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).
Articles Discussing General Topics In Nevada Labor & Employment Law.
Nevada Supreme Court Determines Definition of Health Insurance for Nevada’s Minimum Wage Laws
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.”
Nevada Issues Official Notice for Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act for Immediate Posting
The Nevada Equal Rights Commission has issued an official Notice for the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act.
Nevada Mandates Employer Provided Leave and Accommodations for Victims of Domestic Violence
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.
New Law Brings Changes to Nevada’s Non-Compete Law
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.
Nevada’s All-New Non-Compete Statute
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.
Tectonic Shift Affecting Enforcement of Noncompetition Agreements Emanates from the 2017 Nevada Legislative Session and Passage of AB 276
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.”
Make Room on Your Bulletin Board for the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act Notice
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.
Nevada Labor Commissioner Advises that Employers May Compensate Certain Employees Under Fluctuating Work Week Method
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.
Nevada Expands Protections for Pregnant Workers
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.
Nevada Supreme Court Weighs in Again on the Nevada Constitution’s Minimum Wage Amendment
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.
Nevada Supreme Court Rules that Overly Broad Non-Compete Agreements are Wholly Unenforceable
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.
Nevada Confirms Its Restrictive Covenant Law, But Rejects Blue Penciling
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.
Nevada Updated Its Definition of Personal Information, Have You?
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.”
Background Screening Companies May Now Report Convictions Older Than Seven Years in Nevada
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.