Joel W. Locke Elected to Nevada State Bar Board of Governors

Joel W. Locke, attorney with Allison MacKenzie Law Firm in Carson City, Nevada
Joel W. Locke

Joel W. Locke, a partner at Allison MacKenzie Law Firm, has been elected to the Nevada State Bar Board of Governors. He was elected and sworn in on Thursday, June 27, 2019 at the State Bar of Nevada Annual Meeting which was held in Vail, Colorado. Members of the Board help promote the integrity of the legal profession, encourage professional growth, and provide the opportunity to give back to the community.

The Board of Governors is comprised of 15 members representing the four state districts defined in Supreme Court Rule 81. Elections for the Board are held annually, and governors are selected by the members of their districts to serve two-year terms. Also serving on the Board is the immediate past president and two ex-officio members representing the William S. Boyd School of Law and the Board of Bar Examiners.

The Board of Governors assists in implementing administrative functions of the State Bar, establishing policies and procedures, and affecting rule changes; the Board also takes legislative positions relative to the administration of justice, and oversees the Bar’s fiduciary responsibilities. The State Bar of Nevada has been governing the legal profession, serving its members, and protecting the public interests in Nevada since 1928.

Regarding his election, Joel W. Locke stated: “I am honored to serve as Carson City’s District Representative on the Board of Governors and am humbled by the support of my colleagues in the Carson City legal community. I look forward to giving back to the legal profession and serving with the esteemed members of the Board during my term.”

Joel W. Locke joined Allison MacKenzie in 2007. A native Nevadan, Joel Locke graduated from the University of Nevada, Reno in 2000, and then obtained his law degree from Gonzaga University School of Law in 2006. Subsequently, he was admitted to practice law in the State of Nevada in 2006. Joel’s areas of legal practice include: Family Law, Probate Law, Guardianships, Employment Law, and more. Allison MacKenzie Law Firm is proud of Joel’s election and dedication to serve on the Board of Governors. The firm remains dedicated to civic service and encourages its team of talented attorneys and staff to support various community-minded organizations in the area.

Carson City’s Ryan Russell named to list of top ranked family law attorneys

Ryan Russell

Carson City attorney Ryan Russell was among several Nevadan family law attorneys recently named by the National Academy of Family Law Attorneys on its list of nationally-ranked family law attorneys. The NAFLA recognizes the top family law attorneys in each state with the intent of helping consumers select well-qualified professionals when legal representation is needed.

Candidates must be licensed, in good standing with their local bar association and nominated by either a licensed practicing attorney or one of the in-house staff researchers. In addition, each attorney must have achieved meaningful professional recognition and earned the respect of their clients and peers.

In the final stage of the NAFLA’s four-step selection process, NAFLA’s processing committee selects a portion of the nominated attorneys to advance to the final selection stage, reviews the finalists and selects the official award recipients from each state. The rankings are independent and free from commercial influence.

See the article

Marijuana and employment law: an ever-changing legal landscape

By Emilee Sutton

The legalization of medical marijuana in 2001 and recreational marijuana in 2018 has created significant uncertainty for Nevada employers and employees alike regarding their respective rights and obligations in using marijuana and regulating its use. Specifically, can employees who possess valid medical marijuana cards be terminated for positive drug tests? And what affect, if any, does the legalization of marijuana for recreational use have on an employer’s ability to prohibit its use? One court in Las Vegas has been tasked with answering the former question, while the Nevada Legislature has attempted to bring clarity to the latter.

In order to understand the current legal landscape, employers should be aware of NRS Chapter 453A governing the medical use of marijuana in the State of Nevada. The most significant provision for Nevada employers is NRS 453A.800, which requires employers to attempt to make “reasonable accommodation for the medical needs of an employee who engages in the medical use of marijuana if the employee holds a valid registry identification card, provided that such reasonable accommodation would not:

(a) Pose a threat of harm or danger to persons or property or impose an undue hardship on the employer; or

(b) Prohibit the employee from fulfilling any and all of his or her job responsibilities. NRS 453A.800(3) (emphasis added).

