►
From YouTube: 3/17/2021 - Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
Here,
madam
secretary,
please
note
that
assembly,
member
kasama
and
speaker
fryerson
are
absent,
excused
welcome
everyone
to
the
committee
and
welcome
to
the
audience
tuning
in
over
the
internet.
Before
we
start
I'd
like
to
make
some
housekeeping
announcements,
please
remember
all
exhibits.
Testimony
written
testimony
and
amendments
must
be
submitted
by
noon.
On
the
business
day
prior
to
the
committee
meeting
persons
wishing
to
provide
testimony
or
attend
the
meeting
virtually
must
pre-register
online
at
the
legislature's
website.
A
The
public
is
strongly
encouraged
to
submit
written
testimony
in
advance
of
the
meeting
meeting
by
emailing,
the
assembly,
commerce
and
labor
committee
at
asm
cl
asm.state.nv.us
members.
Please
remember
to
keep
your
camera
on
at
all
times.
This
will
help
us
ensure
that
we
have
a
quorum
unless
you
are
stepping
away
for
non-committee
related
business
members
and
presenters.
Please
remember
to
be
muted
at
all
times,
unless
you
are
going
to
speak
and
unmute
yourself
and
promptly
mute
yourself
right
after
thank
you,
everyone
and
we
can
begin
with
our
agenda
items.
A
I
do
want
to
let
those
know
who
are
watching
over
the
internet
or
logged
in
or
have
phoned
in
to
participate
that
I
will
be
taking
the
agenda
items
out
of
order.
This
is
the
order
we
will
be
proceeding
with
today.
We
will
start
with
assembly
bill
180,
followed
with
assembly
bill
222,
and
we
will
end
with
assembly
bill
124.
A
That
being
said,
we
can
move
on
to
our
next
agenda
item,
which
is
bill
hearings.
I
will
open
the
bill
hearing
on
assembly
bill
190,
which
provides
certain
employees
with
the
right
to
use
sickly
to
assist
certain
family
members
with
medical
needs.
I
believe
we
have
assembly
members,
bilbray
axelrod
here
to
present
the
bill,
welcome
mrs
bilbray
axelrod
and
when
you're
ready,
please
proceed.
C
C
A
And
while
you
do
that,
I
do
want
to
just
make
a
quick
mention
to
the
committee,
and
we
have
three
bills
that
we're
hearing
today.
It's
my
intention
to
break
them
up
and
give
equal
time
to
every
bill.
So
we
if
we
could
shoot
for
a
45-minute
hearing,
including
testimony
for
each
bill.
Thank
you.
We
do
have
two
members
absent
excuse
and
we
will
lose
two
members
at
4
pm
to
another
committee.
C
Thank
you
chair
haudiki
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
shannon
bilbray
axelrod
representing
assembly
district
34
in
clark
county.
Thank
you
for
your
time
today
in
the
consideration
of
assembly
bill
190,
which
would
require
private
employers
that
provide
employees
with
sick
leave
to
allow
employees
to
use
such
leave
to
help
an
immediate
family
member
with
certain
medical
needs.
C
Assembly
190
would
allow
persons
who
need
to
take
time
off
to
care
for
their
loved
ones
to
use
sick
leave.
They've
already
accumulated
use
of
sickly,
for
this
purpose
would
be
to
assist
an
immediate
family
member
who
has
an
illness,
injury,
medical
appointment
or
other
authorized
medical
need
the
same
conditions
that
would
apply
to
the
employee
when
taking
such
lead.
That
would
also
apply
to
family
sick
leave
cases.
C
Immediate
family
members
include
a
child
spouse,
domestic
partner,
sibling,
parent
mother-in-law,
father-in-law
grandchild,
grandparent,
step
parent
and
foster
child
of
an
employee
to
ensure
employee
awareness.
That
ab190
requires
that
the
labor
commissioner
prepare
and
post
a
bulletin
that
explains
the
provisions
of
the
program.
The
bulletin
must
be
posted
online
and
in
the
workplace
of
of
every
employer
and
provide
employees
with
that
that
provides
employees
with
sick
leave.
The
measure
requires
the
labor
commissioner
to
enforce
the
program.
C
C
That
was,
we
worked
on
very
hard
and
I
wanted
to
let
people
know
that
319
from
last
session
to
2019
is
a
different,
that
that
bill
only
talked
about
companies
that
have
50
or
more
employees,
and
so
this
would
cover
smaller,
smaller
companies
and
that's
about
70
of
companies
out
there
right
now,
and
this
would
also
not
be
collective
bargaining-
wouldn't
be
affected
by
this
bill.
C
C
Ab190
program
helps
caregivers
with
short-term
health
needs,
for
example,
with
covid
right
now.
If
you
have
to
take
someone
and
your
family
to
the
hospital
or
to
get
get
care
from
a
doctor
to
provide
immediate
family
member
with
a
brief
illness
and
transfer
that
person
or
even
to
rush
a
person
to
the
hospital
and
that
happens,
fmla
provides
eligibility
for
up
to
12
weeks
of
unpaid
job
production
per
per
year.
A
b
190
program
would
provide
access
to
paid
leave
per
the
sick
lead
rules
of
the
entity.
C
So
I
want
to
say
that
again,
this
only
applies
if
your
company
has
a
sick
leave
policy
in
the
other
bill
that
I
reference
from
the
senate
that
that
deals
with
companies
over
50,
that
is
turned
everything
into
pto
time,
which
you
know
you
can
use
for
anything.
If
you
want
to
take
a
mental
health
day,
that's
totally
fine
as
well,
so
this
is
just
specifically
for
companies
that
still
are
using
the
term
sick
leave
and,
and
it
would
apply
to
all
companies
that
I
just
stated.
C
Why
is
this
important?
According
to
aarp,
there
are
more
than
350
000
unpaid,
caregivers
in
nevada,
and
this
is
actually
an
old
number.
I
happen
to
believe,
especially
in
the
last
year.
There
are
a
lot
more
than
that.
One
out
of
four
workers
who
are
age,
25
or
older,
provide
unpaid,
caregiving,
60
of
family
caregivers
are
employed,
full
or
part-time
and
7
out
of
ten
family
caregivers
report
having
to
make
work
accommodations.
These
include
late
or
leaving
early,
taking
unpaid
time
off
reduced
hours,
work
and
or
even
quitting
their
job.
C
So
another
important
aspect
of
this
measure
is
for
senior
population
once
again.
According
to
aarp
and
the
national
conference
of
state
legislatures,
there
are
10
000
baby
boomers
that
turn
65
each
day
and
each
person
has
about
a
70
chance
of
needing
some
type
of
long-term
care
service
in
the
remaining
years.
So
that
means
you're
either
a
caregiver
or
you're.
C
Going
to
be
need
the
help
of
a
caregiver,
so
I
will
remain
for
questions,
but
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
invite
glenn
fuchs
from
aarp
he's
a
national
senior
legislative
representative
and
also
barry
gold-
that
I'm
sure
you
all
know
very
well
nevada,
director
of
government
relations
to
further
explain.
Thank
you
very
much.
D
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
glenn
fuchs
and
I'm
a
senior
legislative
representative
with
aarp's
government
affairs
department
in
washington
dc.
I
focus
on
health
and
family
caregiving
issues
and
thank
you
to
assemblywoman
billbray
axelrod,
for
inviting
me
to
join
you
virtually
to
discuss.
Ab190
bills
like
ab190,
are
part
of
a
larger
trend
of
states
recognizing
this
tremendous
work
of
family
caregivers
and
trying
to
better
support
them.
Since
2014
over
500
family
caregiver,
focused
laws
have
been
enacted
in
all
50
states.
D
These
bills
often
have
strong
bipartisan
support,
and
I'm
not
aware
of
any
indication
that
this
has
been
too
burdensome
on
businesses
or
any
need
for
states
to
go
back
and
adjust
these
laws
on
this
basis.
In
addition,
another
13
states
that
have
state
paid
leave
requirements
allow
that
leave
to
be
used
for
family
caregiving
purposes.
D
Assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
has
asked
that
I
go
through
the
provisions
of
ab190
and
give
a
summary
of
the
bill.
Some
of
this
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
already
just
described,
and
I
will
point
out
where
those
sections
are
in
the
bill.
Thankfully
ab190
is
pretty
straightforward
section
one
is
the
most
complicated
part.
It
has
seven
parts.
D
D
An
employee's
use
of
sick
time
to
assist
a
family
member
would
be
subject
to
the
same
conditions
as
when
the
employee
takes
sick
time
for
their
own
illness,
meaning
things
like
how
notice
is
given
whether
a
doctor's
note
is
required,
or
things
like
that
part
two
allows
an
employer
to
limit
the
amount
of
an
employee's
sick
leave
that
can
be
taken
to
assist
a
family
member
but
provides
that
the
employee
should
be
allowed
to
use
at
least
half
of
their
yearly.
Sick
leave
amount
for
family
medical
purposes.
D
D
D
Part
6
states
that
this
bill
does
not
apply
to
the
extent
that
it
is
prohibited
by
federal
law.
So,
for
example,
federal
law
exempts
certain
railway
employees
from
certain
state
employment
laws,
so
those
employees
would
fall
under
the
prohibition.
Here,
similar
language
was
included
in
the
illinois
and
new
mexico
bills
that
have
passed
in
recent
years.
D
Part
7
defines
the
immediate
family
member
for
whom
employee
sick
leave
may
be
taken,
namely
a
child
foster
child
spouse,
domestic
partner,
sibling,
parent
mother-in-law,
father-in-law
grandchild,
grandparent
or
step
parent
of
an
employee
and
more
broadly,
any
person
for
whom
the
employee
is
a
legal
guardian
and
then
finally,
sections
two
and
three
of
the
bill
outline
the
enforcement
mechanisms
for
this
bill,
including
setting
forth
penalties
for
violation
and,
again
it's
my
understanding
that
these
sections
simply
put
this
bill
on
equal
footing
as
other
wage
and
our
laws
in
nevada
code.
D
When
it
comes
to
enforcement,
and
with
that,
I
will
turn
it
over
to
my
colleague,
barry
gold,
the
associate
state
director
for
advocacy
for
aarp
nevada,
who
will
who
will
discuss
what
ab-190
would
mean
for
working
caregivers
in
the
state.
E
Yeah.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
for
the
record.
My
name
is
barry
gold.
I
am
the
director
of
government
relations
for
aarp
nevada,
let's
talk
about
caregivers
and
who
caregivers
are
and
who
they
care.
For
a
very
famous
person
who
has
a
national
caregiving
institute
said
there
are
four
kinds
of
people
in
the
world:
those
who
are
caregivers,
those
who
have
been
caregivers,
those
who
will
need
a
caregiver
or
those
who
have
been
caregivers
in
the
past.
Caregiving
defines
humanity
it's
who
we
are
it's
what
we
do.
E
We
take
care
of
each
other
and
we
provide
more
care
than
the
medical
system
ever
will
do.
So
it's
important
to
think
about
that.
Now,
I'll
tell
you
that
aarp
did
a
study
and
of
course
we
do
lots
of
studies-
and
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
this
right
here,
but
this
is
part
of
a
caregiving
thing.
That's
a
caregiving
research
project
that
was
107
pages
long.
I'd
be
glad
to
send
that
to
you,
but
you
probably
would
rather
have
the
nine
page
executive
summary.
E
So
what
it
talked
about
in
the
executive
summary
said
that
currently
we
heard
about
how
many
were
in
nevada,
there's
53
million
people
across
the
country
back
in
2015,
it
was
only
43
million
caregiving
is
increasing
and
growing
some
people
have
asked
and
they
said
well,
you
know
we
don't
need
this
bill
because
everybody's
going
to
pay
time
off.
So
why
do
we
need
to
do
that?
Well,
that
simply
is
not
true.
The
caregiving
report
in
2020
stated
that
for
the
working
caregivers
that
they
talk
to,
these
are
the
working
caregivers.
E
58
of
them
worked
for
a
business
that
had
sick
leave
benefits
and
that's
increased
from
52
percent
in
2015.
So
not
only
is
sick
leave
still
very
prevalent
in
the
business
world.
It's
actually
increasing,
because
people
are
seeing
that
there's
a
need
for
that.
We've
heard
that
nationally,
at
61
of
caregivers
still
working
max.
What
we
do
here
in
our
state
is
60.
E
What
the
other
thing
the
reports
have
always
said
is
what
are
these
caregivers
doing?
Well,
a
lot
of
them
are
doing
really
complex
medical
tasks
that
once
were
reserved
for
licensed
staff
trained
personnel.
That
caregivers
are
now
doing,
and
so
it's
important
to
think
these
people
are
juggling
both
their
caregiving
and
their
job,
and
I
guess
the
easiest
way
why
we
need
to
have
this
bill.
E
Is
people
should
never
have
to
choose
between
their
job
and
their
work
and
caring
for
their
family
members,
because
I
think
we
all
know
where
that
would
where
that
would
happen.
So
some
other
facts
that
are
here
talks
about
is
older
workers,
especially
older
women,
who
are
most
likely
to
have
the
elder
care
responsibilities,
and
the
study
showed
that
it's
61
of
caregivers
are
female.
39
percent
are
male,
so
these
older
workers
are
are
an
increasing
portion
of
the
workforce.
These
older
women,
because
women
now
increase
account
for
a
more
significant
portion
of
family
income.
E
Their
jobs
and
the
stability
are
even
more
important
before
they
should
not
have
to
choose
and
lost
income
and
benefits.
On
average
for
family
caregivers,
over
50,
due
to
providing
unpaid
caregiving
and
losing
their
jobs
and
salary
can
be
over
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
over
a
caregiver's
lifetime.
E
They
shouldn't
have
to
give
up
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
because
they
have
to
take
care
of
their
family.
Aarp
has
found
out
that
employers
who
offer
family
friendly
benefits
and
caregiver
friendly
benefits
are
better
able
to
stay
in
their
jobs,
earn
a
living
and
provide
for
their
own
families.
So
I
think
it's
important
that
we
think
about
that,
and
we
talked
about
people
not
being
institutionalized
if
people
can
stay
at
home
and
get
some
care
at
home,
even
with
some
assistance
from
the
state.
E
You've
heard
me
talk
about
the
home
and
community
based
services
and
how
they're
fiscally
prudent.
Besides
the
right
thing
to
do
those
home
and
community-based
waivers
cost
about
five
thousand
dollars
a
person.
Nursing
homes
are
eighty
thousand
dollars
or
up
a
person,
so
it
really
isn't
everyone's
best
interest,
not
just
because
it's
the
right
thing
to
do
to
let
people
live
with
independence
and
dignity,
but
it's
fiscally
prudent
to
do
that,
and
often
these
family
caregivers,
if
they're
allowed
to
continue
working
and
taking
care
of
their
loved
one
we're
able
to
prevent
that
institutionalization.
E
So
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
mention
that-
and
you
know
I'm
always
famous
for
my
tag
lines
at
the
end
and
we
used
to.
I
used
to
always
say
that
you
shouldn't
worry
about
having
to
take
your
mom
to
the
doctor,
because
you
shouldn't
worry
about
losing
your
job,
because
you
have
to
take
your
mom
to
the
doctor,
but
in
the
year
of
the
pandemic,
it's
even
more
so
you
shouldn't
have
to
worry
about
losing
your
job,
because
you
have
to
take
your
mom
to
the
doctor
or
your
mom
has
coveted
19..
