Total Articles: 34
Fisher Phillips • June 21, 2018
Slots chain employer Dotty’s recently agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle litigation alleging its “100-percent-healed” policy discriminates against disabled workers. The June 5 settlement and consent decree entered in the federal court case of EEOC v. Nevada Restaurant Services Inc. is just the most recent victory in the EEOC’s campaign to target employer “maximum-leave” and “100-percent-healed” policies.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 12, 2018
In the last of a series of decisions reached by the Nevada Supreme Court interpreting the Minimum Wage Amendment (“MWA”) to the Nevada Constitution, the Court concluded that an employer may pay the lower of the state’s two-tier minimum wage “if the employer offers health insurance at a cost to the employer of the equivalent of at least an additional dollar per hour in wages, and at a cost to the employee of no more than 10 percent of the employee’s gross taxable income from the employer.” MDC Restaurants, LLC, et al. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 41, 2018 Nev. LEXIS 42 (May 31, 2018).
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • June 05, 2018
On May 31, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in MDC Restaurants, LLC v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. Op. 41 (May 31, 2018), addressing arguably the most hotly contested issue of law regarding the Nevada Constitution’s Minimum Wage Amendment, Nev. Cost. art. XV § 16 (“MWA” or the “Amendment”). Specifically, the court was asked to clarify what constitutes “health benefits” for purposes of paying Nevada’s lower-tier minimum wage. The court answered that question by determining, based on “common sense,” that “the MWA requires an employer who pays one dollar per hour less in wages to provide a benefit in the form of health insurance at least equivalent to the one dollar per hour in wages that the employee would otherwise receive.”
Ogletree Deakins • December 14, 2017
In the new year, Nevada employers will be required to provide workplace protections for employees who are victims of domestic violence. Nevada Senate Bill 361, which was signed into law by Governor Brian Sandoval over the summer, will become effective on January 1, 2018. This law modifies Chapter 608 of the Nevada Revised Statutes to require employers to provide leave to an employee “who has been employed by an employer for at least 90 days and who is a victim of an act which constitutes domestic violence.” Specifically, an eligible employee is entitled to 160 hours of leave (which may be taken in a block or intermittently) during a 12-month period following the date on which the domestic violence occurs. The leave allowed under this law may be paid or unpaid.
Ogletree Deakins • August 13, 2017
On August 8, 2017, the Nevada attorney general moved to intervene in an action brought by Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) serial litigant Kevin Zimmerman and to consolidate it with the more than 150 other pending Zimmerman actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The attorney general cited the state’s “strong interest in protecting the public interest from malicious or premature lawsuits that threaten Nevada businesses [sic] owners and adversely impact Nevada’s general economy.”
Fisher Phillips • July 25, 2017
The state legislature recently enacted the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act (NPWFA) to expand the scope of protection for employees and applicants. The NPWFA is based on the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and is also strongly influenced by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). It applies to employers in the state with 15 or more employees, as well as to state and local governments. Although many portions of the Act are not effective until October 1, 2017, the notice provisions took effect on June 2. If you are not yet familiar with this new law, the time to educate yourself is now.
Fisher Phillips • July 25, 2017
By the turn of the New Year, employers in Nevada will have an obligation to provide workplace protections to domestic violence victims, including time off from work. Starting January 1, 2018, Nevada employees will be entitled to leave above and beyond what may already be owed to them under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Employers should begin preparing for this change to the law, revising policies, practices, and training sessions to reflect the change.
Fisher Phillips • July 25, 2017
Many legitimate reasons exist to explain differences in compensation within a company, such as job qualifications and prior experience. Although employers may wish to maintain the privacy of this information, they could face legal consequences if they prevent employees from discussing their wages. Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), employers cannot discriminate against non-supervisory employees when they discuss their wages as part of a “concerted activity,” regardless of whether they are unionized. Similarly, in 2014, the Obama administration issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination from federal contractors against employees or applicants who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their wages.
Fisher Phillips • July 25, 2017
The Nevada Supreme Court has long recognized the legality of non-compete agreements between employers and employees. Recently, however, the Nevada state legislature updated the rules on non-compete agreements, specifying how employers should draft their provisions and preventing employers from restricting former employees from providing services to customers or clients. If you use a non-compete agreement in Nevada, it is critical to review that agreement and determine if revisions are necessary.
Fisher Phillips • July 25, 2017
Although the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) already protects nursing mothers from employment discrimination and retaliation while requiring employers to provide them with reasonable break time and a private space to express breast milk, Nevada has taken things a step further. The state just enacted a broad new nursing mothers law for all public and private employers, other than the Department of Corrections, certain small employers, and certain licensed contractors.
