[CA] Law regarding consumer rights to spoken language

[kschang]

First, this may or may not be California jurisdiction, as the problem is in one of the Indian Casinos. I will not name which one, but here's the situation:

Recently, this Indian Casino has banned the use of any non-English language around their gaming tables (bacarrat, poker, blackjack, roulette, craps, etc.). A sign was put up, and players are asked to speak in English only. If the player refuses, or does not understand / ignores the request, the player's bet is refused, and if the player makes a scene, security is called to eject the player from the premises.

No explanation was ever given for the ban. It was speculated that it's to prevent players from passing signals or card counts in foreign languages not understood by the staff, but that's never confirmed.

At first, I thought this may be a violation of the CA Unruh Civil Rights Act, but apparently the Govern-ator (Arnold) had vetoed the amendment that would have explicitly banned any discrimination in a business against customers speaking non-English, so that is apparently not applicable, but then I'm not a lawyer.

I know the Federal Civil Rights laws like Title VIII doesn't apply as that applies to employees, not customers.

And then there's the jurisdiction issue. Technically speaking the Indian Reservations upon which these casinos operate are technically sovreign nations with their own laws, and not all California laws may apply, even though Unruh act specifically states anywhere in California.

So... is the ban legal? If not, based on what cases / laws?

[JCarson]

Look at CALIFORNIA V. CABAZON BAND OF INDIANS, 480 U. S. 202 (1987).

"California sought to apply to the Tribes its statute governing the operation of bingo games. Riverside County also sought to apply its ordinance regulating bingo, as well as its ordinance prohibiting the playing of draw poker and other card games. The Tribes instituted an action for declaratory relief in Federal District Court, which entered summary judgment for the Tribes, holding that neither the State nor the county had any authority to enforce its gambling laws within the reservations. The Court of Appeals affirmed."