E
A
Thank
you,
mr
gold.
Miss
bilbray
axelrod
is
that
it
for
presenters.
Okay,
perfect!
Yes,
that
is.
Thank
you.
Okay
members.
Do
we
have
questions
for
assembly,
member
bill
bait,
ray
axelrod
or
any
of
her
co-presenters?
F
Thank
you
so
much
chair
and
I
do
have
a
few
questions.
F
If
I
may
some
clarifying
questions-
and
I
appreciate
the
presentation
and
and
also
anticipating
some
of
the
questions
and
working
those
into
that
presentation,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
heard
those
clearly
because
I
I
think
you
did
it
a
good
job,
but
I
just
want
to
clear
a
couple
of
things
if
I
may-
and
I
do
remember
this
discussion
last
session
and
especially
because
at
that
time
I
was
care
giving
for
my
father-in-law,
who
lived
just
down
the
street,
and-
and
so
I
really
did
appreciate
you
bringing
this
forward.
F
So
in
section
one.
We
know
that
it's,
except
as
otherwise
provided
it's
only
if
an
employer
provides
this
paid
or
unpaid,
sick
leave,
and
so
it's
it
only
applies
to
those
who
have
this.
It's
not
mandating
an
expansion
or
mandating
that
they
do.
But
how
does
this
impact
the
paid
time
off
for
50
and
above
does
this
just
not
apply
at
all
to
those
employers
who
have
50
employees
and
above
it's
only
for
employers
who
have
50
and
under
49
and
under
and
who
offer
sick
leave?
Is
that
correct?
Thank.
C
You
for
the
question
so
not
really-
and
this
is
the
reason
why
that
last
bill
in
the
last
session
changed
the
policy
for
50
and
above
to
pto,
which
means
you
can
take
it
off
for
any
reason.
So
this
would
so
in
one
ways
in
one
way,
this
kind
of
keeps
the
pot
under
50,
because
all
the
other
companies
that
were
over
50
have
already
moved
to
pto
and
they
won't
have
the
term
sick
leave
in
their
definition,
so
kind
of
de
facto
it's
only
under
50,
but
that's
just
because
of
the
bill.
F
Okay,
so
so
I
understand
that
take
time
off
for
50
and
over
is
flexible
under
50,
it's
for
sick
leave
and
the
sick
leave
can
be
utilized
for
these
purposes,
and
so
the
the
next
question
to
clarify
is
that
you
stated
that
this
doesn't
apply
to
collective
bargaining
agreements.
I
believe-
and
I
didn't
see
that
in
the
language
are
we
anticipating
the
amendment
to
explicitly
say
that
this
does
not
apply
to
collective
bargaining
agreements,
or
did
I
miss
it
somewhere
in
this
original
text?.
C
This
issue's
come
up
in
the
past.
If
you
might
remember,
this
is
the
third
time
this
bill
has
been
seen
and
we
always
just
put
it
on
the
record,
and
that
seems
to
be
enough
for
most
folks.
But
if
you
need
us
to
spell
that
out,
we
could
do
that.
But,
as
I
said
in
both
testimonies
last
time,
we
just
usually
just
get
that
on
the
record.
A
And
assemblymember
told
that
something
I
know
where
legal
isn't
present
with
us
today,
but
maybe
we
could
ask
him
if
it
needs
to
be
included
in
writing
or
if
it's
something,
if
it's
implied
in
the
language
too.
Unfortunately,
he's
he's
not
with
us
today,
but
that
I
think
that
would
have
been
a
great
question
to
direct.
We
can
direct
his
way.
F
Wonderful,
thank
you,
chair
and,
and
I'll
follow
up
with
the
sponsor.
I
I
do
think
that
it
might
provide
comfort
to
have
that
in
writing,
and
I
appreciate
the
willingness
to
have
that
considered.
Thank
you.
B
B
I
just
kind
of
have
a
quick
statement
as
someone
who
was
juggling
law
school
and
a
full-time
job
when
my
mother
was
diagnosed
with
cancer
and
having
to
to
to
take
out
a
few
hours
to
take
her
to
chemo
or
to
take
her
to
her
doctor's
appointment
and
the
stress
of
balancing
the
need
to
pay
your
bills,
the
need
to
be
there
for
your
family
and
also
the
need
to
be
honest
and
straightforward
with
your
employer
so
that
you
don't
lose
your
job
about.
B
You
know
why
I
need
to
take
a
couple
of
hours
or
this
you
know
this
morning
off
instead
of
taking
that
whole
day,
because
you
have
to
balance
how
much
you're
gonna
get
paid
that
day.
I
truly
appreciate
this
bill
and
the
humanity
of
this
bill.
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
for
that.
C
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
assemblywoman,
billberry
axelrod
for
the
record.
That's
exactly
the
purpose
of
this
bill.
People
don't
like
to
have
to
you
know,
call
up
their
employer
and
fake
cough.
You
know
so
when
they're
really
just
taking
their
mom
for
chemotherapy.
So
thank
you
for
that
comment,
and,
and
it
is,
it
is
the
humane
thing
to
do.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
your
presentation,
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod.
We
can
now
move
into
the.
C
Assemblywoman
hardy
had
her
hand
up.
I'm
sorry
chair.
A
B
Thank
you
yeah,
so
I
too
just
wanted
to
clarify
something.
I
think
one
of
the
other
presenters
said.
So
we
established
that
it's
only
if
an
employer
already
has
a
sickly
policy,
and
then
I
think
they
said
they
have
to
go
by
whatever
that
policy
is.
If
they
have
a
doctor's
note
or
something
like
that,
is
there
anything
additionally
like
an
employer
would
have
to
do
like
in
their
record-keeping.
B
C
I'll
assembly
women
channel
bill
bray,
oxford
I'll
turn
that
over
to
mr
fuchs,
for
that,
just
because
we
have
this,
bill
has
been
done
in
several
other
states,
and
so
he
can
speak
to
that
at
on
how
that
was
handled.
D
Sure
glenn
fuchs
for
the
record,
madam
chair
to
you
and
through
in
response
to
assemblywoman
hardy's
question.
So
there
is
not
anything
extra
that
employers
would
need
to
do
if,
in
fact,
an
employer
wants
to
limit
the
sick
time
to
50
the
the
sick
time
that
can
be
used
for
family
members
to
50,
then
they
would
need
to
keep
that
record
internally,
but
that
would
simply
be
for
their
own
internal
purposes.
The
law
doesn't
actually
require
that
they
can.
D
Let
employees
use
all
of
their
available
sick
time
to
care
for
a
family
member.
So
again
it
would
nothing
in
the
law
requires
additional
record
keeping
on
that.
H
D
Sure
glenn
fix
for
the
record,
madam
chair
to
you
and
through
you,
in
response
to
assemblyman
o'neill's
question.
Nothing
in
hipaa
would
prevent
the
family
member
for
whom
a
sick
day
is
taken
from
allowing
a
doctor's
note
or
whatever
is
required
to
be
provided
to
the
employer
to
verify
the
employee's
time
off.
D
Yes,
it
would
be
an
extra
step
if
the
employer
requires
that,
but
the
employer
does
not
have
to
require
that,
but
if
they
do,
the
employees
will
need
to
understand
that
that's
the
kind
of
documentation
that's
required,
and
in
fact
this
is
already
how
it
works.
When
an
employee
takes
long-term
leave
under
federal
fmla,
they
have
they.
D
As
I
understand
it,
the
employee
has
to
take
an
fmla,
submit
a
medical
certification
to
the
employer
that
includes
both
health
information
for
the
for
the
family
member
as
part
of
that
process,
the
ill
family
member
authorizes
their
health
provider
to
release
that
necessary
information,
and
so
the
process
would
be
similar
here
and
given
that
we're
talking
about
family
members
helping
each
other
out,
it's
hard
to
imagine
that
it's
going
to
come
up
very
often
that
the
ill
family
member
isn't
willing
to
release
some
minor,
necessary
information.
D
A
Thank
you
for
your
question,
mr
o'neill
and
okay.
I'm
doing
one
last
check
for
questions.
It
doesn't
look
like.
We
have
any
other
further
questions,
so
now
we
oh,
we
do,
and
I
apologize
assembly,
member
dickman
and
mr
a
few
examples
and
presenters.
Please
feel
free
to
go
directly
to
the
members.
I
My
fault,
madam
chair,
I'm
so
sorry
I
was
trying
to
get
you
through
chat.
I
forgot
I
just
I
guess
I
just
have
a
quick
question
about
the
penalties.
They
seem
to
be
somewhat
steep
and
on
the
under
the
fiscal
note,
it
says
effect
on
the
local
government
increases
or
newly
provides
for
term
of
imprisonment.
I
So
I'm
just
wondering
how
onerous
are
the
record
keeping
requirements
in
light
of
those?
Rather
large
penalties.
D
Sure
glenn
fuchs
for
the
record
this
bill
would
go
under
chapter
608,
which
contained
many
of
nevada's
wage
and
hour
laws.
The
penalty
provisions
would
simply
put
this
bill
on
the
same
footing
as
far
as
enforcement
goes
with
the
rest
of
those
wage
and
hour
laws.
It
would
be
treated
the
same.
In
fact,
I
I
believe
it
would
be
out
of
the
ordinary
to
add
a
requirement
to
chapter
608
here
and
have
it
not
be
subject
to
the
same
level
of
enforcement.
D
You
know
by
the
district
attorney
or
the
the
labor
commissioner,
or,
as
would
be
appropriate
in
this
situation.
So
we
know
employers
are
already
keeping
good
track
of
of
hours
and
leave
and
again
if
they,
if
they
have
the
extra
limitation
of
of
only
allowing
50
of
the
hours,
then
that
would
be
one
more
step
that
the
employer
would
have
to
take.
But
again
it
wouldn't
be
any
more
onerous
or
the
penalties
any
more
strict
than
the
current
other.
Similar
laws.
I
E
Yeah
for
the
record,
barry
gold
director
of
government
relations
for
aarp.
If
you
look
at
the
last
section
three
it
talks
about,
this
is
a
misdemeanor
and
the
last
thing
it
says
the
labor
commissioner
may
impose
against
a
person
an
administrative
penalty,
so
I
think
it
says,
may
impose-
and
I
think
that's
important
language
to
look
at,
because
I
really
don't
think
when
these
kind
of
things
happen
right
now
that
they're
really
giving
those
penalties
to
people
left
and
right
for
doing
something,
especially
if
something
was
newer
for
the
first
time.
E
A
Thank
you
and
members.
I
apologize
if
I
moved
quickly
and
missed
your
questions.
While
you
were
trying
to
get
through
me,
get
to
me
through
chat,
I'm
gonna
do
again
one
quick.
A
G
J
J
We
believe
the
flexibility
that
this
bill
provides
to
employees
for
those
who
work
in
businesses
that
have
less
than
50
employees
or
who
do
not
prescribe
to
collect
a
bargaining
agreement,
the
flexibility
that
they
need
to
be
able
to
manage
the
care
of
those
that
they
love
and
the
ability
for
business
owners
and
their
employers
to
be
able
to
meet
that
challenge
and
be
able
to
help
them
as
they
grow
in
their
employment.
So
we
support
the
bill
and
we
urge
its
passage.
G
G
K
K
You've
already
heard
a
lot
about
the
valuable
service
caregivers
provide
and
the
contributions
they
make
to
their
communities
and
to
their
families,
and
what
I
want
to
spend
my
time
on
is
giving
two
brief
stories
about
how
this
bill
would
plays
out
in
real
life.
The
first
is
my
own
personal
story
in
the
90s.
My
parents
moved
to
southern
nevada
to
be
close
to
me
and
my
family
because
of
my
mother's
cancer.
K
They
were
relatively
independent
when
they
first
arrived,
but
my
mother's
health
quickly
declined
and
my
father
was
diagnosed
with
parkinson's
disease.
This
began
a
cycle
of
changing
needs,
although
I
was
not
their
primary
caregiver,
I
was
the
one
that
was
coordinating
their
care,
managing
the
medications
and
taking
them
to
medical
appointments,
as
well
as
their
emotional
needs.
During
this
time.
K
K
I'm
eternally
grateful
to
my
employer,
who
gave
me
the
flexibility
that
I
needed
to
assist
my
parents
and
continue
working
just
knowing
that
I
had
that
flexibility
was
a
stress,
reducer
and
enabled
me
to
focus
on
my
work
when
I
was
there
another
member
of
ncg
online
for
the
common
good
told
me
her
story,
and
I
think
she
has
submitted
written
testimony
on
this.
She
was
in
a
situation
somewhat
different
from
mine.
Her
husband
was
ill
and
she
had
to
take
him
to
a
very
important
appointment.
K
That
was
a
hundred
miles
away
from
where
they
lived,
and
so
she
asked
to
use
a
sick
leave
in
order
to
do
this.
Her
employer
said
she
could
not
use
sick
leave
for
this
because
she
herself
was
not
sick
and
in
addition
to
that,
she
would
have
to
pay
for
a
substitute
employee
for
the
day
that
she
would
be
gone
from
work.
The
financial
cost,
as
well
as
the
emotional
part
of
this,
was
very
upsetting,
so
you
can
see.
I
benefited
greatly
from
this.
K
Another
person
did
not
benefit
because
their
employer
didn't
provide
this
caregivers,
who
are
employed,
need
this
flexibility
to
use
their
existing
sick
time
to
provide
care.
The
flexibility
reduces
stress
and
financial
insecurity
for
the
caregiver
and
helps
prevent
premature
institutionalization
of
their
loved
one
at
a
higher
cost
to
the
family
and
the
state
nevada
for
the
common
good
stands
in
strong
support
of
ab190.
G
G
M
Chair,
my
name
for
the
record
is
gilbert
yanuk,
I'm
a
20-year
volunteer
for
aarp
tax
aide
here
in
nevada
and
over
the
last
20
plus
years.
I
see
what
most
of
our
senior
citizens
live
on.
A
lot
of
them
are
living
with.
You
know
some
of
their
children,
and
I
know
how
difficult
it
is
for
some
of
the
children
to
take
care
of
the
parents.
M
N
M
I
mean
when
they
see
the
benefit
that
they're
getting
and
the
fact
that
their
employer
is
providing
them
this
time
to
take
off
to
attend
to
the
family
responsibilities.
They
have
they're
a
much
happier
employee
and,
I
sure
hope,
all
the
representatives
support
this
bill
and
vote
in
favor.
Thank
you
for
the
time.
G
M
This
bill
does
not
affect
our
faculty
members
and
staff
because
we
already
have
policies
at
nc
that
cover
these
situations,
but
many
of
our
students
are
balancing
school
work
and
family
responsibilities
and
they
need
all
the
flexibility
that
this
kind
of
bill
will
give
them
to
just
deal
with
all
those
issues
at
once.
So
we
support
ab190.
Thank
you.
G
L
Good
afternoon
committee,
my
name
is
marlene
lockhart
l-o-c-k-a,
representing
the
retired
public
employees
of
nevada.