NRS 453A.800(2) also states that Nevada medical marijuana laws do not “require any employer to allow the medical use of marijuana in the workplace.” However, NRS 453A.800 has created significant ambiguity for employers and employees because it does not authorize any administrative agency to enforce it, create a private cause of action for employees to enforce it, or identify the liability of an employer who violates it. Moreover, the statute does not explain what steps an employer must take to reasonably accommodate an employee’s medical marijuana use. Fortunately, the currently-pending Nellis v. Sunrise Hospital case may provide much needed clarity on this very murky area of the law.

On September 22, 2017, Scott Nellis, a registered nurse, filed suit against his former employer, Sunrise Hospital, alleging claims of wrongful discharge and violations of NRS Chapter 453A based on his termination following a positive drug test. Years prior to his termination, Nellis was attacked by a patient at Sunrise Hospital and suffered from a fractured vertebra. As a result, Nellis applied for and obtained a medical marijuana card. In February of 2017, Nellis was again attacked and injured by a patient while on duty. In the emergency room, Nellis provided a urine sample, which tested positive for the presence of marijuana. Sunrise Hospital then terminated Nellis on the basis that it suspected he was working while impaired in violation of hospital policy.

While the case is likely far from resolution, it is significant that Nellis’ claims have survived the motion to dismiss filed by Sunrise Hospital. The case is currently set for trial on January 6, 2020 in Department 8 of the Eighth Judicial District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada. Employers should closely monitor this case, as its final decision will likely have significant ramifications for employer obligations and policies related to medical marijuana use.

The Nellis case also begs the question of whether employers can avoid issues with Chapter 453A by refusing to hire anyone who tests positive for marijuana in a pre-employment drug test, since Chapter 453A only applies to employees. This issue is further complicated by the fact that the recreational use of marijuana has been legalized, and a person may test positive for marijuana days or even weeks after consumption. During the most recent legislative session, the Nevada Legislature clarified the issue of marijuana and pre-employment screening. Assembly Bill 132, approved by Governor Sisolak on June 5, 2019, prohibits employers from “fail[ing] or refus[ing] 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 does contain exceptions for prospective employees applying for positions as firefighters or emergency medical technicians and positions that are safety-sensitive or require an employee to operate a motor vehicle. In addition, the provisions of AB 132 do not apply “to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement” or federal law or “to a position of employment funded by a federal grant.”

Notably, AB 132 does not distinguish between medical and recreational marijuana users, meaning an individual does not need to hold a valid medical marijuana card to be protected by the new law. It is also important to note that AB 132 only applies to pre-employment screening. Employers may still prohibit employees from engaging in recreational marijuana use and may terminate an employee should they test positive for the presence of marijuana. While AB 132 does not become affective until January 1, 2020, employers should consult with qualified legal counsel to ensure the adoption of policies and practices that conform to the new law.

See the Article at NNBV

Ryan Russell Named Legal Elite

Ryan Russell

Ryan Russell, partner at Allison MacKenzie Law Firm, was recently announced as one of the Top Attorneys in Northern Nevada by Nevada Business Magazine. This year, the Legal Elite process is in its 12th iteration, and the publication releases its Legal Elite list highlighting the top attorneys in the state.

Polling for the 2019 publication began in mid-February, and nearly 5,000 nominations were submitted by licensed attorneys within the state. Each submission then went through an extensive verification and vetting process resulting in the top attorneys selected their peers.

The Legal Elite list includes only the top 3 percent of attorneys in the state broken down by location. In addition, Legal Elite includes special lists ranking Nevada’s best “Up and Coming” and best government attorneys. The process is rigorous and each nominee must navigate several levels of scrutiny before obtaining final approval to appear on the list. After closing the nomination process, each ballot is individually reviewed for eligibility and every voting attorney is verified with the State Bar of Nevada.

Ryan joined Allison MacKenzie in 2004 and has dedicated his career to serving the communities of Northern Nevada. He has served the community as a Judge Pro Tem for the Carson City Justice and Municipal Court, and serves as Carson City’s representative on the State Bar of Nevada’s Board of Governors. Further, he volunteers his time to the Boys and Girls Club of Western Nevada and served as President of the Board of Directors in 2009. He is also active in the Carson City Rotary Club and coaching youth sports.

