512 South 8th Street   |   Las Vegas, NV 89101   |   Telephone: (702) 432-8655   Facsimile: (702) 432-8715    Map To Office













Employment Law

Lyons Law Firm primarily represents individuals and small employers regarding employment law issues, which include but are not limited to:


Lyons Law Firm has a wide range of experience representing individuals regarding discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims based on race, sex, national origin, color, pregnancy, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability and age discrimination laws.

The firm represents individuals regarding discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims filed with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Equal Employment Offices with the United States Government.

The firm also represents individuals before the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States Supreme Court and all Nevada state courts, including the Nevada Supreme Court. It prosecutes claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation under all applicable statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981), the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act, and Nevada’s Protection against Harassment in the Workplace.

Furthermore, often included with its discrimination litigation are non-statutory claims, which include but are not limited to: Assault and Battery; Civil Conspiracy; Discharge in violation of public policy; Defamation; Intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; Invasions of privacy; Fraud; and Tortious interference with economic advantage.

Lyons Law Firm represents individuals regarding various employment torts which arise during the course of, and subsequent to, their employment. These issues include, but are not limited to:

  • Assault and Battery:
    • Blackstone defines an "assault" as: "An attempt or offer to beat another, without touching him; as if one lifts up his cane or fist in a threatening manner at another, or strikes at him, but misses him." An assault is a trespass for which a man shall have an action to recover damages, though there be no battery and therefore no physical hurt. 3 Bl.Comm. 120; Pollock, C.B., in Corbett v. Gray, 4 Exch. 729; 2 Modern American Law, Blackstone Inst. 8, 9, 17, 18. The law in such case allows the jury to assess damages for the insult and the indignity, and for the hurt to the feelings, and for mental suffering and fright caused by assault.

    • Battery is defined as any unlawful touching of another which is without justification or excuse. It is both a tort as well as a crime. Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th ed. (1979). Oral abuse or provocation, independent of any overt hostile act, however opprobrious or insulting, does not justify an assault and battery. Haman v. Omaha Horse Ry. Co., 35 Neb. 74, 52 N.W. 830 (1892). Conversely, when accompanied by an overt hostile act, such oral abuse may amount to a challenge to fight and constitute consent. Restatement of Torts 2d ed. Section 69.

  • Civil Conspiracy:
    • In Hilton Hotels v. Butch Lewis Productions, 109 Nev. 1043, 1048, 862 P.2d 1207 (1993), the Nevada Supreme Court stated:

      An actionable conspiracy consists of a combination of two or more persons who, by some concerted action, intend to accomplish an unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another, and damage results from the act or acts.

  • Discharge in violation of public policy:
    • In Ponsock v. K-Mart, 103 Nev. 39, 47, 732 P.2d 1364, 1369 (1987), the Nevada Supreme Court stated that an employer can dismiss an at-will employee with or without cause, so long as the dismissal does not offend the public policy of the state of Nevada.

  • Defamation:
    • There are two types of Defamation, slander and libel. Both types of Defamation involve defamatory statements. The essential difference between the two is that slander is an oral defamation, while libel is written.

  • Intentional infliction of emotional distress:
    • In Shoen v. Amerco, Inc., 111 Nev. 735, 747, 896 P.2d 469, 476 (1995), the Nevada Supreme Court recognized the tort of the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in the employment context. The Court stated:

      The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are: "(1) extreme and outrageous conduct with either the intention of, or reckless disregard for, causing emotional distress, (2) the plaintiff's having suffered severe or extreme emotional distress and (3) actual or proximate causation."

      Id., 896 P.2d at 476 (quoting Star v. Rabello, 97 Nev. 124, 125, 625 P.2d 90, 91-92 (1981)).

  • Invasions of privacy:
    • In PETA v. Berosini, 110 Nev. 78, 92-93, 867 P.2d 1121, 1130 (1994), the Nevada Supreme Court recognized the four torts of privacy set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652A as follows: The four species of privacy tort are: 1) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another; 2) appropriation of the name or likeness of another; 3) unreasonable publicity given to private facts; and 4) publicity unreasonably placing another in a false light before the public. The primary tort that applies in the employment field is the third privacy tort, unreasonable publicity given to private facts.

      In State v. Eighth Judicial District Court ex rel. County of Clark, 42 P.3d 233, 240 (Nev. 2002), the Nevada Supreme Court stated:

      "To maintain a cause of action for public disclosure of private facts one must prove that a public disclosure of private facts has occurred which would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities." The Restatement (Second) of Torts provides that rules of conditional privilege that apply to a defamation claim are applicable in an invasion of privacy claim.