L
We
support
ab190
and
our
over
8
000
members
have
been
caregivers
themselves
and
through
sickness
and
other
maladies
that
have
involved
their
grandchildren,
children,
etc,
and
now,
in
the
later
part
of
their
lives,
they
their
children,
grandchildren
are
caregivers
for
them,
and
so
we
think
this
is
a
very
important
piece
of
legislation
to
ensure
that
a
benefit
that's
already
been
accrued
to
an
employee,
be
used
in
this
manner.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration,
appreciate
it.
A
G
A
Thank
you
broadcasting.
Next,
we
will
move
into
neutral.
Can
we
please
check
the
telephone
line
for
those
wishing
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position.
G
G
N
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
paul
moratkin
khan
with
the
vegas
chamber,
the
chamber,
is
in
neutral
on
the
bill
as
introduced.
We
do
not
have
an
issue
with
expansion
of
sick
leave
definition,
as
many
of
our
members
have
been
transitioned
to
the
paid
time
off
provisions,
because
the
greater
flexibility
offers
employees
and
with
adoptions
that
had
bill
312
during
the
2019
legislative
session.
N
G
K
K
K
G
K
G
L
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
then
members
of
the
committee
nick
vanderpool,
n-I-c-k
v-a-n-d-e-r-p-o-e-l
with
capital
partners
today
representing
the
reno
sparks
chamber
of
commerce.
Today,
the
reno's
parks
chamber
of
commerce
is
neutral
on
assembly,
bill
190
and
reiterate
what
was
outlined
by
my
colleague
mr
moroccan
with
the
vegas
chamber.
So
won't
repeat
the
comments,
but
as
always,
we
want.
We
appreciate
working
with
the
sibley
woman,
bilbray
axelrod,
as
we
did
in
2019
on
this
topic.
So
thank
you,
chair
and
committee
members
and
happy
st
patty's
day.
A
C
I
think
thank
you
very
much
chairwoman
howdy
for
hearing
this
bill.
I
know
you
guys
have
a
heavy
schedule
behind
me,
but
I
just
want
to
say
just
the
fact
that
we
had
no
opposition
just
shows
how
much
work
has
been
done
on
this
bill
in
the
last
three
sessions
and
here's
hoping
third
time's
the
charm.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
assemblywoman.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill.
190.
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
two
to
two.
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
222
and
I
believe
we
have
assembly
woman
forrest
here
to
present
it
assembly
bill
222
revises
provisions
governing
employment
practices,
assemblywoman
torres
when
you're
ready.
Please
proceed.
O
Thank
you
chair
good
afternoon,
chair
haudagi
and
committee
members.
I
am
assemblywoman
selena
torres
representing
assembly
district
three
and
today,
I'm
here
to
present
ab222,
which
revises
provisions
governing
employment
practices.
Before
I
begin
I'd
like
to
provide
a
brief
roadmap
of
today's
presentation,
I
will
first
I
will
provide
the
committee
with
some
background
information
and
talk
about
the
problem
that
this
bill
resolves.
O
So
first
I'll
begin
with
some
background
information
about
this
legislation
throughout
the
kova
19
pandemic
workers
have
reached
out
to
express
their
concerns
for
safety.
This
concern
has
not
been
limited
to
the
stories
highlighted
in
the
news
and
social
media.
Many
hard-working
nevadans
have
reached
out
to
express
their
fears
of
reaching
out
to
their
employer
and
safety
concerns
because
they
were
so
scared
of
retaliation
in
the
workplace.
O
Copen19
has
exacerbated
this
issue
as
essential
workers
continued
to
go
to
work
during
the
height
of
the
pandemic
and
in
many
instances,
felt
unsafe
and
feared,
retaliation
for
speaking
about
the
unsafe
conditions
in
their
workplace.
Nevada
workers
deserve
to
feel
safe
and
should
feel
comfortable
talking
to
their
employers
about
unsafe
conditions
without
fear
of
retribution.
O
Before
I
dive
into
the
sections
in
this
legislation,
I
think
it's
important
to
understand
how
this
policy
expands
employee
protections.
Currently,
if
an
employee
feels
unsafe
at
work
and
reports
us
to
an
external
authority
like
osha,
a
regulatory
body
or
the
labor
commission,
they're
guaranteed
whistleblower
protection.
O
Nevada
must
encourage
employees
that
find
their
working
conditions
unsafe
to
report
these
conditions
to
their
employers
and
talk
about
these
unsafe
conditions,
so
that
these
employers
can
quickly
address
this
issue.
This
is
beneficial
for
employees
and
employers.
It
encourages
employees
to
talk
to
employers
about
unsafe
conditions
this
and
empowers
the
employer
to
have
conversations
with
their
team
about
safety
and
deal
with
the
issues
in-house.
O
I
will
next
go
through
the
sections
of
the
bill.
You'll
note
that
I
did
submit
an
amendment
to
this
leg
to
this
piece
of
legislation,
and
it
has
been
emailed
to
the
committee
members,
the
committee
manager
and
I
did
deliver
a
paper
version
to
the
committee
members
as
well
section
one
of
this
legislation
section
one
codifies
whistleblower
protections
for
employees.
That
report
conduct
that
the
employee,
reasonably
and
in
good
faith
suspects,
may
be
unsafe.
O
For
example,
if
an
employee
does
not
have
the
proper
equipment
to
safely
perform
their
job
duties,
they
will
be
able
to
comfortably
report
their
issue
to
their
employer
without
that
fear
of
retaliation.
Later
on
this
afternoon,
I
believe
abraham
kamehameha
owner
and
president
and
safety
consultant
for
kamehameha
safety
will
be
speaking
in
support
of
this
legislation.
O
Prior
to
this
hearing,
he
expressed
the
positive
impact
that
this
will
have
on
employees
that
he
works
with
on
a
day-to-day
basis.
He
described
the
stories
of
construction
workers
and
landscapers
that
weep
in
his
office
because
they
know
that
their
working
conditions
are
unsafe
and
they
fear
retaliation
if
they
speak
up
to
their
employer.
O
This
section
of
legislation
will
empower
employees
to
speak
with
their
employer
regarding
these
unsafe
working
conditions.
Section
two
of
this
legislation
makes
conforming
changes
to
the
statute
section
three
of
this
legislation.
If
the
employee
makes
a
prima
facie
showing
for
retaliation,
then
the
burden
of
proof
shifts
to
the
employer
to
demonstrate
that
the
employee
engaged
in
conduct
that
constituted
gross
misconduct.
O
Additionally,
section
3
defines
gross
misconduct.
I
want
to
clarify
what
that
looks
like
and
how
it
impacts
employees,
essentially,
if
and
only
if
the
employee
can
demonstrate
that
they
meet
the
criterion
that
establishes
retaliation
in
section
1.
Then
the
burden
of
proof
is
on
the
employer
to
demonstrate
the
employee
engaged
in
gross
misconduct.
O
Lastly,
section
four
of
this
legislation:
presently
we
have
a
work
share
agreement
that
exists
between
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission,
which
is
nerc
and
the
united
states
equal
employment
opportunity.
Commission
eeoc.
The
present
agreement
allows
for
the
filing
of
a
charge
of
discrimination,
harassment
or
retaliation
with
one
agency
to
simultaneously
file
with
the
other.
This
process
is
known
as
the
filing
the
agency
that
receives
the
charge
is
generally
the
agency
that
processes
and
investigates
it.
O
Thus,
the
right
to
sue
may
come
from
eeoc
or
nerc
when
the
case
is
filed
in
district
or
federal
court.
Due
to
the
present
ambiguity
of
the
state
statute,
it
has
caused
some
issues
for
complaints
in
court.
This
section
eliminates
ambiguity
of
that
section
and,
to
the
extent,
consistent
with
federal
law,
permits
the
dual
filing
of
complaints
at
this
time,
we'll
now
pass
it
to
attorney
james
kemp,
who
will
make
some
additional
remarks.
P
P
P
As
assemblywoman
torres
says,
we've
proposed
some
amendments
to
the
original
bill
and
I'm
going
to
talk
about
those
in
just
a
little
bit
and
and
address
the
real
problem,
which
is
internal
versus
external
whistleblowing.
P
The
supreme
court
of
nevada
has
recognized
protection
for
whistleblowers,
those
who
refuse
to
do
unsafe
or
illegal
things
in
their
work
and
also
for
the
whistleblowers
who
bring
those
matters
to
the
attention
of
law
enforcement,
essentially,
in
other
words,
to
have
protection.
You
have
to
be
an
external
whistleblower
and
report
this
illegal
or
unsafe
conduct
to
a
regulatory
agency
that
has
authority
over
the
industry
that
the
employer
is
in
or
other
law
enforcement
agencies.
Even
the
police.
P
You
might
have
to
go
to
to
turn
your
employer
in
to
officials
in
order
to
have
any
protection.
The
supreme
court
is
basically
saying
well.
We
want
this
to
not
be
just
personal
and
petty
things
between
the
employer
and
the
employee,
but
things
that
are
actually
of
public
interest
and
and
that's
well
and
good.
But
there
are
things
that
are
public
interest
that
would
probably
be
better
off
resolved
in
the
first
instance
with
the
employer
internally,
and
so
that's
what
ab222
is
all
about.
P
It's
about
expanding
whistle,
blowing
whistleblower
protection
to
not
just
the
external
but
also
the
internal
whistleblowers,
to
have
them
have
protection
here
as
well,
so
that
an
employer
employee
that
goes
to
the
employer
can
feel
safe
in
the
knowledge
that
they're
they're
entitled
to
be
there
to
tell
the
employer.
The
things
that
that
are
going
on
in
the
workplace
are
unsafe
and
illegal
and
have
protection
of
the
law
if
they
do
that
and
if
the
employer
were
to
retaliate
against
them.
P
Some
of
the
earliest
cases
in
this
area
have
said
you
know,
safety
costs
money.
You
know,
safety
can
be
expensive
for
an
employer
and
there
are
lots
of
employers
who
are
willing
to
cut
corners
and
do
things
that
are
unsafe
and
employees
should
be
able
to
come
to
the
employer
and
say
we
can't
do
it
this
way.
It's
not
safe,
it's
illegal.
P
So
as
a
solution
ab222,
as
assemblywoman
torres
said,
will
codify
the
supreme
court's
decisions
and
make
it
a
statutory
rather
than
a
common
law
protection,
and
it
will
expand
it
to
include
the
internal
whistleblowers
and,
and
to
that
end
we
have
section
one
of
ab222,
which
adds
a
new
section
to
chapter
613
of
nrs,
which
is
where
most
of
the
employee
protections
are
found.
P
These
changes
that
we're
looking
to
incorporate
by
amendment
into
section
1
will
clarify
that
existing
tort
remedies
that
are
currently
available
in
the
drafting.
It
seems
that
they
overlooked
a
couple
of
important
remedies
that
are
available,
one
of
which
is
general
compensatory
damages,
which
is
your
emotional
distress
and
mental
anguish
and
other
ways
in
which
employees
can
be
personally
harmed.
P
Those
remedies
we're
looking
to
include
again,
they
already
exist
with
in
terms
of
external
whistleblowing
and
also
punitive
damages
in
appropriate
cases.
Not
all
cases
are
appropriate
for
it,
but
a
lot
of
retaliation
cases
are,
and
so
punitive
damages
under
nrs
42.005
in
appropriate
cases.
We're
having
that
we're
looking
to
amend
that
in
and
to
accept
out
nrs
42.007,
which
talks
about
employers
not
being
responsible
for
punitive
damages
of
the
malicious
acts
of
their
employees.
P
We
don't
think
it's
appropriate
in
this
case
to
exclude
the
employer,
because
it's
really
the
employer
that
is
ultimately
retaliating
against
the
employee
in
these
cases.
So
those
are
some
additions
to
the
remedies
that
we're
looking
at
in
the
amendment
section
two
is
something
torah
said
just
making
some
conforming
changes.
P
Section
three
is
an
important
clarification
for
both
retaliation
claims
for
whistleblowers
and
for
those
that
resist
unlawful
and
unsafe
actions
in
the
workplace,
but
also
would
apply
for
employees
who
are
retaliated
against
by
employers
in
violation
of
nrs
613.340,
which
is
part
of
the
the
statutory
protections
for
employees
with
respect
to
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
age,
race,
religion,
national
origin,
gender,
disability,
sexual
orientation
and
gender
identity.
P
P
So
what
section
three
is
going
to
do
is
going
to
to
change
something.
That's
that's
kind
of
troubling,
because
you
can
have
a
situation
where
an
employee
is
being
retaliated
against,
but
employers.
You
know,
know
they're
not
supposed
to
retaliate
against
somebody
who
is
engaged
in
protected
activity,
and
so
they
will
sometimes
cast
about
or
even
wait
a
short
period
of
time
until
the
employee
messes
up
in
in
a
slight
way.
P
So
so
section
three
of
ab222
looks
to
correct
that
or
make
it
so
that
the
employer
has
to
show
if,
if
the
employee
is
able
to
establish
this
prima
facie
case
of
retaliation,
let
me
explain
what
that
is.
Prima
facie
case
for
retaliation
is
generally
that
the
employee
is
engaged
in
protected
activity,
that
they
have
suffered
an
adverse
employment
action
and
there's
a
causal
connection.
In
other
words,
the
the
protected
activity
has
caused
the
protect
the
termination,
demotion
or
other
adverse
employment
action.
P
So
if
a
employee
is
able
to
establish
that
the
private
facility,
the
case
in
those
elements,
then
the
employer
would
still
have
a
defense
if
they
can
show
and
the
burden
you
know,
burden
of
proof
would
shift
to
them
to
show
that
hey
it's
not
it's,
not
the
whistleblowing
or
the
opposition
to
just
discrimination.
P
That's
caused
this.
We
have
another
reason:
the
employee
has
committed
gross
misconduct
or
that
basically,
no
employer
would
continue
to
employ
this
person
and
and
therefore
we
have
justification
to
terminate
the
employer,
employees
and
employment,
and
we've
identified
some
of
the
major
types
of
gross
misconduct.
There
there's
some
body
of
case
law
out
there
with
respect
to
gross
misconduct.
One
example
is
under
cobra.
You
know,
everybody
knows
that
if
you
get
terminated
or
equipped
in
your
employment,
you
can
pick
up
cobra
health
insurance,
health
insurance
under
under
cobra.
P
Well,
there's
a
provision
of
cobra
that
says
you're
not
able
to
continue
that
insurance
if
you're
fired
for
gross
misconduct,
and
so
the
courts
have
that
have
looked
at.
This
have
found
some
pretty
consistent
categories
and
they're
what
we
list
in
the
bill
here,
if
you're,
if
you
engage
in
in
theft
or
fighting
or
threats
of
workplace
violence,
if
you're
doing
drugs
selling
drugs,
you
know
you're,
intoxicated
in
the
workplace,.
P
Those
are
all
examples
of
things
that
have
been
held
to
be
gross
misconduct
and
then
we've
also
got
in
there
and
some
of
the
opposition
we've
heard
actually
as
well.
What
does
this?
You
know?
Other
serious
insubordination
mean
and
that's
intended
to
make
this
flexible
so
that
an
employer
who
does
have
an
employee
that
that
engages
in
something
egregious,
but
it's
not
within
the
categories
that
we've
defined,
could
still
argue
that
look.
