►
From YouTube: 5/3/2021 - Senate 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
Thank
you
mark,
chair,
spearman
absent.
She
will
not
be
here
for
this
entire
meeting.
She
may
pop
in
on
a
zoom
like
way
late,
but
she's,
absent
so
good
morning.
Everybody,
the
agenda,
is
going
to
be
very
different,
we're
not
going
in
order
at
all,
so
I'm
going
to
tell
folks
the
orders,
so
they
can
plan
their
time,
we're
going
to
do
av2o7
first,
a
b
192nd,
a
b,
210
third
and
then
av
298.
A
D
D
However,
the
law
has
not
kept
pace
in
the
the
ensuing
decade,
as
a
greater
share
of
our
interactions
have
moved
from
brick
and
mortar
to
the
digital
realm.
A
shift
that's
been
clearly
highlighted
by
the
pandemic.
D
D
You
know,
ultimately,
this
is
again
about
trying
to
make
sure
that
every
there's
parity,
you
know
many
of
our
online
interactions
are
actually,
I
would
say,
more
secure
from
acts
of
discrimination
because
they
happen
almost
instantaneously
something's
offered,
there's
a
transaction
that
occurs
and
usually
there's
no
personal
interaction.
D
So
with
that
ab207
aims
to
cross
the
digital
divide
and
level
the
playing
field
so
that
all
businesses
operating
in
this
state
are
open
to
all
nevadans.
With
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
mr
brody
to
provide
some
additional
context
and
then
we'd
be
glad
to
take
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have.
E
Good
morning,
and
thank
you
for
inviting
me,
my
name
is
david
brody
and
I
lead
the
digital
justice
initiative
at
the
lawyers
committee
for
civil
rights
under
law.
The
lawyers
committee
is
a
non-profit
nonpartisan
racial
justice
organization
founded
in
1963,
at
the
request
of
president
kennedy
to
combat
discrimination
and
inequality
of
opportunity.
E
Our
digital
justice
initiative
works
on
issues
at
the
intersection
of
civil
rights,
privacy
and
technology,
such
as
discrimination
in
online
commerce,
internet
enabled
hate
crimes
and
discriminatory
uses
of
personal
information.
Public
accommodations
laws
are
a
cornerstone
of
civil
rights
protection
in
the
united
states.
These
laws
are
one
of
the
key
mechanisms
used
to
end
jim
crow
segregation
and
discrimination
in
everyday
commerce.
E
Many
of
these
laws
were
enacted
during
the
civil
rights
era
in
response
to
protests,
sit-ins
and
boycotts
by
black
americans
and
others
seeking
equal
rights
today,
if
a
business
posts,
a
sign
that
says
whites
only,
it
should
not
matter
whether
it's
written
in
ink
or
pixels.
The
discrimination
is
the
same.
The
harm
is
the
same
and
under
nevada
law.
The
legal
consequences
should
be
the
same.
E
E
Classic
examples
of
places
of
public
accommodations
include
hotels
stores,
restaurants,
theaters
buses
and
stadiums.
These
laws,
including
nevada's,
typically
prohibit
two
forms
of
discrimination.
First,
they
prohibit
covered
businesses
from
denying
service
or
charging
higher
prices
on
the
basis
of
protected
characteristics.
E
Second,
they
prohibit
violence,
threats
or
harassment
by
third
parties.
When
someone
seeks
to
patronize
a
business
to
give
the
historic
example,
these
laws
both
prohibit
a
lunch
counter
from
refusing
service
on
the
basis
of
race,
as
well
as
prohibit
a
racist
mob
from
blocking
access
to
the
lunch
counter.
E
Despite
all
of
our
advances
on
civil
rights,
discrimination
and
hate
continue.
Today,
we
have
seen
it
recently
as
hateful
threats
and
violence
targeting
asian
americans
have
spiked
nationwide.
These
types
of
incidents
interfere
with
our
equal
enjoyment
of
places
of
public
accommodation
by
intimidating
our
neighbors,
especially
senior
citizens,
from
feeling
safe
when
they
go
out
in
public.
E
The
pew
research
center
recently
reported
that
40
percent
of
americans
have
experienced
online
harassment
and
that
25
percent
have
experienced
physical
threats,
stalking
sexual
harassment
or
sustained
harassment
online.
These
hateful
acts
interfere
with
the
right
to
equally
enjoy
online
commerce,
they
discourage
speech
and
civic
engagement
and
they
cause
serious
harm.