Ryan offers his clients a comprehensive background of practice areas. As an attorney and partner with the law firm, he practices in the areas of litigation, administrative law, business law, and family law. He received his Bachelor of Science in Business Administration and Management from the University of Nevada, Reno in 2000. He then pursued a degree in law and graduated from University of Nevada’s William S. Boyd School of Law in 2003. That same year he was admitted to practice law in the State of Nevada.

Congratulations to Ryan and for his accomplishments and being selected as 2019 Legal Elite.

Implementing an Employer-Sponsored Optional Volunteer Program?

By Jennifer McMenomy

Make Sure it Complies with the Fair Labor Standards Act

Many employers understand the value of giving back to their communities and realize the benefit of visibility within their communities.  Thus, an increasing number of employers are following the new trend of implementing optional community service programs within their companies. In an employer-sponsored volunteer program, the employer allows employees to volunteer for a certain number of working hours each year or each month while providing the workers with the compensation they would have received for being on the job.  In some instances, employees may volunteer during non-working hours and still receive some type of monetary award. These can include bonuses or non-monetary awards such as a party or other fun outing or activity. 

In an employer-sponsored volunteer program of this nature, the employer may either sponsor a volunteer outing or outings in which employees can participate.  Alternatively, businesses may allow employees to participate in a volunteer activity they have chosen for themselves. Such a program can have a significant benefits for both employees and employers, including improved morale at the work place, increased involvement and contributions in the community, and visibility within the community. However, it is wise to be cautious in the implementation of a volunteer program within any business or workplace. 

A March 14, 2019 Opinion issued by the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor addresses such programs and how they have the potential to violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Opinion provides that “Congress did not intend for the FLSA ‘to discourage or impede volunteer activities,’ but rather to ‘prevent manipulation or abuse of minimum wage or overtime requirements through coercion or undue pressure upon individuals to ‘volunteer’ their services.’” 

As such, under the law, an employer intending to implement a volunteer program is permitted to notify its employees of such volunteer opportunities and activities as well as ask for assistance from employees in participating in such volunteering tasks.  An employer is also permitted to implement an incentive-based program so long as an employee’s participation in such a program is not mandatory.  An employer-sponsored volunteer program cannot adversely affect working conditions or employment prospects for employees whether they do or do not choose to participate.  In other words, an employer cannot engage in direct or implied retaliatory actions against an employee who chooses not to participate.  Further, the employer cannot put undue pressure on the employees to participate in the program. 

Moreover, the Opinion stated that an employer cannot “control or direct” the volunteer work of its employees. Specifically, an employer is not permitted to allow or disallow certain types of volunteer work and/or direct the employee on how to accomplish such volunteer work.  If the employer does “direct or control” the way in which an employee completes a volunteering task and/or volunteering activity, that time will be considered hours worked under the FLSA.  In turn, those hours are subject to the regulation of overtime and other standards under the FLSA. The Opinion also stated that employers may use certain methods of tracking the volunteer hours of its employees so long as the tracking device does not control or instruct the employee in their volunteerism.

The Opinion also states that compensating employees when they participate in volunteer activities during normal working hours does not “jeopardize their status as volunteers when they participate in volunteer activities outside of normal work hours.”

An employer may use an employee’s time volunteering as a factor in calculating whether to provide that employee with a bonus, “without incurring an obligation to treat that time as hours worked so long as: (1) volunteering is optional; (2) not volunteering will have no adverse effect on the employee’s working conditions or employment prospects; and (3) the employee is not guaranteed a bonus for volunteering.”  In essence, a bonus cannot be guaranteed to an employee who volunteers and/or taken away from an employee who does not volunteer.

Therefore, if an employer chooses to engage its employees by implementing a volunteer program, the employer must ensure that it is complying with the FLSA.  In order to do so, employers must ensure the following items are adhered to 1) employee volunteering is completely optional; 2) there are no adverse impacts or effects on employees who choose not to volunteer; 3) if an employer chooses to provide bonuses to employee-volunteers, that the bonus is not guaranteed in exchange for the employee’s volunteer hours; and 4) the employer does not direct or control the employee volunteer activities. 

Employer-sponsored volunteer programs are valuable tools that provide many benefits for companies, employees and communities alike. If you, as an employer, are considering implementing such programming, it is important to confer with legal counsel regarding the specifics of such a program to ensure compliance with the FLSA.

See the article at: NNBV.

