Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Some independent contractors are immune from liability with regard to a person injured in the course of employment under the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation statutes. At issue in this case was when an independent contractor’s actions are within the scope of a major or specialized repair so as to prevent it from claiming immunity from liability as a statutory employer or coemployee. Respondent was injured during the course of his employment by a tire technician for Appellant, a commercial tire retailer. Respondent filed a personal injury claim against Appellant. Appellant moved for judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that it was a statutory employee and thus immune from liability. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because there was sufficient evidence that the tire technician was an independent contractor at the time he caused Respondent’s injury, Appellant was not immune from liability for Respondent’s injury; and (2) the district court did not err in refusing to give an incomplete “mere happening” jury instruction because to do so would have been duplicative and/or confusing. View "D & D Tire v. Ouellette" on Justia Law

Krista Gilmore was employed by Excellence Community Management (ECM), an LLC, and signed an employment agreement containing restrictive covenants. The owners and operators of ECM later sold 100 percent of their membership interest in the LLC to First Services Residential Management Nevada (FSRM). Thereafter, Gilmore’s employment with ECM terminated, and Gilmore began working for Mesa Management, LLC. ECM sent Gilmore a cease-and-desist letter alleging that Gilmore violated her employment agreement by contacting ECM’s clients and soliciting them to hire Mesa. ECM filed a complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief against Gilmore and Mesa (collectively, Respondents). The district court denied ECM’s motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the agreement was not assignable to FSRM without Gilmore consenting to the assignment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the sale of 100 percent of the membership interest in an LLC does not affect the enforcement of an employee’s employment contract containing a restrictive covenant because such a sale does not create a new entity, and therefore, ECM may enforce a restrictive covenant in Gilmore’s employment contract without Gilmore’s consent of assignment; but (2) ECM failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm for which compensatory damages were not an adequate remedy if the district court did not enter a preliminary injunction. View "Excellence Cmty. Mgmt. v. Gilmore" on Justia Law

Jonathan Piper, who was convicted and imprisoned for burglary, was transferred to Casa Grande Traditional Housing, which was operated by Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) for offenders participating in NDOC’s work release program, to serve out the remainder of his sentence. Washworks Rainbow, LLC hired Piper to work at its car wash. Piper was severely injured during the course of his employment. York Claims Services, Inc., Washworks’ workers’ compensation insurance provider, denied coverage, asserting that NDOC was financially responsible for Piper’s workers’ compensation coverage under its own insurance program. An appeals officer found York liable for Piper’s workers’ compensation coverage. The district court set aside the decision of the appeals officer, concluding that NDOC was responsible for Piper’s workers’ compensation coverage pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 616B.028(1). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 616B.082(1) does not apply to offenders like Piper, who are participating in the work release program. View "Nev. Dep't of Corr. v. York Claims Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant, then a teacher for the Washoe County School District (WCSD), pleaded guilty to possessing marijuana in his residence. Before Appellant completed his probation, the WCSD terminated his employment for immorality and conviction of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude. Appellant sought unemployment benefits. The Employment Security Division (ESD) denied benefits, finding that Appellant’s guilty plea established that the WCSD had terminated him for “workplace misconduct.” Under Nev. Rev. Stat. 453.3363, certain first-time drug offenders may avoid a criminal conviction if the offender pleads guilty and then successfully completes a probationary period, after which time the charges are dismissed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that unemployment benefits for workplace misconduct were erroneously denied where the WCSD relied on a felony conviction that didn’t exist to establish that Appellant committed disqualifying misconduct for which he was terminated. View "Hohenstein v. State, Employment Sec. Div." on Justia Law

In May 2014, the City of Reno decided to lay off thirty-two firefighters. The City stated that its decision was based on a lack of funds. A collective bargaining agreement between the City and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 731 (union) provides that the right to lay off employees due to lack of funds is reserved to the City without negotiation. The union and the firefighters who would be laid off (collectively, IAFF) filed a complaint in the district court, claiming that the City had the funds to continue the firefighters’ employment. The IAFF also filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The City filed a motion to dismiss due to the IAFF’s failure to exhaust contractual and administrative remedies. The district court proceeded to enjoin the City from proceeding with the layoffs while the IAFF exhausted its contractual grievance and administrative remedies. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the underlying grievance was not arbitrable under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, and therefore, the district court lacked authority to rule on the request for injunctive relief. View "City of Reno v. Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 731" on Justia Law