Ogletree Deakins • July 21, 2017
The Nevada Equal Rights Commission has published its official notice for the new Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act. As you likely know by now, Nevada employers with at least 15 employees must immediately post this notice in the workplace in a conspicuous place (e.g., where other legal employee notices are currently posted). The notice is available on the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation’s website.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 19, 2017
The Nevada Equal Rights Commission has issued an official Notice for the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • July 02, 2017
The 2017 Nevada Legislature saw a flurry of proposed legislation directly and indirectly affecting private employment in the state of Nevada. One of the proposed measures is Senate Bill 361 which was approved by Governor Sandoval on March 8, 2017. Senate Bill 361, designated simply as an Act relating to domestic violence, becomes fully effective January 1, 2018.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 30, 2017
Over the last year, Nevada’s non-compete law has undergone a number of changes. The latest is a new law setting forth a new standard by which non-compete agreements are to be evaluated.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 30, 2017
Once again, Nevada has re-written the landscape the law regarding enforcement of post-employment non-competition agreements. Please see the article posted on our website, written by Elayna J. Youchah and Joshua A. Sliker of our Las Vegas office. They analyze Assembly Bill 276, amending Chapter 613 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, signed into law by Governor Brian Sandoval on June 3, 2017.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • June 22, 2017
Nevada noncompetition law has historically had few seismic shifts, which changed in 2016 when the Nevada Supreme Court issued its opinion in Golden Road Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam, 376 P.3d 151 (Nev. 2016). That case sent shockwaves affecting noncompetition agreements employers already had in place, especially with respect to whether their agreement’s restriction had any limits on the scope of work restricted at a competing entity or whether the restriction effectively prohibited an employee from working for a competitor in any capacity – even “as a custodian.”
Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 11, 2017
Nevada employers must post a notice on the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act immediately. Governor Brian Sandoval signed the Act into law on June 2, 2017, and the notice provisions took effect upon signing. All other provisions of the Act will take effect on October 1, 2017.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • June 11, 2017
On May 25, 2017, the Nevada Labor Commissioner posted an Advisory Opinion1 stating that the fluctuating work week method (FWW) may be used to compensate certain nonexempt employees. The Advisory Opinion stated the FWW method of compensation is permissible for a nonexempt employee who is paid a fixed-salary for all hours worked, for overtime hours worked in excess of 40 per week under NRS 608.018, Nevada’s overtime statute. This Advisory Opinion is significant because it is the first time Nevada has formally endorsed the FWW for use under state law.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • June 07, 2017
Nevada first included sex as a protected category in 1967. That year, the legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 7, which included for the first time sex discrimination as an unlawful employment practice. Twenty-one years later, in 1989, Nevada passed legislation that required employers to provide pregnant employees the same benefits provided to other employees due to sickness or disability related to a medical condition. Fast forward another 28 years. On June 2, 2017, Governor Sandoval signed into law Senate Bill No. 253, which greatly expands the legal protections for pregnant employees.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • March 27, 2017
On March 16, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court issued yet another 6-0 en banc decision regarding the Nevada Constitution’s oft-litigated Minimum Wage Amendment, Nev. Cost. art. XV § 16 (“MWA” or the “Amendment”). The issues before the Court in Western Cab Co. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 10 (Mar. 16, 2017), were twofold: (1) whether the MWA is federally preempted by the National Relations Act (NLRA) or the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); and (2) whether the MWA is unconstitutionally vague due to lack of clarity on what “health benefits” are required by the Amendment.
Fisher Phillips • January 05, 2017
If you are using a noncompetition agreement in Nevada, you may want to consider reviewing that agreement. The Nevada Supreme Court recently held that state courts shall not modify – or “blue pencil” – non-compete agreements in order to bring them into compliance with the law. The court explained that if a non-compete agreement contains even a single provision which “extends beyond what is necessary” to protect a company’s interests, then the entire agreement will be deemed unenforceable.
Ogletree Deakins • November 14, 2016
On November 8, 2016, voters approved Nevada’s Initiative to Regulate and Tax Marijuana (more commonly known as Question 2) by a margin of 54 percent to 46 percent. When codified and enacted, this law will be cited as the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act. This act will become effective on January 1, 2017, and Nevada’s Department of Taxation will be required to adopt all regulations necessary to execute the act’s provisions no later than twelve months after this date. The passage of Question 2 places Nevada in a group of eight states (plus the District of Columbia) that will allow for recreational use of marijuana, four of which passed such initiatives in the November 8, 2016 election.
