Category Archives: Nevada

October 25, 2024

Navigating Nevada’s Voter Leave Laws

JT Washington

Election season is here. In many states, early voting has already started or will soon begin. It is crucial for Nevada employers to understand their obligations regarding employees with Election Day approaching in just a couple weeks.

While federal law may not mandate employers to grant employees time off to cast their votes, several states, including Nevada, insist on such accommodation. These laws are designed to guarantee employees the opportunity to contribute their voices to the electoral process without fear of employer-imposed sanctions.

In Nevada, employees registered to vote may request leave from their employers if it is impracticable for them to vote before or after work. Nevada employers are required to give eligible employees “sufficient time” off to vote*. The amount of voting leave an employee receives is determined by the distance between the employee’s workplace and their polling place – this chart details the amount of voting leave employees are entitled to in Nevada:

Distance between job and polling place	Time Off Allowed for Voting
2 miles or less	1 hour
more than 2 miles but not more than 10 miles	2 hours
more than 10 miles	3 hours

Employees wishing to use leave to vote must request leave before Election Day*. Under Nevada law, employers can designate when an employee may be absent to vote*. Read more >>

July 1, 2024

Nevada’s New Minimum Wage Starts Today

by JT Washington

Nevada employers may be happy to learn that as a result of a November 8, 2022, ballot measure passing, Nevada’s two-tier minimum wage will be no more. The two-tier minimum wage system reduced the required minimum wage if an employer offered qualifying health benefits. This change means that all employees will be entitled to the same minimum hourly wage regardless of whether they receive qualifying health benefits. Starting July 1, 2024, the minimum wage will increase to $12 per hour for all Nevada workers who are not exempt from minimum wage requirements, regardless of whether the employer offered qualifying health benefits. See 2024 Minimum Wage Bulletin. Read more >>

November 28, 2022

Ballot Question 2’s Passing Negates Nevada’s Two-Tier Minimum Wage

By Dora Lane

Dora Lane

Effective July 1, 2024, Nevada’s two-tier minimum wage will no longer exist as a result of Ballot Question 2’s passing on November 8, 2022.

By way of background, in 2006, Nevada voters approved a two-tier minimum wage system applicable to employees subject to minimum wage requirements. Since then, Nevada’s minimum wage has increased over time. As of July 1, 2022, the minimum wage is $9.50/hour for employees who are provided qualifying health benefits and $10.50/hour for employees who are not provided qualifying health benefits. Nevada Assembly Bill 456, which passed in 2019, mandated that the applicable minimum wage rates rise gradually until 2024 when they would reach $11/hour and $12/hour for the respective employee tiers. Read more >>

July 26, 2021

Nevada Legislative Update 2021

By Dora Lane and Myrra Dvorak

Dora Lane

Similar to 2019, in 2021, the Nevada Legislature passed several bills implicating employment issues for both private and public employers. High level summaries of the relevant provisions of these bills and their effective dates are set forth below.

AJR 10 – Constitutional Minimum Wage Amendment

Myrra Dvorak

AJR 10 proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution, which currently establishes a 2-tier minimum wage system, allowing employers who provide qualifying health benefits to pay employees the lower tier minimum wage. The Nevada Constitution also presently provides for annual minimum wage adjustments based on increases in the federal minimum wage or, if greater, by the cumulative increase in the cost of living measured by the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”), subject to a 3 percent CPI adjustment cap.

If approved by the voters in 2022, AJR 10 would eliminate the two-tier minimum wage system and establish a $12/hour minimum wage for all employers (regardless of whether they provide qualifying health benefits), beginning July 1, 2024. AJR 10 would also eliminate the annual CPI increase and provide for increases in the Nevada minimum wages corresponding to any increases in the federal minimum wage above $12/hour. Finally, AJR 10 would expressly allow the Nevada Legislature to establish a minimum wage greater than $12/hour.

The resolution passed the 2019 and 2021 legislative sessions and will be placed on the 2022 ballot for voter approval. Read more >>

July 1, 2019

2019 Nevada Employment Legislation Updates

by Dora Lane

Over the last two years, the Nevada Legislature has passed a substantial number of laws affecting Nevada employers. Some of the most notable employment laws that recently passed are summarized below.