This
is
serious
insubordination.
P
You
know
that
I
was
employers,
as
I
was
sitting
in
my
office,
and
this
employee
came
in
and
started
hurling.
George
carlin's
seven
dirty
words
at
me
in
an
offensive
manner,
and
that's
the
reason
and
that
type
of
insubordination
would
also
be
considered
gross
misconduct.
I
think
most
people
would
would
find
that.
So
that's
what
it's
designed.
P
It
is
perhaps
a
little
bit
ambiguous
and
a
little
bit
open
to
interpretation,
but
a
lot
of
things
in
the
law
do
take
courts
to
analyze
this
and
look
at
it
on
a
case-by-case
basis
to
determine
whether
or
not
an
employer
would
be
excused
because
they
fired
the
employee
for
gross
misconduct,
and
I
would
like
to
point
out
this
is
also
important,
because
with
whistleblowing
and
the
retaliatory
discharge
for
refusing
to
do
something
unsafe
or
illegal
in
the
workplace,
those
common
law
retaliatory
discharge
claims
employee
has
to
show
in
those
cases
that
the
protected
activity
was
the
sole
cause.
P
Thing
to
show
because
employers-
you
know
many
courts-
have
said
you
know:
employers
aren't
dumb
they.
They
know
that
there
are
things
that
they're
not
supposed
to
do
and
when
they
do
those
and
they
want
to
get
away
with
it
they'll
you
know
cast
about
and
find
out
find
that
pretextual
reason
to
say
that.
Well
it
wasn't.
It
wasn't
just
that.
It
was
also
the
the
fact
that
the
person
you
know
was
late
to
work,
or
you
know,
missed,
missed
this
particular
nut
or
bolt
on
this
widget
that
they
were
making.
P
So
I
I
think
that
that
covers
section
three
in
section
four,
I
think
assemblywoman
torres
has
described
that
adequately
their
case.
I
I'm
gonna,
have
a
hearing
in
federal
court
on
friday
on
one
of
these
matters
where
an
employee
went
to
the
equal
employment
opportunity,
commission
to
file
their
charge
and
under
the
work
sharing
agreement
between
the
state
and
the
federal
agencies.
P
When
you
file
with
one
agency,
it's
automatically
filed
with
the
other
and
then
usually
it's
the
agency
with
whom
the
the
charge
was
filed.
That
goes
ahead
and
processes
that
and
investigates
it,
and
so
that's.
In
the
case
I
have
on
friday,
they
went
to
eeoc
eeoc,
went
through
the
process
and
issued
at
the
end
of
it
issued
a
notice
of
suit
rights,
and
so,
when
we
filed
the
case
under
both
state
and
federal
law,
the
defendant
moved
to
dismiss
the
state
claims,
because
you
never
filed
a
charge
with
nevada
equal
rights.
P
Commission
you
only
filed
with
the
eeoc.
Therefore,
you
haven't
exhausted
your
administrative
avenues
under
state
law,
so
so
this
is
to
make
clear
as
part
of
that
process,
that
if
you
get
a
notice
of
suit
rights,
that's
issued
by
either
eeoc
or
nevada
equal
rights
commission.
That
does
give
you
the
right
to
pursue
your
claims
in
court,
and
you
can't
be
said.
It
can't
be
said
that
you
haven't
exhausted
your
administrative
avenues,
and
so
that's,
what's
behind
section
number
four
of
ab222
it'll.
It
will.
P
You
know
harmonize
this
so
that
state
law
is
you
know
given
its
proper
hearing,
even
though
the
eeoc
has
is
the
one
that
issued
the
notice
of
suit
rights.
P
P
That
will
make
the
workplace
safer
more
honest.
You
know
and
then
follow
the
law
and
when
they
get
retaliated
against,
there
needs
to
be
good
and
serious
remedies
for
that
employee
and
that's
what
av
222
is
all
about,
and
I
ask
for
your
support
for
that.
O
Thank
you
at
this
time
we
are
open
to
questions
and
if
there
are
specific
questions
that
pertain
to
the
work
share
agreement,
in
section
four
of
the
legislation
between
nerc,
I'm
the
eeoc,
we
do
have
administrator
jen,
carr
jenkins
from
nerc
and
the
chief
compliance
investigator
this
viscara
on
the
call
as
well.
That
are
more
than
happy
to
help
answer
some
of
those
specific
questions.
Thank
you.
A
B
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
amongst
the
amendments
that
I
have
this
correct,
ms
torres
so
section,
one
of
the
bill
will
still
codify
the
statute.
The
whistleblowers
protections
that
were
established
through
the
nevada
supreme
court,
or
is
that
section
being
removed.
O
Codify
assemblyman's
horse
for
the
record,
I
think
for
the
question
by
chair
carlton,
so
the
that
section
of
the
legislation
does
codify
that,
but
that
it
also
clarifies
the
damages
that
could
be
and
the
compensatory
damages
of
the
punitive
damages
that
could
be
received
from
that.
B
Okay,
so
I
I
I
guess
I
I
miss
it
so
I
I
had
thought
that
the
language
that
was
being
proposed
in
section
one
in
the
amendment
was
replacing
the
other
section
one.
So
this
is
in
addition
to.
O
For
the
for
the
record,
I'm
sorry
thank
you
vice
chair
assassinators,
for
the
record,
and
so
the
blue
is
what
the
blue
on
the
amendment
that
you
have
received.
A
copy
of
is
what
is
currently
in
the
piece
of
legislation
that
you
have
before
you
and
then
the
green
is
what
would
be
added
with
this
amendment,
and
perhaps
I
should
have
clarified
that
a
little
bit
better
on
that.
So
I
apologize
for
the
misunderstanding.
B
Okay,
I
have
concerns
about
codifying
a
supreme
court
decision,
but
we
can
discuss
those
at
another
time
or
with
the
the
other
proponents.
I
guess
my
second
question
would
be
so
currently
the
employee
would
file
a
complaint
with
one
of
the
regulatory
bodies
and
then
the
regulatory
body
would
step
in
and
try
to
get
the
issue
resolved.
With
this.
With
this
current
new
structure,
the
employee
could
file
a
complaint
directly
with
the
employer
and
have
have
protections
on
that.
B
P
For
the
record
jp
kemp
and
vice
chair
carlton,
we
you
you
pretty
much
have
it.
P
The
idea
would
be
that
the
employee,
with
the
ability
they
could
go
straight
to
law
enforcement
they
could
they
could
still
do
that
if
they
if
they
wanted
to,
but
this
gives
them
the
opportunity
to
go
to
the
employer,
and
sometimes
these
things
just
come
up
kind
of
impromptu
in
in
meetings
with
the
supervisor,
with
management
and
and
they
could
raise
the
issue
there
and
they
would
have
protection
now
if
the
employer
didn't
correct
things
and
they
were
still
concerned
about
their
safety,
they
could
then
go
to
government
agencies,
safety
or
you
know
public.
P
You
know
the
public's
well-being
in
terms
of
there's
consumer
fraud
going
on
or
other
issues.
They
could
go
to
a
regulatory
agency
after
that
and
file
a
complaint
if
they
felt
like
they
should
do
that.
But
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
these
issues
when
it's
brought
to
light,
you
know:
hey
employer,
you
know
we
really
can't
do
this.
This
is
not
safe
or
it's
not
honest.
We
we
need
to
fix
this.
P
A
lot
of
employers
will
recognize
that
and
take
steps
to
correct
it,
and-
and
this
is
an
important
step-
that
the
employees
have
protection
because,
as
it
stands
right
now
under
will
tv
baby
grand
they
have
no
protection
at
all.
They
have
to
go
to
the
police
or
to
a
regulatory
agency
with
law
enforcement
capability.
They
can't
bring
it
up
to
their
employer
and
expect
to
have
any
protection
as
a
whistleblower.
O
P
This
sure
this
is
about
whistleblower
retaliation.
So
if
the
employee
is
terminated
from
their
position
or
they're,
demoted
or
they're
denied
a
promotion,
they're
disciplined
in
some
way
in
retaliation
for
their
having
internally
blown
the
whistle
and
brought
to
light
things
that
the
employer
is
doing.
That's
you
know
unsafe
or
illegal.
P
That's
when
they
would
have
the
right
to
go
to
court
so
if
they
get
fired
from
their
job
because
they
went
to
the
employer
and
said
now
what
you're
doing
here
is
unsafe
or
illegal,
and
you
need
to
change
it
and
they
say:
oh
well,
if
you
won't
do
this
for
for
us
this
way,
then
we'll
find
somebody
who
will
you're
fired
when
it's
that
scenario,
that's
when
they
would
have
recourse
in
a
civil
action
against
the
employer
for
whistleblower,
retaliation.
B
Madam
chair,
if
I
could
just
ask
one
final
question,
sometimes
safety
is
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder.
So
how
are
we
going
to
define
safety
in
this
we've
just
been
through
a
pandemic?
Some
people
would
see
just
asking
people
to
go
to
work
in
a
pandemic
would
be
an
unsafe
atmosphere.
At
the
very
beginning
of
the
pandemic.
B
We
didn't
have
mass,
we
didn't
have
face
shields,
we
didn't
have
plexiglass,
so
I
guess
I
really
want
to
understand
what
the
safety
guidelines
are,
because
I
can
picture
one
employee
seeing
one
thing
is
unsafe
and
another
employee
seeing
something
else
as
not
safe
and
it's
gonna
be
greatly
divergent.
So
how
do
we
define
that?
Is
there
an
actual
like?
Is
it
with
the
within
the
osha
standards?
P
For
the
record,
jp
kemp
and
vice
chair
carlton,
a
lot
of
these
have
to
be
looked
at
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
because
every
actual
scenario
is
different.
I
mean
you
mentioned
the
pandemic.
I
had
several
people
contact
my
office
and
speak
with
me
about
the
fact
that
early
on,
especially
when
there
was
that
shortage
of
personal
protective
equipment,
the
the
ppe,
the
the
masks
in
particular
how
people
were
being
asked
to
reuse
them,
or
I
think
there
was
one
where
they
were
being
told.
P
You
know
I'll
just
turn
it
inside
out
and
use
it
again,
and
they
were
very
concerned
about
about
their
their
safety
and
very
afraid
to
stand
up
to
the
employer.
On
that
issue
and
and
see
you
know,
can
we
find
a
different
way
or
a
better
way
of
doing
this,
and
so
that
would
be
an
example
where
somebody's
safety
was
a
concern
in
a
pandemic
where
you
don't
and
you're
working
in
healthcare,
and
you
don't
have
the
proper
safety
equipment.
P
I
think
that
that's
one
that's
pretty
obvious
and
and
you're
right
and
on
some
of
these
you
know
it
is
going
to
be
a
case-by-case
basis,
but
I
don't
think
it's
usually
terribly
difficult
to
see
when
there
is
you
know
when
the
when
the
table
saw,
it
doesn't
have
the
proper
guard
on
it
or
when
you
know
the
the
tires
on
the
delivery
truck
are
bald
and
the
brakes
are
going
out.
I
mean
it's
usually
not
that
difficult
of
a
question
to
determine,
I
think,
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
B
Oh
yeah
and
thank
you,
madam
chair
I'll,
be
happy
to
take
the
other
conversations
on
section
one
with
assemblywoman
taurus
offline
on
on
some
of
the
issues
that
I
think
we
might
want
to
discuss
there.
But
thank
you
very
much
for
putting
some
instances
on
the
record.
So
people
have
some
perspective
on
what
we're
actually
looking
at.
Thank
you
very
much
manager.
H
H
Can
you
tell
me
one
of
the
cases
where
the
employee
makes
a
prima
facie
case,
and
it
all
ends
up
over
on
to
the
employer
to
prove
that
they're
not
guilty?
The
only
one
I
can
think
of
is
really
in
sexual
discrimination
yeah.
You
know
to
me
this
seems
rather
ambiguous
matter
of
fact.
The
whole
part
of
three
you
have
been
admitted
as
ambiguous
and
that's
good.
P
Thank
you,
assemblyman
o'neal,
it's
jp
kemp
for
the
record.
I
well
the
the
part
of
it
that
there's
you
know
some
ambiguity
in
there.
P
There's
some
room
for
interpretation
is
the
part
that
says
in
the
definition
of
what
gross
misconduct
is
that
where
there
is
any
serious
act
of
insubordination,
and
that
would
be,
that
would
be
an
instance
where
an
employer
may
be
able
to
show
something
other
than
the
items
that
are
listed,
the
the
theft
you
know:
fighting
threats
of
workplace
violence,
intoxication
selling,
drugs,
doing
drugs
doing
some
other.
P
P
This
is
an
act
of
insubordination
that
would
amount
to
gross
misconduct.
So
that's
the
the
ambiguity
there
and
ambiguity
is
probably
the
wrong
word.
I
think
it's
more
flexible
in
terms
of
what
an
employer
you
know
may
be
able
to
to
do
with
the
rest
of
that.
P
So
when
there's
a
prime
of
facial,
showing
usually
what
a
a
lot
of
the
argument
happens
in
cases
and
it's,
it
would
be
not
only
in
these
whistleblower
and
common
law
retaliatory
discharge
claims
that
would
be
codified
in
this
statute,
not
only
in
those
but
also
in
the
discrimination
cases
where
there
were
retaliation
based
on
the
discrimination
statutes.
P
A
lot
of
it
does
come
down
to
the
what
they
call
temporal
proximity.
How
soon
in
time,
did
the
adverse
employment
action
happen
in
comparison
with
the
protected
activity?
Right
so
and
that's
part
of
the
prima
facie
case
right,
the
causal
connection?
So
if
you
have
somebody
that
complained
to
the
employer
about
the
pre,
the
brakes
being
out
on
the
delivery
vehicle
four
years
ago,
and
now
today,
they're
getting
fired
for
you
know
something
that
wouldn't
amount
to
gross
misconduct.
P
They
can't
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
make
the
prime
facial
case,
because
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
establish
that
causal
connection,
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
show
that
the
complaint
four
years
ago
caused
the
termination
today,
at
least
not
without
some
other
evidence,
and
sometimes
that
happens
sometimes,
even
though
it's
it's
been
a
while
I
mean
sometimes
the
employer
or
their
their
managers
say
something
it's
like
yeah.
You
remember
when
he
did
that
a
long
time
ago.
P
P
You
know
last
tuesday,
if
you
had
evidence
like
that,
you'd
still
make
the
prime
aphasia
case,
but
in
the
absence
of
that
you
know
whether
there's
long
periods
of
time
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
show
the
prima
facie
case,
and
so
the
burden,
shifting
with
respect
to
a
defense
for
the
gross
misconduct,
would
never
arise
under
that
circumstance,
because
the
employee
would
just
they
would
lose
on
a
motion
for
summary
judgment,
because
the
judge
would
say
you
can't
prove
your
case
that
you
know
what
you
did
four
years
ago.
P
H
Madam
chad
just
had
one
song
follow
up.
Mr
arnold,
can
you
like
sounds
they
sound
like
I'm
in
an
echo
chamber
on
this
side?
Mr
kemp,
I
appreciate
that,
but
let's
go
into
four
section
three,
four
c:
would
it
be
better
than
in
your
statement
of
ambiguity
to
leave
that
could
impair
instead
of
striking
could
so.
