Published on: January 9, 2026, 09:04h.
Updated on: January 9, 2026, 09:18h.
- NJ appellate judges evaluate Bally’s “mechanical bull” bartender job criteria
- Veteran bartenders claim performance-based job descriptions can disadvantage older candidates
- Bally’s contends some plaintiffs did not apply, undermining their allegations
Should bartenders be assessed on their cocktail-making prowess or their ability to ride a mechanical bull?
The issue is currently under examination by the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, which is pondering whether a bar at Bally’s Atlantic City exceeded legal boundaries by integrating physical stunts into its recruitment approach.
Eliminate the Nonsense
The lawsuit was initiated by 18 experienced bartenders who assert that the job specification at Bally’s Atlantic City bar—known as the Boardwalk Saloon since its inception in 2016—effectively barred them from employment, not due to their capability to mix drinks but because the role had evolved into something resembling a performance.
Aside from the need to ride the aforementioned mechanical bull, candidates were required to perform choreographed routines, craft flaming cocktails, and act both as entertainers and social media influencers.
The plaintiffs argue that this has a disproportionate effect on older employees and violates New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws. Applicants were also mandated to “maintain weight relative to height,” a requirement that can become increasingly challenging with age, per the complaint. Plaintiffs allege that BMI was monitored over time, not solely at hiring.
Defense attorneys for Bally’s argued that the plaintiffs did not formally apply for the positions, suggesting that without an application, their legal claims are unfounded. Since the plaintiffs were already employed at Bally’s, they maintain that an application was unnecessary, but argue that the purportedly ageist policy generally favored younger employees for shifts at the Boardwalk Saloon.
During oral arguments on Wednesday, the judge panel challenged both parties on whether job postings can inadvertently serve as a deterrent, particularly when requirements appear unrealistic or intimidating to certain age demographics. One plaintiff mentioned during the session is in his late 70s and is ill-prepared for rodeo-style performances, which was highlighted by the judges.
Previous Case Dismissal
A lower court had previously dismissed the case, siding with Bally’s, asserting that the claims did not meet the legal threshold. The plaintiffs are now appealing to the Appellate Division, seeking to restore the case, contending that contemporary hiring practices should not be allowed to evade age-discrimination protections.
If the appellate court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the decision could have implications extending beyond just casinos. Bars, diners, and entertainment venues are consistently selling an “experience,” often anticipating that staff will embody it, especially in tourist destinations like Atlantic City.
The central question remains: how far can employers stretch this notion before it starts excluding traditionally skilled workers who are more than capable of fulfilling the role?
The court has yet to render a ruling.