Chicago Casino Settles Lawsuit Over Investment Policy
Last week, Bally’s Chicago, a major casino project set to open in 2026, reached a settlement in a lawsuit that sparked significant controversy. The lawsuit was filed by two potential investors, Richard Fisher and Phillip Aronoff, who alleged that the casino had a discriminatory policy that barred White men from investing in its operations.
Bally’s Chicago is part of a $1.7 billion investment, aiming to be the largest casino in Illinois, complete with a 500-room hotel and a 3,000-seat theater. The allegations centered around the Host Community Agreement with the City of Chicago, which stipulated that a minimum of 25% of the casino’s ownership would need to be held by minorities and women.
The investors claimed this requirement violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits racial discrimination in contracts. Their arguments were supported by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), a conservative legal group advocating for equal rights in investment opportunities.
Initially, to qualify for the casino’s $250 million initial public offering (IPO), potential investors were required to meet specific criteria that included being a minority or a woman. Bally’s began accepting investment deposits in December, but later issued refunds in February because the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had not yet approved the IPO.
Reacting to the public backlash and potential legal ramifications, Bally’s dropped the contentious ownership requirements in April, expressing a preference for investors from the Chicago area without excluding any group from participation.
Dan Lennington, managing vice president of WILL, celebrated the settlement as a victory for equality. He stated, “This is a great win for equality. Bally’s Casino in Chicago, the city of Chicago, and the state of Illinois all agreed to open the new casino and only allow minorities and women to own 25% of the casino as part of an investment. They have now dropped that requirement and filed papers with the SEC stating the investment will now be open to everybody.”
Patrick Callahan, a Chicago attorney who was barred from investing, acknowledged the settlement but expressed cautious optimism about the future landscape of investment in the city. “Under current state and local leadership, it’s hard to be too optimistic that Chicago will suddenly become a bastion of nondiscrimination. That being said, this is a big victory, and I’m hoping to see many more of them,” Callahan remarked.
The decision to settle reflects a broader conversation about inclusivity and fairness within investment opportunities. Many believe that limiting access based on race, even with good intentions, undermines the principle of equal opportunity. Supporters of the settlement hope it sets a precedent to ensure that all individuals, regardless of race or gender, have the opportunity to invest in local businesses and projects.
In the wake of Bally’s decision, there is a renewed focus on the necessity of equity in investments. Advocates argue that true advancement in social justice can only be achieved by ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, has a seat at the table.
As the casino prepares for its grand opening and the potential economic growth it promises, the ramifications of this settlement will likely continue to echo in the business and investment communities. The outcome has sparked discussions on how to balance community agreements with the foundational principle of equal rights—the right to fair participation in economic opportunities.
In conclusion, as Chicago moves forward, the hope is that this situation encourages a more inclusive environment in business, where policies promote genuine collaboration rather than exclusion based on race. This case serves as an important reminder that diversity should extend to equal opportunities for investment and involvement in the economic fabric of the community.