P
Oh
so
assemblyman
o'neill,
it's
jp
kim
for
the
record,
could
impair.
That
is
so
we
run
into
a
lot
of
issues
there
where
let's,
let's
take
the
thorniest
of
them
all
marijuana
in
nevada.
Now,
if
somebody's
doing
marijuana
in
their
off
hours
and
off
of
employer
premises,
nrs613.333
I
argue
would
protect
that.
P
I
don't
think
the
courts
have
completely
sorted
that
out
yet,
but
there's
an
argument
that
that's
that
that's
protected
and
so
but
what's
not
protected
is
if
you
are
under
the
influence,
while
you're
working
or
you're
doing
it
on
the
premises
of
the
employer
during
your
working
hours.
So
that's
that's
not
protected,
and
so
could
impair
is
is
a
little
bit
speculative.
I
mean
the
the
idea
that
would
be
to
show
that
there
was
some
actual
impairment.
P
So
if
somebody
got
in
an
accident
and
they
had
a
post
injury-
or
you
know,
post
accident
post
injury,
drug
test
and
it
turned
out
that
they
were
intoxicated
at
the
time,
then
then
they
were
impaired,
not
that
they
could
have
been
impaired,
because
if
somebody
does
marijuana
while
they're
off
on
their
vacation
last
week
and
then
comes
back
to
work
this
week,
they
probably
aren't
actually
impaired.
P
If
you
took
a
blood
test,
it
probably
wouldn't
show
the
requisite
amount
of
thc
in
their
blood
to
establish
intoxication
or
impairment,
so
that
that's
why
that
particular
word
was
changed
in
our
proposed
amendment.
Obviously
you
know
it's
not
set
in
stone
and
we
can.
We
could
certainly
still
talk
about
it,
but
we
I
I
I
think
we
are
the
consensus.
That's
just
a
better
way
to
do
it
that
somebody
that
actually
is
impaired
and
I
might
and
not
just
might.
B
Does
that
report
have
to
be
in
writing
or
can
it
be
verbal,
and
I
guess
it's
twofold,
and
if
it
is
verbal
and
you're
reporting
it
internally,
how
can
the
employee
have
some
protect
themselves.
P
Thank
you
silly
marzola
jp
kemp
for
the
record
yeah,
one
a
is
actually
that's.
That
is
original
language,
and
maybe
we
didn't
do
the
amendment
quite
right
in
terms
of
what
color
was
used
for
that,
but
so
reports
to
an
appropriate
authority,
whether
internal
or
external,
to
the
employer,
the
internal
you
know
the
proper
authority
internally
would
be
somebody
that
has
the
power
to
to
change
the
practice.
P
That's
being
complained
about
or
the
power
to
investigate
and
make
recommendations
about,
changing
that
that
particular
practice
that
that
the
employee
is
complaining
about.
P
With
respect
to
how
reports
are
made
there,
there
have
been,
I
I
I
I
could
I'd
have
to
to
bring
up
a
brief
that
was
filed
in
a
case
called
ryber
versus
reno
dodge
a
a
co-counsel
of
mine.
I
was
involved
in
that
case.
P
A
little
bit
co-counsel
from
washington
dc
did
an
excellent
explanation,
incited
to
things
where
limiting
complaints
to
written
complaints
is
problematic
because,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
a
lot
of
times,
these
complaints
are
made
in
the
context
of
discussions
that
are
had
in
meetings
and
they
come
up
sometimes
in
an
impromptu
matter,
and
there
isn't
really
a
a
written
record
of
it
and
some
employee
employers.
Frankly,
I've
seen
employers
tell
employees,
don't
send
me
emails
on
this.
P
Don't
put
in
writing,
don't
create
a
paper
trail
on
this,
so
they're
actually
instructed
not
to
do
it,
and
so
you
would
miss
a
lot
of
the
whistleblower
retaliation
if
you
were
to
require
some
particular
form,
whether
that
be
in
writing
or
that
it
be
that
it
that
it
either
be
some
sort
of
specific
procedure.
P
It's
generally
not
considered
flexible
enough,
because
the
way
that
these
things
come
up-
and
you
know
you
could
say
it
in
a
meeting-
you
know
hey
we're
doing
this-
it's
illegal.
We
should
not
do
this
and
the
employer
could
look
over
at
you
and
say
you
know
if
you're
not
going
to
do
it
for
us,
you're
fired
get
out
of
here.
and
it
can
be
that
fast
and
there's
no
opportunity.
P
So
if
you
put
a
requirement
for
writing
or
some
specific
process
of
complaint,
you
you
end
up
boxing
out
some
people
and
yeah
then,
but
there,
and
there
is
the
proof
problem
right.
I
mean
I
mentioned
the
the
three
elements
of
of
retaliation,
protected
activity,
adverse
employment
action
and
a
causal
connection
between
the
two
some
courts
have
said
well,
there's
also
another
element
and
that's
knowledge
and
that's
the
employer
know
that
you've
actually
made
the
complaint.
P
And
so,
if
you,
if
you
were
able
to
show
all
of
those
things,
then
you're
gonna
make
your
case
and
if
you're
not
able
to
prove
it,
I
mean,
if
you
say
well,
I
told
the
employer
this
and
they
say
well,
no,
you
didn't
well,
that's
why
we
have
jury
trials.
That's
you
know
why
we
have
dispute
resolution
processes
and
it's
going
to
be.
Whoever
can
produce
the
the
most
cogent
and
and
compelling
evidence
of
what
took
place,
and
sometimes
there
are
witnesses
that
that
sought.
P
Sometimes
there
aren't,
you
know,
cases
come
in
all
in
all
shapes
and
sizes,
so
that
that
is,
you
know,
that's
just
the
nature
of
how
how
these
go,
but
to
require
a
writing
or
some
specific
process
would
have
a
lot
of
cases
slipping
through
the
cracks.
I
hope
I've
answered
your.
I
Thank
you
so
much
chair.
I
have
two
questions.
Actually
one
refers
to
section
one.
This
is
the
amendment
section,
one
sub
three,
where
it
says
the
court
shall
award
reasonable
costs.
I
Why
have
you
crossed
out
party
and
made
the
change
the
word
to
employee
if
the
employer
ends
up
prevailing,
who
makes
them
whole
for
the
costs
that
they've
had
to
incur
to
fight
this
action?.
P
Assembly
member,
thank
you
for
bringing
that
up.
I
did
forget
to
mention
that
in
my
earlier
discussion,
it's
jp
kemp
for
the
record.
So
in
many
cases
where
there
are
these
fee
shifting
statutes
and
that's
what
we
call
this,
we
call
this
a
fee
shifting
statute,
where
the
the
cost
of
the
attorney's
fees
for
one
of
the
parties
is
shifted
over
to
be
borne
by
the
other
party
and
in
employment
cases.
P
Most
employment
protection
statutes
have
that,
whether
it
be
overtime,
minimum
wage
under
the
fair
labor
standards
act
or
nrs608
that
equal
rights
commission,
the
the
laws
that
the
discrimination
retaliation
laws
that
that
it
oversees
have
few
shifting
provisions
title
seven,
the
civil
rights
act,
a
lot
of
the
federal
statutes
also
have
these
fee
shifting
provisions
and,
generally
speaking,
they
are
held
to
be
pretty
much
one-way
streets.
P
Unless
it's
it's
shown
that
the
employer,
rather
the
employee,
brought
the
case.
That
was
completely
baseless
and
completely
frivolous,
and
in
that
case
you
have
other
statutes
that
would
protect
an
employer
from
you
know
these.
These
baseless
and
frivolous
cases
that,
in
my
experience,
they're
very
rare-
I
don't
have
time
in
my
practice
to
be
pursuing
cases
that
I
don't
think
have
good
merit.
P
But
if
they're,
if,
if
there
was
such
a
case,
then
in
chapter
18
of
nrs,
there
are
provisions
for
addressing
that
for
essentially
assessing
sanctions
against
a
party
and
or
their
attorney
for
cases
that
are
brought
in
a
frivolous
manner.
The
same
thing
with
rule
11
of
the
nevada
rules
of
civil
procedure.
P
There
are
mechanisms
for
that,
but
in
terms
of
having
it
in
the
statute
that
the
prevailing
employee
would
be
entitled
to
those
attorneys
fees
and
costs,
that's
pretty
consistent
with
the
way
that
fee,
shifting
statutes
and
employment
cases
are
done
and
and
changing
it
to
prevailing
employees
rather
than
prevailing
party,
makes
clear
that
that's
what's
intended
by
this.
I
It
seems
especially
the
case
you're.
Making
right
now
is
that
the
case
for
the
employee
would
be
awfully
good
for
most
attorneys
to
take
it.
That
seems
even
more
like
the
employer
if
they
were
to
prevail
in
a
case
like
that
should
have
some
recourse,
but
anyway,
that's
just
my
other
quick
question.
Was
this
bill
almost
makes
it
sound
like
we
have
no
whistleblower
protections
in
nevada,
but
don't
it
doesn't?
Nevada
law
already
have
some
existing
protections
for
whistleblowers,
for
example.
O
Well,
excellent,
sorry
for
the
record,
thank
you
for
the
question
of
someone
dickman,
and
they
think
that
that
that's
exactly
the
point
that
we're
trying
to
make
with
this
legislation
is
that
we
want
to
encourage
employees
to
speak
to
their
employers
when
they
have
these
problems
in
the
workplace,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
they
feel
comfortable
and
that
they
know
that
they
won't
be
retaliated
against.
O
I
mean
in
many
instances
I
can
say
in
my
community
workers
have
reached
out
to
me
because
they
they
they
need
to
they
would
they
want
to
go
to
their
employer,
especially
when
you're
working
in
a
small
business.
O
You
want
to
go
to
your
employer
and
have
that
conversation
you're
not
trying
to
get
them
in
trouble,
you're
trying
to
stay
safe,
and
so
this
legislation
really
encourages
employees
to
have
that
conversation
with
their
employer
and
gives
them
some
level
of
protection,
because
we
do
give
that
protection
when
they're
speaking
to
when
they're,
when
they
have
that
conversation
with
the
regulatory
agency,
but
we're
not
currently
providing
that
that
level
of
protection
when
they're.
O
Having
that
conversation
with
their
supervisor,
and
quite
honestly,
I
I
think
that
it's
better
for
employer
and
employee
relationships
when
employees
feel
confident
that
they
can
have
that
conversation
with
their
employer.
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you
so
much
chair
and
thanks
for
the
discussion,
there's
certainly
a
lot
here
and
a
lot
of
different
ways
to
interpret
this,
and
I
guess
maybe
the
best
way
for
me
to
do.
It
is
to
paint
a
little
bit
of
a
picture
of
of
just
where
this
might
go
and
how
this
could
potentially
be
applied
and
can
help
correct
my
understanding
if
I'm
incorrect,
but
I
think
my
concern
is,
let's
say
I'm
an
employer,
and
I
you
know
for
a
number
of
reasons.
F
I'm
planning
on
letting
somebody
go
and
they're,
just
not
a
good
fit
or
there's
been.
You
know
some
issues
or
I
need
to
you
know,
have
layoffs
and
what
have
you
and
then
that
employee?
F
You
know,
report
to
osha
or
you
know,
cdc
or
some
somewhere
else
that
I
I'll
steal
vice
chair,
carlton's
description
that
sometimes
safeties
and
I
have
beholder,
but
they
they
make
a
report,
I'm
already
in
the
process
of
planning
on
letting
them
go
now
as
an
employer.
I
may
fear
that
this
will
end
up
leading
to
civil
action.
F
Damages
lost
wages,
have
it
being
forced
to
reinstate
them
in
their
position,
keep
them
on
board.
When
I
had
other
reasons
why
I
wanted
to
let
them
go.
Would
you
help
walk
me
through
that
scenario,
because
it
seems
to
really
shift
that
burden
onto
the
the
employer?
Now,
all
of
a
sudden?
Just
because
there's
a
complaint
out
there
that
I
have
to
prove
my
reason
to
let
that
employee
go
when
we're
in
atwal
state.
P
P
That
really
goes
to
the
third
element
of
the
prime
facial
case
for
retaliation
and
that's
showing
the
causal
connection,
and
if,
if
you
did
have
you
know
clearly
existing
before
the
whistleblowing
took
place,
you
had
this
this
clear
indication
that
you
were
going
to
be
letting
the
person
go
and
I
mean
yeah.
It
could
happen
very
suddenly.
It
could
be
yeah.
You
know
joe's
been
doing
this.
That
and
the
other
thing
we're
going
to
let
joe
go
on
monday
and
on
friday.
P
Joe
goes
and
makes
a
complaint,
and
you
hear
that
he's
made
this
complaint,
but
you
fire
him
anyway
on
monday
and
it's
going
to
look
like
it's
retaliation,
but
most
employers
do
have
pretty
good
records.
You
know
they.
They
have
either
systems
of
progressive
discipline
or
they've.
You
know,
they've
had
people
on
performance,
improvement
plans
or
something,
and
if
they
can
show
that
that
causal
link
that
third
element
that
the
causal
link
doesn't
exist,
then
the
prima
facie
case
doesn't
even
get
made
again.
P
You
know
if,
if
the
ultimate
thing
that
the
person
gets
fired
for
was
this
gross
misconduct,
then
they
will
still
have
a
defense
and
there
are
in
the
federal
anti-discrimination
cases.
There
are
things
where
there's
something
called
there's
a
defense.
I
forget
exactly
what
they
call
it,
but
essentially
it's
where
the
employer
shows
that
they
would
have
taken
the
same
action.
P
Even
you
know,
even
though
there
was
this
protected
activity,
or
there
was
discrimination,
they
would
have
done
it
anyway,
and
that's
really
what
this
tries
to
address
is
it.
It
gives
the
employer
that
defense,
if
you
can
show
that
hey,
you
know
we're
not
going
to.
Let
anybody
sit
around
here,
who's
stealing
from
us
we're
going
to
fire
that
person
and
it
doesn't
matter
if
they
blew
the
whistle
on
us
or
anything
else.
So
so
it's
it's
at
that
stage.
P
It's
where
you're,
showing
we
had
a
legitimate
reason
of
gross
misconduct
with
this
person
anyway,
and
so
we
would
have
done
this
anyway,
and
you
know
somebody
that
that
looks
at
those
that
gross
misconduct
says
yeah,
I
mean
the
employer.
Has
this
independent,
independent
reason
for
firing,
somebody
that
no
employer
would
continue
to
employ
the
person
under
those
circumstances?
So
that's
that's
really
what
it's
about.
P
A
Yes
and
then,
if
any
other
questions
that
you
think
you
can
take
offline,
assemblymember
told
and
then
anyone
else,
I
would
like
to
write
you
guys.
We
are
45
minutes
out
from
4pm.
We
lose
two
members
to
the
afternoon
committee
and
we
still
have
one
more
bill
to
here.
So
go
ahead.
Mr.
F
Member
tools,
thank
you
so
much
chair,
so
I'll
then
make
this
even
quicker.
Do
you
have
examples
of
other
states
that
have
implemented
this
type
of
language
and
how
did
that
interact
with
at-will
status
in
those
states.
P
Thank
you
assembly,
member
tolls,
jp
kemp
for
the
record
I
off
the
top
of
my
head.