  • Fraud:
    • Under Nevada law, in order to establish a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit, the plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) a false representation made by the defendant; (2) defendant’s knowledge or belief that its representation was false or that defendant has an insufficient basis of information for making the representation; (3) defendant intended to induce plaintiff to act or refrain from acting upon the misrepresentation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff as a result of relying on the misrepresentation. Epperson v. Roloff, 102 Nev. 206, 210 - 211, 719 P.2d 799 (1986); Barmettler v. Reno Air Inc., 114 Nev. 441, 446 - 447, 956 P.2d 138 (1998); Lubbe v. Barba, 91 Nev. 596, 599, 540 P.2d 115 (1995). In order to show justifiable reliance, the Plaintiff is required to show the following:

      The causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the resulting damage, essential throughout the law of torts, takes in cases of misrepresentation the form of inducement of the plaintiff to act, or to refrain from acting, to his detriment. The false representation must have played a material and substantial part in leading the plaintiff to adopt his particular course; and when he was unaware of it at the time that he acted, or it is clear that he was not in any way influenced by it, and would have done the same thing without it for other reasons, his loss is not attributed to the defendant.

    Lubbe v. Barba, 91 Nev. 596, 600, 540 P.2d 115, 118 (1975).

  • Tortious interference:
    • In Leavitt v. Leisure Sports. Inc., 103 Nev. 81, 734 P.2d 1221 (1987) the Nevada Supreme Court stated to establish tortious interference with prospective economic advantage the plaintiff must prove:

      (1) A prospective contractual relationship between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the prospective relationship; (3) the intent to harm the plaintiff by preventing the relationship; (4) the absence of privilege or justification by the defendant; and, (5) actual harm to plaintiff as a result of defendant's conduct.

Lyons Law Firm represents individuals who have been wrongfully terminated. However, simply because a termination is “wrongful” it does not mean that the termination was “unlawful.” There is a presumption in the state of Nevada that all employees are at-will. This presumption can be rebutted by proof of the existence of an express or implied contract that the employee can only be terminated for “just” or “good” cause. In Southwest Gas Corp. v. Vargas, 111 Nev. 1064, 1078, 901 P.2d 693 (1995), the Nevada Supreme Court stated:

We hold that a discharge for “just” or “good” cause is one which is not for any arbitrary, capricious, or illegal reason and which is one based on facts (1) supported by substantial evidence, and (2) reasonably believed by the employer to be true.”

An express contract is a contract in writing or an oral contract that the employee can only be terminated for “just” or “good” cause. An implied contract is one which is implied from the circumstances and must be supported by substantial evidence. In Yeager v. Harrah’s Club, Inc., 111 Nev. 830, 837, 897 P.2d 1093 (1995) the Nevada Supreme Court stated that an employee who alleges the existence of a long-term employment contract must supply some corroboration that a contract has been formed specifically with that employee. This is usually done by a mixture of oral representations and company policies. In D’Angelo v. Gardner, 107 Nev. 704, 708 n.4, 819 P.2d 206, 209 n.4 (1991) the Nevada Supreme Court acknowledged:

Of course, the employer can easily prevent this inference from arising by including in its handbook an express disclaimer of implied contractual liability of the type found in Perry v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 508 So.2d 1086, 1088 (Miss.1987). In Perry, the pension plan manual at issue stated in bold type, "Employment rights not implied," and further stated that "Participation in the plan does not ... interfere in any way with the right of the company to discharge or terminate you at any time." In light of these statements, the court correctly found that no inference of implied contractual liability was present; thus, the court held that summary judgment was proper.

In addition, a wrongful termination claim may arise when an employee alleges that he or she was terminated in violation of the public policy of the State of Nevada. Finally, in conjunction with a wrongful termination claim, or when all else fails, employees in Nevada who believe that they have been wrongfully terminated will resort to various tort claims in an attempt to correct the wrongs they have suffered.

Lyons Law Firm represents individuals and small employers regarding the preparation of, and litigation regarding, various contracts which include, but are not limited to:
  • Employment Contracts

  • Independent Contractor Agreements

  • Confidentiality Agreements

  • Severance Agreements
Lyons Law Firm represents individuals regarding issues arising under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada’s wage and hour laws. This includes:
  • Litigating lawsuits against employers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and other related federal and state statutes.
    • Fair Labor Standards Act - 29 U.S.C. 206 et. seq.
    • Equal Pay Act
    • Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 608


  • Advising clients on whether they are entitled to overtime and/or whether any exemptions would bar them from being paid overtime.

  • Assisting and representing client’s regarding wage claims filed with the Nevada Labor Commission.

There are currently both federal and state laws which protect employees from retaliation for cooperating with governmental investigations or who report misconduct related to publicly traded companies.