Service and Emotional Support Animals: Public Spaces

By Jennifer McMenomy

Part II

In recent years, there have been many changes made in public spaces such as restaurants, movie theaters, retail stores, and airlines to allow for emotional support animals.  In last month’s article, we discussed the difference between a service animal and an emotional support animal for the purposes of private and semi-private places such as dwellings, timeshares, apartment complexes, and hotels.  This article addresses service and emotional support animals in public places.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a place of public accommodation is required to allow a “service animal” which is defined as an animal that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability.  The ADA generally contemplates service animals as being dogs but does not specifically eliminate other forms of service animals.  In general, businesses that serve the public are required to have a policy in place that allows a person with a disability to have a service animal to accompany them while engaging in business at the place of accommodation.  Under the ADA, an emotional support animal who provides comfort to a person with a mental disability does not fall under the qualification of a “service animal” at this time.

The ADA requires that service animals be harnessed, leashed, or tethered, unless the device interferes with the animal’s work or the individual’s disability prevents them from using these devices.  Individuals who cannot use such devices must maintain control of the animal through voice, signal, or other effective controls.  Businesses may exclude service animals only if: 1) the animal is out of control and the handler cannot or does not regain control; or 2) the animal is not housebroken.  If a service animal is excluded, the individual must be allowed to enter the business without the service animal. 

Though a business owner is not permitted to insist on proof of certification of the service animal prior to allowing the person with the disability access to the business with the animal, a business owner is permitted by the ADA to ask the person with the service animal if the presence of the animal is necessary because of a disability.  Generally, good indicators of a service animal are special collars, harnesses, or other insignia (although, not all service animals wear those indicators).  A business owner should craft a written pet policy for their business which allows for service animals and creates clear guidelines for employees to follow if a patron of their business requires a service animal to accompany them.

Recently in the news, there have been reports of strange emotional support animals such as squirrels and peacocks aboard commercial airline flights.  In 1996, the Department of Transportation (DOT) promulgated a regulation providing policy guidance concerning service animals in air transportation and adding to the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA).  The DOT redefined a “service animal” as “any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability.  If the animal meets this definition, it is considered a service animal regardless of whether it has been licensed or certified by a state or local government.”  At that time, the DOT made it clear that animals who assist persons with disabilities by providing emotional support qualify as a service animal, therefore allowing them on airlines.  However, documentation may be required of passengers needing to travel with an emotional support or psychiatric service animal.

Airlines are permitted to exclude certain animals on the following basis: 1) Animals that are too large or heavy to be accommodated in the cabin; 2) pose a direct threat to the health and safety of others; 3) cause a significant disruption of cabin service; or 4) are prohibited from entering a foreign country. 

While an airline cannot require a patron to pay an additional fee or cost in the event that they have a service or emotional support animal with them onboard, airline carriers are allowed to create their own policy with regard to emotional and service animals so long as they do not violate ADA and DOT regulations. Most major airline carriers require passengers with emotional support animals to provide proper documentation completed by a medical professional acknowledging that the passenger has a mental or emotional disability recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and are in need of this emotional support animal. 

In the past, airlines have allowed a wide array of unique emotional support animals on planes such as pigs, horses, turkeys, and monkeys; however, with recent problems stemming from emotional support animals on planes and in airports, airlines are beginning to change their policies.  Recently, a five-year old girl was mauled at the gate of an Alaska Airlines flight by an emotional support pit bull.  Alaska Airlines and the airport where the incident occurred are facing litigation by the girl’s family on her behalf.  American Airlines is now requiring vaccination records of all emotional support animals and has restricted their emotional support policies only to include dogs or cats, and in rare cases, a miniature horse.  It appears that other commercial airline carriers are following suit.  It is important as a patron of an airline looking to travel with an emotional support or service animal to check the specific airline’s policy before flying and to comply with those policies.

It is unclear what future changes will be made to provide for service and/or emotional support animals in public spaces as the law and administrative policies are ever-evolving. If you are a business owner looking to draft or revise your animal policy, it is important to confer with legal counsel to ensure that you and your employees are properly handling service and emotional support animals in compliance with the ADA.

See the article at: NNBV.