I
don't,
unfortunately,
have
specific
states,
but
what
I
can
tell
you
is
that
there
are
some
states
that
utilize
something
called
mixed
motives
where
the
employer
will
still
be
liable,
even
though
they
had
mixed
motives.
So
in
the
case
where
they
have
a
retaliatory
reason
for
terminating
the
employees,
employment
or
taking
the
other
adverse
employment
action
and
they
have
something
that's
legitimate.
P
You
know
the
person
has
been
late.
You
know
they've
accumulated
10
attendance
points
and
you
know
we
were
gonna.
You
know
let
them
go
anyway.
There
are.
There
are
certain
systems
where
those
mixed
motives
would
still
give
you
the
cause
of
action,
because
you
still
have
that
one
illegal
reason,
and
in
some
cases
where
there
are
mixed
motives,
the
remedies
can
be
slightly
different,
but
usually
you
will
still
be
able
to
establish
liability
on
mixed
motors.
P
It's
not
that
way
in
in
all
jurisdictions
and
not
that
way
in
all
states
and
for
retaliation.
The
federal
system
is
not
that
way,
but
there
are
a
number
of
places.
I'm
sorry.
I
can't
list
them
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
there
are
a
number
of
places
where
those
mixed
motives
are
recognized
as
being
actionable.
P
This
is
actually
a
little
bit
stronger
than
that.
Just
mixed
motives,
because
if
you,
if
you
can
show
the
the
compelling
gross
misconduct,
an
employer
would
have
a
defense.
I
hope
I've
answered
your.
A
A
G
G
Q
The
culinary
union
represents
60
000
workers,
and
we
know
that
it
can
be
frightening
to
speak
up
in
a
workplace,
but
when
workers
speak
up
about
injustices
in
the
workplace,
it
is
in
the
best
interest
of
themselves,
their
co-workers
and
the
public.
Whistleblowers
should
not
have
to
worry
about
retaliation.
Q
The
lack
of
workplace
whistleblower
protections
creates
a
chilling
effect
leading
to
employees,
not
reporting,
illegal
and
unsafe
conditions.
Current
nevada
law
provides
legal
protection
to
external
whistleblowers.
It
makes
sense
to
do
the
same
for
those
who
make
internal
reports
in
the
midst
of
a
global
pandemic.
It
is
more
important
than
ever
that
workers
not
be
forced
to
participate
in
unsafe
activity.
Q
Nevada
lawmakers
must
ensure
workers
have
the
protections
they
need
to
keep
everyone
safe
workplace
safety
is
public
safety
and
stronger
protections
help
employees
and
customers.
Ab222
is
a
common
sense
measure
that
standardizes
nevada's
protections
for
whistleblowers
and
will
lead
to
safer
workplaces
as
the
largest
organization
of
working
families
in
nevada.
The
culinary
union
supports
this
bill
and
encourages
you
to
to
do
so
as
well.
Thank
you.
G
G
M
M
At
the
same
time,
these
workers
have
fears
of
being
fired
because
of
some
for
due
to
immigration
status,
workers
from
landscaping
to
construction.
They
there's
so
much
fear
in
the
hispanic
community
and
in
and
supporting
this
bill
for
assembly
little
bill.
222
is
a
great
thing
moving
forward
where
it
would
give
more
protections
towards
these
hard-working
nevadans
that
are
working
hard
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
they
just
want
to
be
employed
and
have
safety
as
their
main
priority
in
their
work.
M
G
M
Hello,
this
is
kent
urban
k-e-n-t
e-r-v-I-n
for
the
nevada
faculty
alliance.
On
behalf
of
our
members,
we
support
sb
222
because
we
believe
the
best
place
for
positive
resolution
of
workplace
issues
should
be
internal
and
along
the
supervisory
chain
and
that
reporting
without
fear
of
retaliation,
should
always
be
possible.
Thank
you.
A
A
G
R
Thank
you
and
greetings
chair
haragi
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
amber
stidham,
that's
a-n-b-e-r,
last
name
stidhum
s-t-I-d-h-a-m
and
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
henderson
chamber.
We
do
have
a
number
of
concerns
with
this
bill.
R
We
did
provide
a
more
detailed
letter
on
public
record
if
you
were
interested
in
reading
it
right
now,
just
as
it
stands,
we
believe
federal
law
already
provides
a
lot
of
these
protections
against
retaliatory
employment
practices
aimed
at
whistleblower
blowers
in
public
and
private
context.
R
We
do
have
some
concerns
about
the
initial
burden
on
the
discharge
employee,
to
show
retaliation
and
the
burden,
shifting
mechanism,
the
burden
of
proof
requiring
employers
to
prove
the
absence
of
illegality,
especially
based
on
some
of
the
vague
terms
that
a
lot
of
the
committee
members
discussed
today
through
the
prima
fascia.
Just
some
of
the
general
observations,
just
the
metrics
to
which
someone
can
file
a
lawsuit
against
an
employer,
is
concerning
to
us
we'd
like
to
see
some
additional
levels
of
sort
of
evidence
to
illustrate
that
a
legitimate
incident
had
occurred.
R
Also,
this
proposal
would
require
employee
employers
to
prove
that
an
employee
engaged
in
gross
misconduct
to
justify
their
deter
their
termination.
I
know
this
was
also
mentioned
during
the
hearing.
We
do
have
a
couple
concerns
here
in
that
one,
the
definition
of
what
really
constitutes
quote
gross
misconduct
is
really
limiting
and
we
believe,
would
really
impede
the
at
will
nature
of
the
employer,
employee
relationship
in
the
state
of
nevada
for
most
of
our
businesses
and
two,
the
vague
language,
such
as
any
serious
act
of
insubordination,
which
is
listed
within
section.
R
Three,
we
believe
can
be
left
largely
open
to
interpretation,
we're
not
certain
of
what
would
constitute
a
serious
act
of
insubordination,
and
so
for
those
reasons
we
are
strongly
opposed
to
it.
We
are
open
to
working
together
with
the
bill
sponsor.
I
really
appreciate
today's
discussion
and
that's
all
we
have
to
share
today.
Thank.
A
G
N
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
paul
moradkin
m-o-r-a-d-k-h-a-n
with
the
vegas
chamber,
I
would
like
to
thank
the
sponsor
for
meeting
with
the
chamber
regarding
ab222
in
regards
to
the
bill.
The
chamber
does
not
have
an
issue
with
wanting
to
provide
additional
protections
for
the
whistleblowers
if,
in
fact,
nevada
has
laws
in
place
that
does
provide
specific
whistleblower
protections
in
nrs618.
N
However,
we
have
concerns
with
several
provisions
of
the
bill
and
how
to
impact
the
state's
legal
climate
for
employers,
the
broadest
of
the
good
faith
standards
section
one
is
exceptionally
brought
into
the
concern.
The
legal
remedies
are
also
another
concern
for
our
organization
and
also
have
extensive
concerns
relate
to
sections
three
and
four,
with
a
significant
shift
in
burden
and
expansion
of
torque
claims
beyond
current
remedies.
We
also
believe
this
bill
will
go
beyond
codifying
what
nevada
supreme
court
has
ruled.
N
G
K
Much
of
our
opposition
to
the
bill
has
already
been
stated
by
other
callers,
so
I
won't
go
into
a
lot
of
detail,
but
we
are
in
opposition
to
the
bill.
In
several
sections
we
did
have
a
meeting
with
assemblywoman
torres
and
very
much
appreciate
her
being
open
to
our
our
concerns,
and
we
look
forward
to
to
working
with
her
and
mr
kemp
and
other
interested
parties
and
hoping
that
we
can
find
some
a
little
bit
more
middle
ground
on
this
bill
if
possible.
G
L
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
nick
vanderpool,
n-I-c-k-v-a-n
d-e-r-p-o-e-l
with
capital
partners
today
representing
the
reno
sparks
chamber
of
commerce.
Today,
the
reno
sparks
chamber
of
commerce
is
opposed
to
assembly
bill
222
I'll
start
with
the
business
community.
In
the
last
12
months,
employers
have
gone
above
and
beyond
for
employees
who
both
were
trying
to
survive,
who
were
trying
to
survive
during
this
pandemic,
while
trying
to
find
light
at
the
end
of
the
recovery
tunnel.
L
Here
we
are
trying
to
apply
another
level
layer
above
what
federal
law
already
outlines,
which
we
believe
puts
in
place
and
provides
significant
protections
for
employees
and,
as
stated
nevada
already,
has
a
statute
in
place
for
whistleblowers,
we'll
continue
to
work
with
assemblywoman
tours,
but
as
ab222
was
presented,
we
simply
must
oppose
this
bill.
Thank
you,
chair
and
committee
members.
G
J
B-R-Y-A-N-W-A-C-H-T-E,
I'm
with
the
retail
association
of
nevada.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
First,
I
want
to
say
we're
proud
of
our
hundreds,
thousands
of
employees
over
the
last
13
months,
who
have
risen
above
and
beyond,
in
order
to
serve
our
communities
and
make
sure
they
had
life-saving
medicines
food
to
survive.
J
We
have
spent
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
north
actually
of
a
billion
dollars
on
employee
incentives
on
increasing
employees,
starting
pay,
as
well
as
actually
investing
in
making
our
facilities
more
safe
for
our
employees
and
our
customers.
As
the
vice
chair
noted,
safety
is
sometimes
subjective.
J
The
law
currently
requires
employers
to
take
safety
precautions
and
any
violation
of
those
safety
precautions
would
fall
under
the
current
whistleblower
standard.
Furthermore,
our
understanding
is
that,
under
the
covet
example,
that
would
also
fall
under
our
current
statutes,
as
nrf414.070
gave
full
force
and
effect
of
every
edict
from
the
governor's
office,
including
involving
the
safety
requirements
that
our
companies
had
to
follow.
J
J
We
worry
that,
by
defining
the
reasons
an
employer
can
terminate
an
employee
erodes
decades
of
precedence
set
by
this
legislature,
including
the
requirement
that
no
other
employer
would
hire
that
employee
before
you
let
them
go.
We
also
strongly
disagree
with
mr
kemp's
characterization
that
business
owners
in
general
spend
time
and
effort
trying
to
circumvent
employment
law.
J
We
feel
that
those
kinds
of
statements
are
a
gross
misrepresentation,
as
the
vast
majority
of
business
owners
want
to
be
do
right
by
their
employees
and
earn
a
living
as
well
as
potentially
see
their
co,
and
they
will
potentially
see
their
costs
increase
due
to
the
bad
actions
of
a
very
select
few.
We
believe
that
the
current
law
is
sufficient
and
we
urge
you
to
vote
no
on
ab222.
G
G
G
G
K
R
R
K
R
For
serious
insubordination
under
gross
misconduct
with
that,
we
again
like
to
thank
the
sponsor.
R
G
K
Thank
you
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
leah
case
l-e-a-c-a-s
here
today,
on
behalf
of
the
associated
general
contractors,
nevada
chapter
I'll,
keep
it
short
today.
We
just
echo
what
our
partners
in
the
business
community
and
the
retail
association
have
said
this
afternoon
and
look
forward
to
working
with
the
sponsor
in
our
opposition.
Thank
you.
A
G
G
A
Just
for
the
record,
that's
miss
alexandra
das
slick
signed
in
in
opposition
with
the
nevada
resort
association.
It
sounds
like
if
you
are
having
trouble
meeting
yourself
or
with
audio
know
that
you
can
always
send
in
a
letter
to
our
committee
manager
as
well,
that
she
can
share
with
the
committee
members
and
post
for
the
record
as
well.
A
letter.
A
Broadcasting
we
can
go
to
the
next
caller.
G
N
Justin
harrison
j-u-s-t-I-n
h-a-r-r-I-s-o-n,
representing
clark
county
here
today,
also
in
opposition,
and
I
won't
take
too
much
time
won't
belabor.
The
points
that
have
already
been
made
by
those
private
and
public
sector
entities
that
have
already
spoken
would
just
reiterate
the
points
made
by
miss
rourke
and
the
city
henderson.
The
urban
consortium
that
clark
county
does
have
concerns
about
the
bill
and
how
this
may
interplay
with
currently
negotiated
collective
bargaining
agreements
that
we
have
here
at
the
county.
A
A
S
Thank
you
chair.
However,
it's
so
good
to
see
you,
I
hope,
you're
having
an
amazing
day.
I
want
to
to
say
good
afternoon.
My
name
is
cara
jenkins.
I
think
it
said
sarah
jenkins,
but
I
I
am
cara
jenkins.
Last
time
I
checked
and
I'm
the
administrator
for
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission,
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
nerc
is
encouraged
by
this
legislation
and
we
have
no
issues
with
the
provision
as
it
relates
to
statute
of
I'm.
Sorry
as
it
relates
to
issuance
of
the
right
to
sue.
S
It's
correct
and
I
think
it's
clarifying
so
we're
encouraged
by
it
and
that's
all
I
wanted
to
just
say
so.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
ms
jenkins,
for
your
testimony
and
then
broadcasting.
If
we
could
just
check
the
telephone
one
more
time
for
those
wishing
to
testify
in
neutral
position,
I
do
see
that
I
had
one
other
person
signed
up
to
testify
in
neutral.
G
A
Okay,
thank
you
broadcasting
for
checking
for
me
miss
assembly,
member
torres.
Would
you
like
to
give
any
closing
remarks?
Yes,
thank.
O
You
chair
and
I'll
keep
it
as
brief
as
possible,
some
luan
selena
torres
for
the
record,
and
I
really
want
to
thank
the.
O
I
want
to
thank
all
those
that
came
and
support
opposition
neutral
to
testify
on
this
legislation
today,
and
I
know
that
many
advocates
in
the
business
community
have
reached
out
to
me
before
this
call-
and
I
really
do
appreciate
that,
and
I
look
forward
to
continuing
conversations
on
how
we
can
pass
policy
that
truly
is
beneficial
for
both
employees
and
employers,
and
I
I
just
want
to
clarify
a
couple
things
for
the
record.
O
You
know
this
bill
is
not
aimed
at
good
employers
and
it's
designed
to
encourage
employers
to
do
the
right
thing
and
to
hold
those
accountable
when
they're
not
doing
the
right
thing.
It's
really
aimed
at
targeting
bad
actors
and
fixes
an
unfair
loophole
in
the
nevada
state
law.
Additionally,
I
want
to
clarify
that
the
in
order
for
the
burden,
in
order
for
them
to
meet
the
burden
of
proof,
they
still
have
to
meet
the
these
other
standards.
O
I
think
that
they're
the
we
can
have
a
much
larger
conversation
of
what
that
prima
facie
showing
means
in
order
for
that,
prima,
that
burden
of
proof
to
be
shifted,
because
the
burden
of
proof
is
not
immediately
shifted
it.
They
have
to
demonstrate
that
prima
facie,
showing
you
know
hard-working
nevadans,
shouldn't
be
scared
to
speak
to
their
supervisors
or
about
unsafe
working
conditions.
It's
essential
that
we
pass
legislation
that
is
going
to
keep
employees
safe
in
nevada,
that's
good
for
employers
and
it's
good
for
employees.
O
I
really
do
appreciate
the
chair
chair
for
giving
us
time
to
have
this
discussion
about
this
legislation.
