Employee Discipline: Nevada

Federal law and guidance on this subject should be reviewed together with this section.

Author: Dora Lane, Holland & Hart LLP

Summary

• Nevada is an at-will employment state. While at-will employees can generally be disciplined or discharged for any reason or no reason, oral statements or handbook language contradicting at-will employment may be enforced as binding agreements against the employer if intent to form such an agreement is not disclaimed. See Protection from Wrongful Discharge.
• Other restrictions on employer retaliation also exist, such as when employees report workplace hazards to regulatory authorities, or exercise their right to time off for specified purposes such as voting or teacher conferences. See Other Retaliation Protections.
• Employers may not impose discipline that violates the Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act. See Discipline, Discrimination and Protected Leaves.
• State law restricts certain attendance requirements when employees are sick or injured. See Employee Attendance.
• Nevada employers are restricted from disciplining employees for certain off-duty, lawful conduct. See Restrictions on Off-Duty Conduct.
• State law prohibits smoking in most places of employment, with certain exceptions. See Clean Indoor Air Act.
• Employers may not discipline employees in violation of laws designed to protect employee privacy, such as the restrictions on use of polygraph testing, but may test employees for alcohol or drugs and discipline them accordingly. See Disciplinary Restrictions Based on Employee Privacy.
• Employers may discipline employees for theft of trade secrets, and seek redress for damages under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. See Theft of Trade Secrets.
• Employers generally can enforce noncompete agreements against ex-employees where they are reasonable. See Violation of Noncompete Agreements.
• Employers should avoid forcing employees to submit to disciplinary interrogation or investigation by requiring them to remain in any confined area, as it can provoke common law claims for false imprisonment. See False Imprisonment.