Honored for 40 Years of Service

On December 12, 2018, Allison MacKenzie Attorneys, Joan Wright and Mike Pavlakis were honored by the Washoe County Bar Association (WCBA) for their length of service. The two were admitted to practice in Nevada in 1979, and been active members in WCBA for at least 10 years.

The WCBA was established in 1905 for the purpose of encouraging the practice of law as a profession, promoting justice and serving the practice of law in our community. The organization currently has over 1,200 members in the Northern Nevada area.

See the article.

Local Attorneys Mentoring the Next Generation of Legal Eagles

Each year over 30,000 students participate in local high school mock trial competitions throughout the United States, Guam, South Korea, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

The State Bar of Nevada provides mentoring for high school mock trial teams throughout the State that compete at the regional and statewide level. The Bar’s statewide program is administered by a volunteer Mock Trial Committee, with assistance from the Washoe County Bar Association.  The top team advances to the National High School Mock Trial Championship.

The program is supported by the Nevada Bar Foundation and an endowment made on behalf of attorney Charles Deaner.  Deaner was an ardent supporter of law-related education and the Mock Trial program. He established a living trust to ensure the continued support of this endeavor. The Nevada State championship round is named in his honor.

Local attorneys, Jennifer McMenomy and Emilee Sutton, associates at Allison MacKenzie Law Firm have volunteered to mentor members of Carson High School’s Mock Trial Club. The two attorney coaches, along with a supervising Carson High School teacher, educate the students about legal processes and courtroom etiquette including: adversarial procedures, rules of evidence, examination of process and more. The program helps participants develop the tools and techniques needed to become effective litigators and worthy competitors in the courtroom.

In November Jennifer and Emilee began meeting with participants to explore facts and procedures regarding a civil case. Weekly, during a course of a few hours, the coaches, teacher and nine students delve into a case that focuses on religious discrimination.

Jennifer said, “Mentoring these kids is truly an enjoyable experience. I just love seeing the students get involved, and appreciate their enthusiasm about future legal careers.  There is this “lights on” moment when they understand principles such as hearsay and what is admissible into court that is irreplaceable.”

Jennifer and Emilee have enjoyed the experience so much that they have committed to mentoring the club again next year.

“They learn what lawyering is all about. How court actually works and the legal process. I participated in mock trials when I was in high school, and it is fun to see it from the other prospective of mentoring. I love being involved with the kids,” Emilee stated.

This year marks Nevada’s 21st year of participation in the High School Mock Trial program. Regional and State Competitions dates are:

Southern Nevada Regional
February 9, 2019Regional Justice Center, Las Vegas

Northern Nevada Regional
February 22, 2019Federal Courthouse, Reno

State Competition
March 15-16, 2019Federal Courthouse, Reno

To learn more about the High School Mock Trial Program visit:

Allison MacKenzie Law Firm announces new shareholder Justin Townsend

Justin Townsend to join ranks of distinguished attorneys

Allison MacKenzie Law Firm is pleased to announce the appointment of Justin Townsend as its newest shareholder effective January 1, 2019.

Justin joined the firm as an associate in 2013 and focuses his practice in the areas of administrative law, business law, real estate law, and natural resource law.

Justin is a Brigham Young University graduate and obtained his law degree from J. Reuben Clark Law School of Brigham Young University in 2010. He was admitted to practice law in Texas in 2010 and Nevada in 2011. He is fluent in Spanish and currently resides in Minden with his family.

Regarding his recent promotion, Justin said, “I am excited and honored to join such distinguished and community-minded attorneys. My family is equally enthusiastic about this opportunity and thrilled to be a part of the Allison MacKenzie organization. I look forward to providing effective legal counsel for our clients for years to come.”

“Justin is a great lawyer and a better person. We are thrilled to have Justin and the entire Townsend family as part of the Allison MacKenzie family,” said James R. Cavilia, managing shareholder with Allison MacKenzie.

The talented legal team and professional staff of Allison MacKenzie is pleased to welcome Justin as a shareholder and look forward to his continued success in providing exceptional counsel to clients, contribution to the growth of the firm, and dedication to the betterment of the community and its residents.

For more information, contact Allison MacKenzie Law Firm at 775.687.0202, or visit www.AllisonMacKenzie.com.

The Right of Employees to Bring Lawsuits for Unpaid Wages:

What Every Business Should Know.