AB 132 (Pre-Employment Marijuana Drug Testing, effective January 1, 2020)

Starting with one of the most controversial bills, AB 132 addresses pre-employment marijuana screening of job applicants. When the recreational marijuana initiative passed in 2016 (effective 2017), it specifically stated that it did not prohibit “[a] public or private employer from maintaining, enacting, and enforcing a workplace policy prohibiting or restricting actions or conduct otherwise permitted under this chapter.” AB 132 provides that, subject to certain exceptions, it is unlawful for any employer in Nevada to “fail or refuse to hire a prospective employee because the prospective employee submitted to a screening test and the results of the screening test indicate the presence of marijuana.” AB 132 also provides that if an employer requires an employee to submit to a screening test within the initial 30 days of employment, the employee has the right to submit to an additional screening test (at the employee’s expense) to rebut the results of the initial test. The employer is required to accept and give appropriate consideration to the results of the second test.

For the full text of the bill, click here.

June 14, 2019

Employers Pay Attention: New Marijuana-Related Bill Passes Nevada Legislature

A number of employment-related bills passed this 2019 legislative session. One of these bills is AB 132, revising certain sections of NRS Chapter 613 as it relates to unlawful employment practices.

To put things in perspective, when the recreational marijuana initiative passed in 2016 (effective 2017), it specifically stated that it did not prohibit “[a] public or private employer from maintaining, enacting, and enforcing a workplace policy prohibiting or restricting actions or conduct otherwise permitted under this chapter.” See NRS 453D.100(2)(a). AB 132 provides that, subject to the exceptions listed below, it is unlawful for any employer in Nevada to “fail or refuse to hire a prospective employee because the prospective employee submitted to a screening test and the results of the screening test indicate the presence of marijuana.” AB 132 creates exceptions to this mandate if the prospective employee is applying for a position:

As a firefighter, as defined in NRS 450B.071;
As an emergency medical technician, as defined in NRS 450B.065;
That requires the employee to operate a motor vehicle and for which federal or state law mandates that the employee submit to screening tests; or
That, in the employer’s determination, could adversely affect the safety of others.

May 21, 2018

Arbitration Agreements Waiving Class Actions Do Not Violate the NLRA, Rules Supreme Court

By Dora Lane and Emily Hobbs-Wright

Dora Lane

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that arbitration agreements requiring that an employer and an employee resolve any employment disputes through one-on-one arbitration do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In an opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court ruled 5-to-4 that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) dictates that arbitration agreements be enforced, and nothing in the NLRA overrides that policy to permit employees to bring class or collective actions when employees have agreed otherwise. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. ___, (2018).

NLRA Does Not Protect Class and Collective Lawsuits

Emily Hobbs-Wright

In three cases consolidated before the Court, employees alleging wage claims sought to pursue collective lawsuits, joining with other allegedly harmed employees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state wage laws. In each case, the employer sought to dismiss the collective lawsuits and instead resolve each employees’ allegations through individual arbitration as provided in arbitration agreements signed by the employees. The employees argued that the class-action waivers in the arbitration agreements were unlawful, violating their rights to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection under §7 of the NLRA. The employers asserted that the FAA demands that the individual arbitration agreements be enforced, as the NLRA does not override the FAA’s enforcement provision.

The Court ruled that the FAA requires courts to enforce arbitration agreements on the terms that the parties select, subject to courts’ refusal to enforce arbitration agreements “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract” (e.g., fraud, duress, unconscionability – not arbitration-specific defenses). In the majority opinion, the Court stated that the NLRA does not override the FAA, and that §7 focuses on the right of employees to organize unions and bargain collectively, not on the right to pursue class or collective actions. The Court concluded that neither the NLRA nor the FAA’s savings clause protected the employees’ ability to resolve employment disputes through collective or class action when the employees have agreed to arbitrate their disputes with their employers on a one-on-one basis.