I
look
forward
to
continuing
this
dialogue
and
I
urge
your
support
for
ab222.
A
A
T
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
chihadaki
and
committee
members,
it's
been
quite
a
long
afternoon,
but
anyway
my
name
is
b
duran
representing
assembly
district
11..
T
T
T
This
gap
in
earnings
translates
into
ten
thousand
one
hundred
and
fifty
seven
dollars
less
per
year
in
median
earnings,
leaving
women
and
their
families
with
less
money.
What
would
closing
the
wage
gap
mean
to
women
and
their
families?
The
national
women's
law
center
broke
down
what
the
difference
of
10
157
equates
to
sorry.
T
So
that
would
be
two
months
of
groceries:
one
thousand
three
hundred
and
fifty
four
dollars:
three
months
of
child
care
payments,
two
thousand
seven
hundred
and
seventy
eight
dollars
three
months
of
rent
thousand
two
hundred
and
thirteen
dollars,
three
months
of
health
insurance
premiums,
one
thousand
four
hundred
and
thirty
one
dollars.
Four
months
of
student
loan
payments,
one
thousand
eighty
eight
dollars
and
six
tanks
of
gas
274.
T
T
gains
have
been
made
in
educational
attainment
and
labor
force
involvement
over
this
time
for
those
in
these
protected
class
passes.
Yet
the
studies
have
noted
that
women
are
paid
less
for
the
same
work.
One
reason
for
this
may
be
due
to
an
employer's
reliance
on
job
applicants,
sale,
salary,
history
to
set
the
starting
pay.
T
T
So
I'm
going
to
walk
you
through
the
sections
of
the
bill.
The
logic
behind
this
bill
is
straightforward
assembly.
I'm
sorry
assembly,
bill
124
will
provide
additional
protections
against
pay
discrimination
for
employees
and
prospective
employees
in
nevada
by
prohibiting
employers
from
relying
on
salary
history
to
set
pay.
When
hiring.
T
Section
1
of
the
bill
is
deleted,
which
would
have
prohibited
employers
from
discriminating
against
employees
on
the
basis
of
sex
by
taking
certain
actions
relating
to
the
employment
properties,
opportunities
of
the
of
an
employee.
After
discussion
with
stakeholders,
this
concern
is
sufficiently
addressed
by
nrs
613.330.
T
T
Section
9
of
the
bill
establishes
the
civil
remedies
available
to
a
person
affected
by
a
violation
of
these
provisions.
The
amendment
would
modify
subsection
3
of
section
9
to
read
in
any
action
brought
pursuant
to
this
section,
the
court
shall
allow
a
prevailing
employee
or
prospective
employee
reasonable
cost,
including
attorney's
fees.
T
And
this
concludes
my
amendments
and
this
is
to
ensure
that
all
protective
classes
are
not
left
behind
in
the
pandemics
recovery.
We
need
to
continue
to
improve
salary
transparency
and
this
measure
will
continue
to
help
equalize
the
wages.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
of
ab124
and
I
am
available
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
A
Thank
you,
assemblymember
duran,
for
your
presentation
and
before
we
go
to
committee
members,
I
just
have
one
question
that
I'd
like
to
ask
section:
seven
one
sub
one:
it
used
to
say
it
is
unlaw.
It
would
have.
The
amendment
would
have
said
it
is
an
unlawful
employment
practice
for
any
employer
to
seek
the
wage
rate
history
of
a
prospective
employee
and
we're
changing
that
to
require
the
wage
rate
history
of
a
prospective
employee.
Can
you
walk
me
through
with
the
difference
between
the
seek
and
require.
A
I
Thank
you
so
much
chair
appreciate
that
both
of
my
questions
have
to
do
with
section
nine.
I
T
We
would
just
assembly,
when
b
duran.
Thank
you
for
the
question
assembly,
women
dickman.
Basically,
we
tried
to
kind
of
did
that
and
if
it's
a
law,
we
will
amend
this
to
conform
with
the
current
statute.
I
Okay,
thank
you.
My
other
question
is
also
it's
actually
in
your
amendment
on
section
nine
and
it's
kind
of
similar
to
the
question
I
had
in
the
last,
though
any
action
brought
pursuant
to
this
section,
the
court
shall
allow
a
prevailing
employee
cost
of
their
attorney
fees.
But
but
what
happens
if
the
employer
prevails?
T
Again,
this
is
this:
is
law
for,
as
before,
people
are
going
to
not
file
a
frivolous
lawsuit
and,
from
my
understanding,
I
believe,
there's
only
five
cases
of
cases
that
have
been
filed
with
the
labor
commission
concerning
any
of
these
employment
practices.
I
T
Thank
you
for
the
question
assembly
dickman.
This
is
assembly11b
durant.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
I
believe
there
is
already
protection
for
the
employers
that
have
heard
the
last
testimony
from
mr
kim
that
says,
I
believe
it's
some
nrs
18
that
has
protections
for
the
employer
to
for
an
employee,
to
file
a
frivolous
lawsuit.
F
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
discussion
around
this
bill.
I
remember
we
had
some
similar
discussions
in
2017
on
ab276,
which
I
supported
with,
where
we
talked
about
voluntarily
disclosing
wages
and
not
having
retaliation
tying
back
to
previous
conversations,
but
I
know
this
one
takes
it
further.
F
T
F
So
my
my
apologies
follow
up.
Madam
chair,
yes
go
assembly,
member
told
us
please,
so
I
guess
I
didn't
read
the
conceptual
amendment
that
way
so
we're
we're
changing
it
to
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission
in
section
10.
So
and
does
that
also
mean
then
we're
removing
any
penalty?
T
Assembly
one
assemblywoman
b:
duran.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
tolls
from
my
understanding.
The
nevada,
equal
rights
commission
can
allow
an
employee
to
sue
if
they
prevail
in
that,
if
they
feel
that
there
is
violation
of
that,
and
I
believe
they
would
go
to
an
attorney
at
that
point
and
I'm
not
sure
how
that
process
works.
So
I
may
get
back
to
you
on
that.
F
A
S
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
cara
jenkins
administrator
for
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission
for
the
record
and
just
wanted
for
clarity
to
to.
Could
I
get
a
restatement
of
the
question.
I
believe
the
question
was
again
through
you,
madam
chair
to
the
committee
member.
S
F
So
currently,
in
the
text
of
the
original
bill,
section
10
outlines
that
they,
the
labor
commissioner,
may
bring
civil
action
and
that
that
labor,
commissioner
may
impose
against
a
person
an
administrative
penalty
of
not
more
than
5
000
for
each
such
violation.
F
We
have
a
conceptual
amendment
that
states
that
we're
changing
the
enforcement
authority
from
the
labor
commissioner
to
the
equal
rights
commission
and
my
question
is:
does
that
text
of
the
bill
imposing
the
authority
to
pursue
civil
action
and
to
impose
fines,
penalties
of
not
more
than
5
000
for
each
such
violation
also
translate
over
to
you,
the
equal
rights
commission
to
right.
S
S
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
tolls.
I
address
you
directly.
S
That's
a
layered
question
so
currently,
right
now
in
our
statute,
we
do
for
intentional
misconduct
on
the
part
of
an
of
an
employer
based
on
discrimination
and
pay.
The
nurse
commission
can
impose
fines
that
was
established
in
senate
bill
166,
with
senator
spearman's
equal
pay
bill
last
session.
It's
now
codified
in
nrs
233,
170,
subsection
3,
with
a
listing
of
the
fine
fines
and
penalties.
S
So
we
already
do
this,
it's
something
that
is
only
required
of
certain
types
of
employers.
There
are
limits,
though,
so
in
order
to
impose
fines,
we
have
to
at
least
give
the
employer
a
30-day
notice.
I
believe
it's
got
to
be
an
employer
with
50
or
more
employees.
S
There
was
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
last
session
as
to
how
this
would
play
out,
and
so
we
already
do
have
this
power,
so
how
it
would
relate
in
this
conceptual
amendment
to
what
we
already
do
now
is
is
the
question
that
we
would
have
and
we'd
like
to
work
with
the
the
bill
sponsor
on
that,
but
we
already
possess
the
power
to
administer
fees
and
fines
for
certain
types
of
employment,
discrimination
and
pay.
That
is
egregious.
S
A
Thank
you
miss
jenkins.
Yes,
if
you
could
send
that
over
to
us-
and
it
sounds
like
we
just
need
some
clarification-
and
I
remember
this
from
a
bill
that
I've
carried
in
the
past,
that
the
five
thousand
dollar
penalty
that
the
labor
commissioner
may
impose.
It's
actually
what's
built
into
the
statute
for
the
labor
commissioner.
Those
that
find
that
already
exists
in
that
chapter
for
the
labor
commissioner,
where
she
can
impose
those
fines.
So
that's
where
that
five
thousand
dollar
comes
from.
I
think
where
we're
gonna
need.
A
Clarity
on
the
conceptual
amendment
is
that,
if
we're
moving
on
section
10
under
the
jurisdiction
of
nerc
instead
of
the
labor
commissioner,
that
the
fee
structures
or
nerf
would
apply
and
not
the
fee
structures
from
the
labor
commissioner's
department,.
S
Thank
you
and
then
I
didn't
notice.
Madam
sheriff,
I
could
just
just
kind
of
elaborate.
We
talk
about
equal
pay.
There
are
a
couple
of
statutes
in
play
here,
so
we
have
state
law,
we
have
nevada
state
law,
nrs233,
we
have
nrs613.
S
We
also
have
title
vii
of
the
civil
rights
act
of
1964,
which
says
you
cannot
discriminate
against
an
employee
on
the
basis
of
sex.
Then
we
have
the
equal
pay
act
and
so
sometimes
when
folks,
okay,
so
let
me
talk
about
filing.
So
if
you
file
with
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission,
we
take
the
case
and
we
run
the
investigation.
S
Sometimes
we
will
look
at
we'll
look
at
it
as
a
we'll
we'll
make
sure
that
we've
crossed
off
every
check,
mark
or
dotted
all
of
our
eyes
and
crossed
our
t's
to
make
sure
that
we
also
are
not
missing.
On
a
title,
seven
complaint
for
an
equal
pay
act
complaint
someone
can
just
file
with
the
eeoc
on
eagle
pad
complaint.
They
have
two
years
from
the
date
of
harm,
which
is
usually
the
last
unfair
paycheck,
the
last
discriminatory
paycheck.
S
They
have
two
years
if
it's
intentional
discrimination
based
on
pay,
you
can
go
up
to
three
years
if
you
file
directly
with
the
eeoc,
if
you
file
with
nerc,
you
have
300
days
for
the
data
harm.
Okay,
if
it's
a
title
vii
complaint
and
you
file
directly
with
eeoc
eeoc
will
probably
now
analyze
it
under
an
epa
or
a
title:
seven
complaint,
whatever
the
investigators
think
they
want,
they
think
the
case
falls
under
and
that
kind
of
also
alters
the
statute
of
limitations.
S
But
states
are
free
to
extend
the
statute
of
limitations
to
up
to
three
years.
So
I
hope
that
I
hope
that
makes
sense
again
if
you
need
any
guidance
on
that.
I'll.
Take
a
look,
and
I'm
certainly
happy
to
help
the
committee
and
the
bill
sponsor
and
any
friendly
amendments
that
I
can
make
or
insight
that
I
can
give
thanks.
A
Thank
you,
ms
jenkins,
and,
I
think,
miss
assembly,
member
duran.
I
think
what
we
would
just
need
is,
I
know,
you're
working
on
a
conceptual
amendment,
just
I
think
we're
looking
for
clarity
on
on
section
10
and
where
those
fines
more
clarity
on
the
fines,
whether
there's
still
be
the
fines
in
section
10
from
the
original
amendment
or
if
your
your
intent
is
to
move
the
fine
structure
under
the
fine
structure
of
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission.
T
Thank
you
for
that
question.
Chair
howdy.
Yes,
I
think
the
intent
was
to
to
have
nevada
equal
rights.
Do
an
investigation
as
well
as
to
see
if
there
is
a.
T
Legitimate
complaint
and
then
to
proceed
that
way,
instead
of
going
through
the
labor
commission.
At
that
point,
that's
the
intent
and
I
can
work
with
jenkins
to
clarify
the
language
if
possible,.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
wanted
to
go
to
section
four,
as
I
read
that
this
definition
of
employer
would
capture
all
employers
instead
of
currently
nevada
and
federal
law.
It
applies
to
those
with
15
or
more
employees.
So,
if
you
could,
let
me
know
if
I
reading
that
correctly
and
why
the
change
there.
T
Thank
you
for
the
question
assembly
women
b,
duran
to
assembly
woman
hardy.
That
was
concern
of
several
of
the
stakeholders
about
the
employees
about
the
different.
T
Wage
rate,
according
to
their
wage
wages
that
they
had
in
their
previous
positions
as
well,
for
example,
a
teacher
so
to
hire
a
teacher.
They
would
basically
look
at
their
history
of
where
they
taught
who
they
taught
and
how
much
they
made
to
base
their
job
new
job
that
they're
applying
for
on
that,
so
we
amended
that
to
conform
with
a
6.61
in
the
nrs.
T
A
G
K
K
C-H-R-I-S-T-I-N-E-S-A-U-N-D-E-R-S
and
I'm
the
policy
director
with
the
progressive
leadership
alliance
in
nevada
in
support
of
assembly
bill
124.
women
in
nevada
and
across
the
u.s
are
still
being
paid
lower
wages
than
men
simply
because
they
are
women.
In
fact,
next
week
on
march,
24th
is
women's
equal
pay
day.
As
the
assembly
woman
noted,
on
average,
women
are
paid
82
cents
for
every
dollar,
a
man
earned.
It
takes
women
until
march
24th
to
make
the
equivalent
salary
of
whatever
man
earned
in
2020,
and
these
numbers
are
even
worse
off
for
women
of
color.
K
We
are
being
shortchanged
thousands
of
dollars
each
year
or
more
accounting
to
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
over
a
lifetime
because
of
the
pay
gap.
The
practice
of
asking
previous
salary
histories
only
perpetuates
pay
inequity
and
makes
it
harder
and
harder
for
individuals
to
shatter
the
glass
ceiling.
K
G
G
K
K
It
is
also
important
that
employers
not
have
access
to
a
prospective
employee's
pay
history.
A
person's
previous
salary
should
not
determine
their
worth
or
salary
with
future
employers.
This
bill
establishes
the
needed
equity
in
ensuring
that
everyone
is
paid
the
same
regardless.
The
small
but
meaningful
change
will
have
positive
effects
for
all
working
individuals
and
will
provide
the
opportunity
for
economic
stability
for
survivors
who
may
currently
be
dependent
on
an
abusive
partner
and
may
prevent
an
individual
from
becoming
financially
dependent
of
an
abusive
partner,
preventing
future
victimization.
We
urge
the
passage
of
ad124.
G
N
Good
afternoon
chairwoman
and
honorable
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
quentin
savoir,
that's
q-u-e-n-t-I-n,
last
name:
savoy
s
like
sam,
a
like
apple,
be
like
victor
w-o-I-r,
I'm
the
deputy
director
at
make
it
work
nevada.