By Emilee Sutton

On December 7, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision settling a previously unanswered question under Nevada law that directly impacts Nevada employers; namely, whether employees have a private right of action against their employers to recover unpaid wages under Chapter 608 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.  The Court answered that question in the affirmative and clarified years of conflicting caselaw and ambiguity.

            Chapter 608 of the Nevada Revised Statutes governs the payment and collection of wages, as well as other benefits of employment.  Specifically, NRS 608.016 governs the failure to pay overtime wages, NRS 608.018 governs the failure to timely pay all wages due and owing, and NRS 608.020 through 608.050 govern payment upon termination.  In addition, NRS 608.180 specifically grants the Labor Commissioner power to enforce the professions described in NRS 608.005 to 608.195.  However, the wage and hour statutes are silent as to whether an employee has a private right of action to enforce their terms.

            Under Nevada law, if a statute does not expressly mention whether an individual may privately enforce one of its terms, an individual may only pursue his or her claims if a private right of action is implied.  In the case of Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, the Nevada Supreme Court examined whether NRS 608.160, which prohibits employers from taking employee tips, implies a private cause of action to enforce its terms.  The court concluded that, “in light of the statutory scheme requiring the Labor Commissioner to enforce the labor statutes and the availability of an adequate administrative remedy for those statutes’ violations, the Legislature did not intend to create a parallel private remedy for NRS 608.160.”  Thus, the court found “appellants…failed to overcome the presumption that no private cause of action was intended.”  However, in a footnote, the Baldonado court opined, “a private cause of action to recover unpaid wages is entirely consistent with the express authority under NRS 608.140 to bring private actions for wages unpaid and due.”

            In relevant part, NRS 608.140 provides that “[w]henever an…employee shall have cause to bring suit for wages earned and due according to the terms of his or her employment, and shall establish by decision of the court or verdict of the jury that the amount for which he or she has brought suit is justly due,” the court shall allow the plaintiff to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred for bringing suit, along with the amount found due for wages and penalties.  In light of the Baldonado footnote, employees bringing suit for unpaid wage claims against employers in district court attempted to bootstrap a private right to enforce other provisions of Chapter 608.

            The Baldonado footnote spawned significant discussion by courts and resulted in conflicting decisions.  For example, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada found that “§608.140 does not imply a private right of action to enforce the labor statutes…Instead, §608.140 implies a private right of action to recover in contract only.” 

In a separate case, the court also found, “NRS 608.140 does not create a vehicle for privately enforcing the legal rights conferred by the other provisions of Chapter 608; it merely establishes a fee-shifting mechanism in an employee’s ‘suit for wages earned and due according to the terms of his or her employment.’” 

             Nearly ten years after Baldonado was decided, the Nevada Supreme Court finally put the issue to rest when John Neville, Jr. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s dismissal of his NRS Chapter 608 wage claims on the basis that no private right of action exists.  Mr. Neville was employed as a cashier at a Las Vegas convenience store owned by Terrible Herbst, Inc.  Terrible Herbst enforces a time-rounding policy whereby it rounds the time recorded and worked by all hourly employees to the nearest 15 minutes for the purposes of calculating wages.  As a result of the time-rounding policy, Mr. Neville alleged he did not receive wages for work actually performed. 

            On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court discussed the Baldonado footnote and found that NRS 608.140 demonstrates the Legislature’s intent to create a private cause of action for unpaid wages. The Nevada Supreme Court stated, “[i]t would be absurd to think that the Legislature intended a private cause of action to obtain attorney fees for an unpaid wages suit but no private cause of action to bring the suit itself.” Because Neville’s Chapter 608 claims involved allegations that wages were unpaid and due, and he tied his Chapter 608 claims with NRS 608.140, the Nevada Supreme Court found Neville properly stated a private cause of action for unpaid wages. 

             In light of the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in the Neville case, there will likely be increased numbers of employees bringing civil lawsuits – including class actions – in Nevada courts for unpaid wages and attorneys’ fees.  Because of the unknown outstanding financial obligation to employees and the significant costs of litigation, it is crucial that Nevada employers comply with Nevada’s wage and hour requirements.  Employers are advised to consult with qualified legal counsel to ensure the adoption of policies and practices that comply with NRS Chapter 608.

See the article at NNBV.