Dissent Focuses On Employee Rights

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a scathing dissent, that was joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The dissenting opinion notes that an individual employee’s claim against his or her employer for unpaid wages, or a similar employment law violation, may be relatively small and not worth the expense and effort of pursuing, when going it alone. But by seeking redress for commonly experienced wage losses on a collective basis, banding together to confront an employer, employees are placed on a more equal footing with employers and may better safeguard employee rights.

Justice Ginsburg writes that the majority’s decision “is egregiously wrong.” The dissent states that lawsuits to enforce workplace rights fit within the NLRA umbrella of “concerted activities for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection.” The dissent points to over 75 years of Board rulings that have held that the NLRA safeguards employees from employer interference when they pursue joint, collective, and class suits related to the terms and conditions of their employment. The dissent further states, “Forced to face their employers without company, employees ordinarily are no match for the enterprise that hires them. Employees gain strength, however, if they can deal with their employers in numbers.” The dissenting justices believe that NLRA §7 rights include the right to use class or collective litigation to resolve disputes over wages and hours, and would hold that class-action waivers in arbitration agreements are unlawful.

Big Win For Employers

In this not-unexpected result, the more conservative members of the Court have sanctioned the use of arbitration agreements by employers to help avoid class actions in the employment context. By using arbitration agreements with their employees, employers are able to resolve employment disputes in front of a neutral arbitrator rather than in the more public setting of a state or federal court. By requiring that disputes be arbitrated on an individual, rather than a class or collective basis, employers avoid lengthy and expensive class action lawsuits that often involve hundreds, if not thousands, of current and/or former employees who allege they have similar claims against the employer. The Supreme Court’s decision is a clear win for employers who now may use individual arbitration agreements to better control the cost, publicity, and liability exposure related to alleged violations of employment laws.

April 12, 2018

Salary History Cannot Justify Unequal Pay Between Men and Women, According to Ninth Circuit

Dora Lane

by Dora Lane

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that an employer cannot justify a pay difference between male and female employees performing equal work based on prior salary. Rizo v. Yovino. This is a significant decision that could increase potential liability for Equal Pay Act (EPA) claims for employers with workers in states covered by the Ninth Circuit, namely California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii.

Equal Pay Act Requirements

The EPA was enacted in 1963, amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, to prohibit wage disparities based on sex. In short, it requires that men and women be paid equal pay for equal work regardless of sex. Specifically, the law provides that no employer shall discriminate on the basis of sex in paying wages for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Exceptions are permitted when wages are made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any other factor other than sex.

Employer’s Pay Policy Added Five Percent to New Hires’ Prior Salary

In the case before the court, Aileen Rizo was hired as a math consultant by the Fresno County Office of Education. Her salary was set according to the County’s Standard Operating Procedure under which a new hire would be paid five percent over his or her prior salary, and placed on a corresponding step of the County’s ten-step salary schedule. Based on Rizo’s prior salary in Arizona, she was placed at step 1 of level 1 on the County’s hiring schedule.

A few years into her employment, Rizo was having lunch with her colleagues and learned that her male counterparts had been subsequently hired as math consultants at higher salary steps. Rizo filed a pay disparity complaint with the County which replied that her pay was set in accordance with its Standard Operating Procedure. Rizo filed a federal lawsuit alleging a violation of the EPA, sex discrimination under Title VII, and related state law claims.

Prior Pay Not A “Factor Other Than Sex”

The County did not dispute that it paid Rizo less than comparable male employees for the same work. Instead, it argued that considering each employee’s prior salary to set wages was a permissible “factor other than sex,” so any resulting wage differential was not in violation of the EPA.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that an employer was not permitted to consider an employee’s prior salary, either by itself or in combination with other factors, when establishing the employee’s wages. The Court specifically stated that “prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify a wage differential” because prior salary history does not constitute a “factor other than sex” under the EPA’s statutory “catchall” exception. The Court wrote that prior salary is not a legitimate measure of work experience, ability, performance, or any other job-related quality, and that employers must look directly to those underlying factors rather than prior salary when justifying a wage differential between male and female employees doing equal work. Writing for the majority, Judge Reinhardt stated, “To hold otherwise – to allow employers to capitalize on the persistence of the wage gap and perpetuate that gap ad infinitum – would be contrary to the text and history of the Equal Pay Act, and would vitiate the very purpose for which the Act stands.” Read more >>

April 2, 2018

Service Advisors Exempt From Overtime, Says Supreme Court

Brian Mumaugh

by Brian Mumaugh

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that service advisors at car dealerships are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In an opinion written by Justice Thomas, and joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and Gorsuch, the Court determined that service advisors are salesmen who are primarily engaged in servicing automobiles, putting them within the FLSA exemption language. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro.