Appellant filed an unpaid wage action against four defendants, including Video Internet Phone Installs, Inc. (VIPI). The claims against VIPI were severed from the rest of the claims and thereafter resolved. Appellant did not appeal from the order resolving the claims against VIPI but, rather, appealed from the order finally resolving the remaining unsevered claims before challenging two interlocutory orders involving VIPI. VIPI filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as to it. The Supreme Court granted the motion, holding (1) one must take an appeal from an order finally resolving severed claims, even if the unsevered claims remain pending; and (2) because Appellant failed to timely appeal from the order resolving the severed claims against VIPI, he could not now challenge the orders regarding VIPI in an appeal from the order finally resolving the unsevered claims. View "Valdez v. Cox Commc’ns" on Justia Law

Appellants, performers at Sapphire Gentlemen’s Club, challenged Sapphire’s practice of paying no wages to the performers, claiming they were “employees” within the meaning of Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.010 and thus entitled to minimum wage. The district court granted summary judgment for Sapphire, concluding that the performers were not “employees” within the meaning of the statute. The Supreme Court reversed after adopting the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “economic realities” test for employment in the minimum wage context, holding that, based on a review of the totality of the circumstances of the working relationship’s economic reality in this case, Sapphire qualifies as an employer under Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.011 and the performers qualify as employees under section 608.010. Remanded. View "Terry v. Sapphire Gentlemen’s Club" on Justia Law

Appellants, two taxicab drivers, brought an action against Respondents, taxicab companies, claiming damages for unpaid wages pursuant to the Minimum Wage Amendment, a constitutional amendment that revised Nevada’s then-statutory minimum wage scheme. The district court granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the Minimum Wage Amendment did not repeal Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.250, which excepts taxicab drivers from Nevada’s minimum wage provisions, and that the statutory exceptions could be harmonized with the constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Minimum Wage Amendment, by clearly setting out some exceptions to the minimum wage law and not others, supersedes and supplants the taxicab driver exception set out in section 608.250(2). View "Thomas v. Nev. Yellow Cab Corp." on Justia Law

Steve Jacobs filed a wrongful termination complaint against Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVSC) and Sands China Ltd. after he was fired as chief executive officer of the Sands China unit. Jacobs made several allegations in the complaint against Sheldon Adelson, the chief executive officer and majority shareholder of LVSC, personally. The case received widespread media attention, and after the Wall Street Journal published Adelson’s response to the allegations, Jacobs amended his complaint to add a claim for defamation per se against Adelson. The district court dismissed the defamation claim, determining that Adelson’s statements to the media were absolutely privileged communications relating to litigation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that communications made to the media in an extrajudicial setting are not absolutely privileged when the media holds no more significant interest in the litigation than the general public. View "Jacobs v. Adelson" on Justia Law

In 2004, Appellant sustained a work injury and received temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. Appellant returned to work from 2006 until 2008, at which time his back problems recurred. Appellant received TTD benefits until 2010. Appellant was later medically released to return to work, but because he could not find a job, he filed for unemployment compensation. Nev. Rev. Stat. 612.344 allows an individual who cannot find work after a period of temporary disability the option of using his work history for the fifteen months preceding his disability leave to determine his unemployment compensation instead of the fifteen months preceding his application. To qualify for this option, the application must be filed “within 3 years after the initial period of disability begins.” The Employment Security Division denied Appellant’s claim, concluding that because Appellant received disability benefits for his back injury starting in 2004, he could not use section 612.344’s alternative-calculation option because the statute’s three-year window closed in 2007. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the alternative-calculation option in section 612.344 renews when a temporarily disabled worker recovers and returns long enough to reestablish himself in the unemployment compensation system. View "Anderson v. State Employment Sec. Div." on Justia Law