Federal Court Dismisses Most Claims in MGM National Harbor High-Heels Lawsuit — One Disability Promotion Claim Survives to Trial

Federal Judge Rules on MGM National Harbor Dress Code Case

A federal judge has delivered a mixed ruling in a discrimination lawsuit against MGM National Harbor, dismissing the majority of claims brought by a former cocktail server challenging the casino's mandatory high-heel dress code policy. However, the court permitted one significant claim — related to promotion and disability discrimination — to survive summary judgment and potentially proceed to trial.

Background

The lawsuit centred on MGM National Harbor's enforcement of a dress code requirement that mandated female cocktail servers wear high-heeled shoes as part of their uniform. The plaintiff, a former employee, argued that the policy violated federal employment discrimination laws by failing to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities affecting mobility and foot health.

The case touches on broader industry practices regarding appearance standards and uniform requirements in casino hospitality roles. Many major casino operators maintain similar dress codes for service staff, making the outcome significant for compliance and HR departments across the gaming sector.

What the Court Decided

The federal court's decision to dismiss most claims represents a significant win for MGM National Harbor, validating the casino's position that dress code policies requiring specific footwear do not inherently violate accommodation laws. The ruling establishes that:

1. Appearance standards are generally permissible. Casinos can establish and enforce dress codes including specific footwear requirements, provided policies apply consistently across similarly situated employees. 2. Accommodation requests do not automatically override dress codes. An employee's disability-related request does not create an absolute entitlement to alter a uniform standard, particularly where the operator can demonstrate a legitimate business rationale. 3. Disability accommodations in advancement decisions remain actionable. The surviving promotion-related claim signals that courts draw a clear line: while the dress code itself may be lawful, operators cannot use an employee's accommodation needs — implicitly or explicitly — as a factor in denying promotions or advancement opportunities.

Industry Implications

For major casino operators, the ruling provides useful legal cover for maintaining appearance-based uniform standards while also identifying a specific compliance risk: advancement decisions affecting employees who have requested disability accommodations require documented, non-discriminatory justification. HR and legal teams across the sector should audit promotion decision records to ensure accommodation history is not a documented or inferred variable in advancement evaluations.

For MGM Resorts as an organisation, the partial win reduces litigation exposure across its portfolio, but the surviving promotion claim means the case is not closed. That remaining claim creates ongoing reputational and financial exposure until the matter is fully resolved.

What to Watch

The ultimate outcome of the surviving promotion discrimination claim — whether settled privately or adjudicated at trial — will determine the full legal precedent this case establishes. A trial verdict unfavourable to MGM on the promotion claim could sharpen the sector's compliance obligations around accommodation and advancement even if the dress code itself remains validated.

Source: casino.org. Published 2026-06-01.