Service Advisors Challenged Exempt Status

In 1961, Congress amended the FLSA to exempt all employees at car dealerships from overtime pay. A few years later in 1966, however, Congress narrowed the car dealership exemption so that it no longer exempted all dealership employees but instead applies only to “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, truck, or farm implements, if he is employed by a nonmanufacturing establishment primarily engaged in the business of selling such vehicles or implements to ultimate purchasers” (as currently written). Until 2011, federal courts and the Department of Labor (DOL) interpreted that exemption to apply to service advisors.

In 2011, however, the DOL issued a new rule stating that a service advisor was not a “salesman” under the FLSA exemption. This new interpretation ran contrary to 50-years of precedent and threw auto dealerships a curve ball. In 2012, service advisors at a Mercedes-Benz dealership in Los Angeles sued their employer, alleging that their regular work hours were 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. resulting in a minimum of 55 hours per week for which they were owed overtime pay for all hours over 40 in a work week.

The Mercedes-Benz dealership moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that service advisors were exempt under the FLSA language, despite the new DOL interpretation. The district court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. The service advisors appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, relying on the DOL’s 2011 rule. The dealership appealed to the Supreme Court who decided that the DOL’s rule could not be given deference as it was procedurally defective. On remand, the Ninth Circuit again ruled in favor of the service advisors, determining that Congress did not intend to exempt service advisors from overtime, in part because FLSA exemptions should be narrowly construed and the legislative history did not specifically mention service advisors. The case went up to the Supreme Court a second time.

Service Advisors Are Salesmen Engaged in Servicing Automobiles

The Supreme Court looked to the plain meaning of “salesman” as someone who sells goods and services. Because service advisors sell customers services for their vehicles, the Court stated that a service advisor “is obviously a ‘salesman.’”

The Court also decided that service advisors are primarily engaged in servicing automobiles because they are “integral to the servicing process.” The Court acknowledged that service advisors do not physically repair cars, but the justices decided that the phrase “primarily engaged in servicing automobiles” necessarily included individuals who do not physically repair automobiles, including service advisors.

In an interesting passage of the opinion, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s statement that FLSA exemptions should be narrowly construed. Justice Thomas quoted his friend and former colleague, deceased Justice Antonin Scalia, “Because the FLSA gives no ‘textual indication’ that its exemptions should be construed narrowly, ‘there is no reason to give [them] anything other than a fair (rather than a ‘narrow’) interpretation.’” A fair reading of the FLSA, the majority concluded, focuses not only on the overall objective of the law but also on the stated exemptions. And the Court concluded that a fair reading of the automobile salesmen, partsmen, and servicemen exemption is that it covers service advisors.

Dissent Says Overtime Required, Unless Commission Exemption Applies

Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent with which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined, stating that because service advisors neither sell nor repair automobiles, they should not be covered by the auto dealership salesman, partsman, and serviceman exemption. The dissent notes that many positions at dealerships are not covered by the exemption, including painters, upholsterers, bookkeepers, cashiers, purchasing agents, janitors, and shipping and receiving clerks. Consequently, the dissent stated that there are no grounds to add service advisors as a fourth category of dealership workers that are exempt, adding to the three positions explicitly enumerated in the FLSA exemption.

The dissent notes that many dealerships, including the Mercedes-Benz dealership in this case, compensate their service advisors on a primarily sales commission basis. According to the dissent, such commission-based positions could fall within the FLSA overtime exemption that applies to retail and service establishments where employees who receive more than half of their pay through commission are exempt from overtime pay, so long as each employee’s regular rate of pay is more than one-and-one-half times the minimum wage. The dissent concludes that even without the auto salesman, partsman, serviceman exemption at issue, many service advisors compensated on a commission basis would remain ineligible for overtime premium pay under the commission exemption.