Ogletree Deakins • November 07, 2016
On October 27, 2016, the Supreme Court of Nevada issued decisions in a trio of cases resolving important questions about Nevada’s Minimum Wage Amendment.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • August 08, 2016
In April 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its long-awaited “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (2012 Guidance). The updated guidance does not prohibit employers from using criminal records, but outlines what the EEOC considers recommended best practices, including a recommendation that employers, among other things: (1) remove from employment applications the question that asks job applicants to self-disclose their criminal record; (2) not make an employment decision based solely on the fact of an arrest record; and (3) conduct an “individualized assessment” before rejecting an applicant or terminating an employee because of a conviction.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 26, 2016
In the first decision to reach the Nevada Supreme Court on whether state district courts may modify or “blue pencil” non-competition agreements, the high court has concluded that doing so would violate Nevada law. Golden Road Motor Inn Inc. d/b/a Atlantis Casino Resort Spa v. Islam, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 49 (July 21, 2016). The 4-3 decision signals a clear change in direction that affects the enforceability of non-competition agreements in Nevada.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 30, 2015
When businesses set out to safeguard “personal information,” a fundamental consideration is what that term means. Likewise, when negotiating a third-party vendor agreement, it typically is not enough to rely on the standard definition for “confidential information.”
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • June 25, 2015
Under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), background screening companies (or consumer reporting agencies) are generally prohibited from reporting certain types of derogatory information that the FCRA considers to be too old to be useful, i.e., obsolete. For example, background screening companies typically cannot report certain bankruptcies that are older than 10 years and civil suits and civil judgments that are older than seven years.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • June 11, 2015
Labor Standard Act (FLSA)’s "economic realities" test to determine whether workers can be classified as independent contractors under Nevada law for purposes of minimum wage payments under Nevada Revised Statutes' (NRS) Chapter 608. In an apparent move to overrule Terry, the Nevada Legislature passed Senate Bill 224 (S.B. 224). Signed into law on June 2, 2015 by Governor Brian Sandoval, S.B. 224 establishes a “conclusive presumption” that a person is an independent contractor, rather than an employee, if certain conditions are met. A “conclusive presumption” is a presumption that must be taken as true regardless of any evidence to the contrary. As a result, it is likely that more workers can properly be classified as independent contractors under NRS Chapter 608. Significantly, S.B. 224 applies to any currently ongoing dispute relating to whether a worker is an independent contractor and therefore owed minimum wage under Nevada law.
Ogletree Deakins • September 18, 2013
Nevada has become the eleventh state in the nation to enact a law restricting employer access to employee social media accounts. Beginning October 1, 2013, it will be illegal for Nevada employers to require or request that an employee disclose his or her username, password, or any other information that would allow the employer to access the employee’s social media accounts. Assembly Bill No. 181, signed into law by Governor Brian Sandoval in June, also prohibits an employer from discharging, disciplining, or otherwise discriminating against an employee that refuses to provide such information. Similarly, employers cannot condition an applicant’s employment on providing employer access to his or her social media accounts.
Fisher Phillips • June 19, 2013
Unless it is necessary to comply with a state or federal law or regulation, effective October 1, 2013, it will be illegal for a Nevada employer to require, request, or even suggest that an employee or a prospective employee disclose the user name, password or other access information to his or her personal social media account.
Ogletree Deakins • January 04, 2012
In 2011, Nevada joined the growing number of states that prohibit the use of cell phones while driving, unless the driver uses a â€œhands-freeâ€ device, by passing Senate Bill 140. Beginning January 1, 2012, Nevada drivers can be ticketed for violating this law.
Fisher Phillips • October 03, 2011
Nevada has now joined the ranks of several other states that limit cell phone usage while driving. The new law, effective October 1, 2011, but not to be enforced until January 1, 2012, generally makes it unlawful to talk or text on a cell phone while driving without the use of a hands-free device. Here are the details.
Fisher Phillips • June 01, 2011
On May 24, 2011, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed into law Assembly Bill 211, which amends Nevada law and provides for protection from discrimination in employment based upon the gender identity or expression of a person. The bill defines "gender identity or expression" as "a gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of a person, regardless of the person's assigned sex at birth." Specifically, the bill states, in part, that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer "[t]o fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge any person, or otherwise discriminate against any person with respect to the person's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of his or her...gender identity or expression
Fisher Phillips • October 27, 2009
August 15, 2009 marked the effective date for a new law, which dramatically expands leave rights for those parents who choose to participate in school-related activities of their children.