision has a reasonable basis supported by substantial evidence in the record.
- A board may draw reasonable inferences from video evidence, surrounding circumstances, and policy requirements when deciding whether property was gifted or was lost property.
- Employment policies requiring employees to turn over found property (such as slot redemption slips) may support a finding that an employee knew or should have known the item was not theirs to keep.
- Considering confidential, inactive prior discipline in an administrative record can be improper, but reversal is not required when the error did not materially affect the outcome (harmless error).

## Conclusion

Luond was fired after surveillance footage showed him take a patron’s $81.50 redemption ticket from the bar area and later place it in a tip bucket, contrary to the Enterprise’s lost-property rules. Although the Board of Review improperly considered inactive, confidential prior discipline during the internal appeal, the Mashantucket Pequot Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the ticket was not a tip and that Luond knew it was lost or stolen, and it treated the prior-discipline mistake as harmless error, reversing the Tribal Court and reinstating the termination.


Luond v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, 2016 WL 6946909 (2016)