Dealerships May Treat Service Advisors As Exempt

As a result of the Court’s ruling, car dealerships may continue to treat their service advisors as exempt from overtime under the FLSA. Dealerships should still review applicable state laws to ensure that the exemption applies under state wage law. It is also a good time to review written job descriptions to include service advisor duties that support their exempt status under this decision.

March 20, 2018

Settlements Reached in Joint-Employer Case That Could Have Affected Franchisors Nationwide

Steven Gutierrez

By Steve Gutierrez

Franchisor McDonald’s USA LLC has agreed to settle the high-profile labor disputes over whether it is a joint employer with its franchisees. Although the settlement still needs to be approved by the administrative law judge overseeing the litigation, McDonald’s and its franchisees negotiated settlement agreements with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to settle allegations of unfair labor practice charges without admitting liability or wrongdoing. In doing so, McDonald’s avoids prolonged litigation and a potentially adverse decision that would have had sweeping ramifications for franchisors and their franchisees nationwide.

Protracted Litigation Over Joint-Employer Status

In 2012, multiple McDonald’s employees filed unfair labor practice charges against their employer, seeking to improve their working conditions. In 2014, former NLRB General Counsel, Richard Griffin, approved filing dozens of unfair labor practice complaints against the larger franchisor, McDonald’s USA, under a theory that McDonald’s USA is a joint employer of the employees of McDonald’s franchises. By pursing the franchisor, the 2014 NLRB signaled that it was attempting to hold the larger, nationwide entity responsible for treatment of its franchisees’ employees.

McDonald’s USA, along with many restaurant, industry, and employer groups, vigorously objected, arguing that a franchisor is not a joint employer with its franchisees and therefore, cannot be held liable for any labor law violations made by a franchisee. The joint-employer test at the time was based on whether the putative employer exercises direct control over the employees and McDonald’s USA argued that it did not exercise such control over its franchisees’ employees.

In 2015, the NLRB issued its controversial decision in Browning-Ferris Industries that significantly broadened the joint-employer test so that an entity could be deemed a joint employer if it reserved contractual authority over some essential terms and conditions of employment, allowing it to have indirect control over the employees. (See our post here.) Under that expanded test, McDonald’s USA faced higher scrutiny from the NLRB as to whether it was a joint employer and whether it retained some indirect control over the employees of its franchisees.

Due to changes in the makeup of the NLRB under the Trump Administration, as well as a new NLRB General Counsel, the NLRB has sought to reverse Browning-Ferris Industries and return to the former joint-employer test that required direct and immediate control. In December 2017, the NLRB overturned Browning-Ferris in its Hy-Brand decision, only to have to vacate Hy-Brand in February 2018 because new Board member William Emanuel should not have participated in that decision. As a result, the 2015 Browning-Ferris joint-employer test is still the standard used to determine joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act.

Leaving The Status Quo on Joint-Employer Status – For Now

By settling these cases, both McDonald’s USA and the current NLRB avoid having to litigate and have a judge rule on whether franchisors like McDonald’s can be deemed a joint employer under the current Browning-Ferris test. Although the Board (and Congress) continue to seek to overturn Browning-Ferris, the McDonald’s settlement will push the issue down the road to another day.

According to the NLRB’s March 20, 2018 announcement, the settlement will provide a full remedy for the employees who filed charges against McDonald’s, including 100% of backpay for the alleged discriminatees. The settlement also will avoid years of potential additional litigation.

Take Aways

Franchisors, staffing companies, and other entities who have some contractual authority or obligations related to employees of a second entity need to use caution to ensure that the second entity complies with all applicable labor laws. With the broad Browning-Ferris test in place, entities with reserved contractual control or indirect control of another entity’s employees may be found to be a joint employer under the NLRA. This could open the door to liability for labor law violations as well as union organization and collective bargaining obligations related to joint employees. If in doubt about your exposure, consult with an experienced labor attorney.

Photo credit: AP2013/Jon Elswick