We
work
alongside
black
women
and
black
families
to
fight
for
economic,
racial
and
reproductive
justice.
I'm
proud
to
speak
with
you
today
in
support
of
assembly
bill
124,
a
measure
to
bring
greater
pay
equity
standards
and
economic
justice
to
our
labor
force.
N
During
the
last
legislative
session,
we
were
fierce
advocates
in
support
of
senator
spearman's
pay
equity
legislation
and
we're
grateful
to
assembly
women
durant
for
sponsoring
this
important
next
step.
The
practices
and
provisions
that
this
bill
will
regulate
against
are
routinely
used
to
perpetuate
pay
inequities
in
our
state.
These
inequities
have
devastating
consequences
for
women,
especially
black
women,
as
they
stand
to
lose
nearly
1
million
dollars
in
lost
wages
over
the
span
of
their
career
as
unequal
payday
is
rapidly
approaching.
N
G
K
I
thought
I
would
just
really
quickly
touch
on
a
few
of
the
questions
in
case
it's
helpful
just
regarding
the
180
days
versus
three
years.
Question
we've
seen
that
either
180
days
or
300,
depending
on
which
eeoc
deadline
is
applicable
in
the
state
that
it
applies
to,
is
just
woefully
inadequate
for
many
workers
to
be
able
to
assert
their
rights.
It's
so
short
that
by
the
time
workers
are
aware
that
their
rights
were
violated.
They
often
have
missed
their
deadline
to
file
a
claim,
their
statute
of
limitations
to
file
a
claim.
K
Fees
to
allow
an
employer
to
recover
fees
would
would
really
impose
a
a
completely
chilling
effect
on
workers
such
that
they
would
not
bring
such
claims
at
the
end,
the
risk
of
of
having
to
potentially
pay
fees
in
the
end.
So
that's
a
a
point
that
we
advocate
for
in
all
the
prior
salary
and
other
equal
pay
related
bills
that
we
that
we
advocate
on
behalf
of
so
I
will
leave
it
to
other
colleagues
to
discuss
the
importance
of
the
bill
in
other
ways,
but
wanted
to
touch
on
those
two
points.
G
M
M
G
M
M
Our
salary
schedules
at
nc
are
already
public
and
published,
so
that's
not
really
an
issue,
but
when
our
for
our
own
employment
situations,
but
when
our
graduates
go
out
into
the
workforce,
we
want
them
not
to
be
discriminated
against,
nor
for
these
perhaps
unintended
consequences
of
looking
at
past
wages
to
cause
discrimination
in
future
salaries.
Thank
you.
G
L
Good
afternoon
committee,
my
name
is
marlene
lockhart
representing
the
nevada
women's
lobby.
Ab2
124
is
another
bill
that
builds
upon
the
previous
pay
equity
legislation
to
actually
reach
the
ever-elucid
goal
of
pay
equity.
The
compensation
levels
for
a
job
position
should
be
determined
by
the
job
requirements.
Skill
set
education
levels
required.
L
It
should
have
nothing
to
do
with
what
an
applicant
previously
made
in
her
compensation
history
for
previous
jobs.
The
nevada
women's
lobby
strongly
supports
this
measure
to
again
try
to
bypass
the
loopholes
that
seem
to
always
rise
in
an
effort
to
defer
real,
true
pay
equity.
Thank
you
so
much
bye-bye.
A
A
G
G
G
G
R
R
Yes,
thank
you.
My
apologies.
I'm
with
the
national
women's
law
center
and
I'm
here
in
support
of
assembly
bill
124.,
we're
very
excited
to
see
nevada,
finally
joining
the
movement
to
ban
the
harmful
practice
of
relying
on
salary
history
and
require
salary
range
transparency.
R
We
want
to
encourage
that
this
bill
applies
to
all
sizes
of
employers,
not
just
those
with
15
or
more
employees.
As
an
amendment
proposes,
every
state
that
has
passed
the
salary
history
ban
has
applied
it
to
all
sides
of
employers,
and
that's
because
this
is
an
easy
to
comply
with
provision
regardless
of
employer
size.
Just
don't
ask
for
salary
history
and
we
you
know
we
want
to
make
sure
that
nevada
is
not
setting
a
bad
precedent
by
becoming
the
first
state
to
limit
this
important
protection
in
this
way.
R
So
it's
really
important
the
bill
applied
to
all
sides
of
employers
and
also
to
the
question
about
seeking
salary
history
versus
requiring
salary
history.
Those
words
do
sound
similar,
but
we
would
strongly
encourage
that
the
bill
say
seeking
salary
history.
We're
concerned
that
prohibiting
requiring
seller
history
would
allow
an
employer
to,
for
example,
ask
an
applicant
for
their
salary
history
on
a
form
or
in
person
and
say
you
know:
what's
your
salary
history
you're
not
obligated
to
provide
it
for
me?
But
what's
what
is
your
salary
history?
R
We
know
from
research
that
power
dynamics
negotiations
and
the
hiring
process
make
it
hard
for
workers,
women
and
women
of
women
of
color,
especially
to
refuse
providing
information
once
asked
for
it
and
actually
can
backfire
and
result
in
lower
wages
for
women.
So
we
think
those
keeping
that
word
seeking
and
the
bill
is
important
and
the
employer
size
threshold,
or
rather
no
employer-sized
thresholds
that
covers
all
employers.
As
is
done
with
equal
pay
laws,.
A
Thank
you
and
we
will
make
sure
to
move
your
testimony
into
the
support
position
and
I
just
want
to
go
back
broadcasting.
I've
gotten
a
couple
of
messages,
and
I
know
this
color
also
had
some
trouble
unmuting
herself
to
give
testimony
and
support
and
raise
her
hand.
Could
we
go
back
to
caller
with
the
last
three
numbers
of
one
two
four.
I
think
they
just
texted
me
to
see
if
they
could
try
again
to
unmute
themselves.
G
N
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
paul
moradkin
m-o-r-a-d-k-h-a-n
with
the
las
vegas
chamber
of
commerce,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
sponsor
for
meeting
with
a
chamber
about
ab124
in
regards
to
the
bill.
The
chamber
has
no
issue
with
the
intent
and
supports
the
efforts
in
addressing
equity.
The
chamber
supports
the
principle
that
there
should
be
pay
equity
between
employees
for
all
work
regardless
of
gender.
N
We
do
not
have
an
issue
with
section
one
in
the
bill
that
bans
employers
ability,
history,
wage
from
applicants,
if
that
helps
further
support,
existing
state
and
federal
laws
regarding
pay.
Sorry,
gender
pay
equity.
This
very,
however,
we
have
concerns
with
several
subversions
of
the
bill
as
how
it
impacts
the
state's
legal
climate
for
employers,
specifically
sections
nine
and
ten.
We
believe
that
time
period
should
be
two
years
and
not
three
years,
notably
the
subject
of
clarification
on
a
bill
that
is
currently
being
heard
by
the
other
help.
N
The
enabling
of
a
class
action
lawsuit
against
employers
and
recovery
burden
placed
on
employers
are
a
concern
from
our
members.
In
a
time
of
economic
recovery,
the
chamber
believes
the
expansion
of
toward
law
beyond
our
current
remedies
would
add
challenges
to
our
economic
recovery.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
your
time.
G
N
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
alexandria,
dazzlich
e-a-z-l-I-c-h
and
I'm
the
director
of
government
affairs
for
the
nevada,
restaurant
association
and
we're
here
today
in
opposition
of
ab124,
the
nevada
restaurant
association
supports
equal
pay
in
the
workforce
that
is
supported
by
the
ninth
circuit
court
ruling.
However,
this
bill
exceeds
that
objective
and
opens
our
operators
up
to
additional
liability.
N
G
Q
Hi
good
afternoon,
this
is
craig
madole
c-r-a-I-g
m-a-d-o-l-e,
with
the
nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors.
I
think
that
the
las
vegas
chamber
and
the
restaurant
association
did
a
pretty
good
job
of
explaining
the
opposition
to
this
bill.
We
have
similar
concerns
we'd
like
to
thank
you,
know,
mr
anne,
for
her
time
to
meet
with
us.
Q
We
did
provide
a
conceptual
amendment,
but
some
of
our
concepts
have
been
adopted
into
her
conceptual
amendment,
but
we
believe
that
section,
9
and
some
of
section,
10
and
section
7
all
still
need
some
additional
work
and
we're
happy
to
continue
to
work
with
the
bill
sponsor
to
address
our
concerns.
Thank
you.
G
J
J
J
We
do
agree
with
the
chamber
of
commerce
and
those
in
support
of
the
bill
that
gender
discrimination
is
bad
and
we
also
don't
have
an
issue
with
section
one
if
you
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
provide
that
under
the
current
revenues,
remedies
at
enric.
But
we
really
do
feel
that
providing
this
private
right
of
action
or
the
class
action
situation
will
increase
the
burden
on
employers,
especially
our
smallest
employers.
J
G
R
Thank
you
greetings
chair,
remember
the
committee.
This
is
amber,
stidham,
that's
a-m-b-e-r,
s-t-I-d-h-a-m,
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
henderson
chamber.
Thank
you
so
much
for
hearing
us.
I
also
want
to
be
clear
that
our
chamber
strongly
opposes
any
paid
discrimination
and
really
does
support
equal
opportunity,
imp,
opera,
employment
opportunities.
R
Our
members
know
well
that
compensation
equity
not
only
builds
a
more
productive,
diverse
workforce,
but
it
also
makes
employers
more
attractive
to
prospective
employees,
but
the
way
that
ab124
is
written.
We're
currently
opposed
not
to
believe
or
the
point.
Certainly.
My
my
friends
in
business
here
did
highlight
the
federal
protections
already
in
place.
R
The
extremely
punitive
penalties
outlined
the
expanded
statute
of
limitations
that
are
concerning
to
us.
We
are
also
concerned,
though,
about
in
looking
over
the
posted
amendment
just
ahead
of
this
hearing
that
would
adjust
the
attorney's
fees
that
go
from
judicial
discretion
to
mandatory.
R
During
these
conversations
like
overtime
pay
bonuses,
stocks
vacation
time
that
provide
value
that
add
to
an
employee's
overall
compensation
package
again
that
are
not
considerations
within
this
bill,
and
I
just
like
to
say
that
for
the
record.
I
really
do
appreciate
your
time
and
thank
you
very
much.
G
K
Thank
you,
chair
hadiki
and
committee,
nicole,
rourke
and.
K
I-C-O-L-E-R-O-U-R-K-E
representing
the
city
of
henderson,
the
city
does
not
oppose
the
policy
addressed
in
ab-124.
In
fact,
we
already
require
the
transparency
outlined
in
the
bill
and
our
represented
employee
wages.
Salaries
are
negotiated
through
labor
contracts,
along
with
merit
step
increases
regardless
of
gender.
However,
we
believe
that
public
employers
do
not
belong
in
chapter
608,
simply
adding
public
employers
or
amending
in
the
definition
from
nrs
613310
would
make
all
of
nrs
608
applicable
to
public
employers.
K
K
G
L
L
I
know
it's
been
a
long
day
for
you
and
your
committee,
so
I'll
say
ditto
to
what
many
of
my
colleagues
have
already
put
on
the
record,
but
want
to
reiterate
that
the
reno
sparks
chamber
is
opposed
to
discrimination
and
supports
equal
opportunities.
We
will
work
with
assemblywoman
duran
on
ab124
and
look
forward
to
the
continued
conversation.
L
A
A
Thank
you
broadcasting.
Can
we
check
to
see
if
there's
anyone
wishing
to
testify
who
is
neutral
on
this
bill.
G
A
And
I
do
see
that
we
have
miss
cara
jenkins
from
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission,
who
will
be
testifying
in
the
neutral
position.
Thank
you.
S
Madam
chair,
for
that
cara,
jenkins
administrator
for
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission,
also
known
as
nerc
for
the
record,
and
we
are
encouraged
by
this
bill-
we
do
have
some
questions.
S
We
do
want
to
work
on,
hopefully
getting
to
the
committee
our
statute
of
our
statute,
that
kind
of
outlines
the
fines
that
we
already
have
established
and
also
working
with
the
sponsor
to
ensure
that
she's
she
has
everything
she
needs
to
understand
how
we
already
operate
so
that
you
all
can
do
what
you
do
best
and
that's
create
legislation.
S
Thank
you.
So
much.
Oh
one,
more
thing,
madam
chair,
I
don't
know
if
you
received
an
email
from
labor,
commissioner.
G
N
L-I-N-D-S-A-Y-A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N
on
behalf
of
the
washoe
county
school
district,
we've
met
with
assemblywoman
duran
and
submitted
an
amendment
that
would
address
concerns
by
school
districts.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
the
unique
needs
of
public
school
districts,
collective
bargaining
agreements,
are
acknowledged
in
the
legislation.
N
Given
the
substantial
differences
in
salary
structure
between
districts,
verification
of
prior
salary
placement
is
often
required
in
order
to
convert
it
to
a
placement
on
the
new
employer's
district
salary
schedule
that
credits,
the
educator
with
the
appropriate
amount
of
service
public
educators
are
compensated
on
a
schedule
based
on
years
of
experience
and
educational
attainment,
with
no
opportunity
for
variations
in
placement
based
on
gender.
So
an
exemption
of
employees
covered
by
391.167
should
not
undermine
the
intent
of
ab124.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
testimony
broadcasting.
Do
we
have
anyone
else
in
the
neutral
position
on
the
telephone
line.
A
Okay,
thank
you
committee
members.
I
would
like
to
note
that
for
the
record
that
the
labor
commissioner
did
send
me
a
message
that
she
had
to
leave
for
another
meeting,
but
she
provided
a
letter
of
support
supporting
the
proposed
amendment
to
me.
I
have
that
will
be
available
for
everyone
tomorrow
on
the
nellis.
So
thank
you
assembly,
member
duren.
Would
you
like
to
give
any
closing
remarks.
T
Thank
you,
chair
howard,
again,
committee
assemblywoman
b,
duran
for
the
record.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
consideration
of
ab124.
I
ask
your
support
of
ab124
and
I
am
happy
to
work
with
any
and
all
stakeholders
of
a1
of
ab124
to
move
going
forward.
A
A
A
We
open
and
close
hearings
on
bills
so
that
we
establish
a
record
of
the
public
testimony
on
the
bill.
Therefore,
public
comment
is
not
intended
to
be
a
continuation
of
any
bill
hearings.
Public
test
public
comment
may
be
limited
to
two
minutes.
Please
address
your
remarks
to
issues
that
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
commerce
and
labor
committee.
If
you
direct
your
remarks
to
issues
over
which
this
committee
has
no
jurisdiction,
I
will
ask
you
to
re
direct
your
comments
or
terminate
them
be
respectful
of
committee
members
and
other
witnesses.
A
G
A
Thank
you
broadcasting.
Thank
you
committee
members
for
your
patience.
I
know
this
was
a
longer
than
normal
hearing.
We
will
have
some
longer
hearings
going
forward
as
we
have
received
many
bills.
A
Our
next
meeting
will
be
on
friday.
Please
note
once
the
agenda
is
posted
the
start
time
we
may
start
earlier
on
than
our
normal
1
30
start
time.
So
with
that
committee
members,
our
meeting
is
adjourned.
Thank.