Under the whistleblowing laws, an employee cannot be terminated, denied employment or denied advancement due to his or her attempts to alleviate illegal or improper conduct by his or her employer. This protection not only protects employees who report to government agencies, but also employees, who under certain circumstances, report illegal activity to supervisors and/or who refuse to go along with illegal activities of fellow employees and/or supervisors.

Whistleblowing claims are usually strongly contested and can be difficult to prove. Lyons Law Firm will build your case with all of the appropriate, admissible, evidence and seek to ensure that your damages incurred by an employer's retaliation for Whistleblowing is presented in the strongest light possible.

This web site is designed to only provide general information. Nothing contained in this web site or communicated through it by any means, including e-mail, by the prospective client, should be construed to provide formal legal advice or create the formation of an attorney/client relationship. The State Bar of Nevada does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Anyone accessing this web site who is considering retaining an attorney should independently investigate the attorney's background, credentials and ability. FULL DISCLAIMER

Lyons Law Firm economically represents small employers regarding employment issues and litigation. It has been the firms philosophy that if it is at all possible small employers are best served by avoiding litigation. To meet that philosophical goal, the firm’s attorneys work with its clients to advise them how to avoid litigation. In the event that is not possible the firm represents its clients regarding the following employment related issues:

  • Discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims based on race, sex, national origin, color, religion, pregnancy, gender, sexual orientation, disability and age discrimination laws.

  • Employment Torts including, but not limited to: Assault and Battery; Civil Conspiracy; Discharge in violation of public policy; Defamation; Intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; Invasions of privacy; Fraud; and Tortious interference with economic advantage.

  • Wage and Hour claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Equal Pay Act, and Nevada Revised Statute 608 et. seq.

  • Wrongful termination.

  • Work place protection orders protecting employers and employees from Harassment in the Workplace.

The firm represents small employers before the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and all Nevada state courts, including the Nevada Supreme Court. It prosecutes claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation under all applicable statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981), the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act, and Nevada’s Protection against Harassment in the Workplace.

The firm also represents small employers regarding discrimination issues filed with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In addition to representing small employers in litigation, the firm advises and counsels its clients to attempt to help them avoid litigation through the development of employment policies and procedures and advise on employment-related issues as they arise. This includes, but is not limited to developing and implementing procedures for:

  • At-will employment

  • Anti-harassment

  • Arbitration/mediation of employment disputes

  • Absenteeism

  • Drug testing policies

  • Employee Handbooks

  • Internal grievance procedures and disputes

  • Leave of absence, Sick Leave, Family and Medical Leave Act, Disability Leave
Furthermore, the firm’s attorneys regularly counsel its clients regarding:
  • Discipline and discharge

  • Investigation and resolution of harassment complaints

  • Accommodations for Disabilities

  • Leaves of absence, Implementation of Family and Medical Leave and Disability leave

  • Charges of Discrimination filed against the employer with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

  • Wage and Hour law compliance

  • Employment contracts

  • Severance agreements

Resources:

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

Clark County Pro Bono Project
800 South 8th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: 702.388.1070
Facsimile: 702.388.1642
WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA

Washoe Legal Services
650 Tahoe Street
Reno, NV 89509
Telephone: 775.329.2727
Facsimile: 775.324.5509
Family Law Self Help Center
Family Courts & Services Center
601 North Pecos Road
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: 702.455.1500
Family Law Self Help Center
1st Floor, One South Sierra
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: 775.325.6735
Lawyer Referral & Information
Services - Sponsored by the State
Bar of Nevada
600 E. Charleston Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89104
Telephone: 702.382.0504
Lawyer Referral & Information
Services - Sponsored by the State
Bar of Nevada
Telephone: 800.789.5747
Clark County Law Library
309 S. Third Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: 702.455.4696
Washoe County Law Library
75 Court Street, Room 101
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: 775.328.3250
William S. Boyd School of Law
Law Library
4505 Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89154
Telephone: 702.895.2400

Links:

Nevada Administrative Agencies Links:

Federal Administrative Links:

Bar Associations:

Miscellaneous:

www.law.cornell.edu

This web site offers materials covering federal judicial decision, state statutes, state divorce laws and web sites supporting divorce resources.

The above resources and links are to provide to you for your use and to assist you with your legal needs. However, we do not represent nor can we represent, guarantee or warrant that the information provided by the Resources and Links are accurate. Furthermore, we do not represent nor can we represent, guarantee or warrant that the information contained in those sources is accurate or is appropriate as it applies to any particular situation. The law has to be taken as a whole not used in discreet individual parts. Therefore we recommend that individuals who access the resources and links set forth above consult with their own counsel prior to relying on any information contained herein.


Up | Down | Top | Bottom

Contact Us


©2011 Lyons Law Firm. Website designed by Kevin Vain | Imperium Graphics