Businesses
suffer
when
customers
are
not
safe
when
a
user
self-censors
or
stops
using
a
website,
because
they
are
being
threatened.
That
user
is
deprived
of
their
right
to
enjoy
the
services
offered
by
that
business.
E
Discrimination
also
continues
to
infect
the
marketplace
where
consumers
of
color
continue
to
receive
worse
treatment
and
experience
unequal
access
to
goods
and
services.
This
discrimination
increasingly
occurs
through
online
business
practices.
For
example,
facebook,
google
and
other
major
tech
companies
have
been
sued
or
investigated
repeatedly
for
discriminating
in
their
advertisements
for
housing.
Employment
and
credit
retail
websites
have
been
found
to
charge
different
prices
based
on
the
demographics
of
their
user.
E
Communities
of
color
are
targeted
by
predatory
and
low-income
for-profit
online
colleges
and
algorithms
that
set
car
insurance
rates
have
charged
minority
neighborhoods
higher
premiums
than
white
neighborhoods
with
the
same
risk
levels
absent
anti-discrimination
protections.
Online
businesses
can
refuse
service
on
the
basis
of
race
charge,
higher
prices
on
the
basis
of
religion,
provide
sub-par
products
based
on
gender
or
sexual
orientation,
or
ignore
the
accessibility
needs
of
people
with
disabilities.
E
Public
accommodations
laws
are
meant
to
close
these
gaps,
however,
because
most
public
accommodations
laws
were
written
decades
before
the
invention
of
the
internet.
They
do
not
always
apply
equally
online
and
offline
ab-207
seeks
to
amend
the
state's
public
accommodation
statute
to
ensure
that
nevadans
receive
the
same
protections
against
discrimination
from
billion-dollar
websites
that
they
do
in
a
mom-and-pop
corner
store.
E
E
This
legislation
clarifies
that
just
about
all
nevada,
brick
and
mortar
businesses
must
already
comply
with
your
statute,
even
when
operating
their
own
websites,
but
is
not
clear
if
online
only
businesses
would
be
covered.
Passing
this
bill
would
level
the
playing
field
between
online
and
offline
commerce
requiring
online
businesses
to
meet
the
same
non-discrimination
requirements
as
your
physical
businesses
and
protect
the
rights
of
all
your
residents.
D
Thank
you,
and
with
that,
madam
vice
chair,
we're
glad
to
take
any
questions
that
you
have.
I
also
did
want
to
let
you
know
that
I
will
not
be
staying
for
closing
remarks
so
after
questions
are
done.
I'm
going
to
get
back
up
to
my
other
committee.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation.
I'm
honestly,
I'm
struggling
with
understanding
why
we
need
the
bill,
the
examples
that
were
just
given
you
know
like
lunch
counters.
It
doesn't
apply
to
online
businesses.
F
F
This
is
this
bill
is
going
to
be
a
trial,
lawyer's
dream.
I
mean
I
am
one
and
I'm
thinking
man.
If
I
were
still
in
injury
law
this
would.
I
could
sue
nearly
every
internet
site
that
I
encounter,
and
yet
we
already
have
laws
on
the
books
that
expressly
prohibit
discrimination
in
all
the
forms
that
were
described.
So.
D
D
I
can
give
you
a
great
example,
so,
right
now,
if
somebody
decided
to
operate
a
bakery,
brick
and
mortar
or
a
photography
business
where
they
do
event
photography
and
they
have
a
a
small
little
brick
and
mortar
retail
establishment,
and
someone
comes
in
and
asks
for
pictures
for
or
a
cake
for
their
wedding
and
they
are
denied
on
the
basis
of
any
of
these
protected
characteristics
that
service,
then
that
is
a
violation
of
our
public
accommodations
law.
D
However,
if
someone
offered
those
services
exclusively
online
and
chose
to
make
that
denial
for
the
same
reason,
it's
unclear
whether
our
law
protects
that.
So
that's
what
this
bill
is
seeking
to
address.
Now,
in
regards
to
your
question
about
websites,
again,
we
added
an
amendment
and
working
with
some
of
the
other
stakeholders
from
the
business
community
to
clarify
that
folks
that
are
already
operating
here
in
the
state
in
brick
and
mortar,
that
this
would
place
no
additional
requirements
on
them
and
the
intent
has
never
been
to
place
additional
requirements
on
websites.
You
mentioned
the
ada.
D
That,
of
course,
is
a
federal
law,
and
so
no
state
action
that
we
take
is
going
to
make
a
difference
one
way
or
another
into
how
that
law
may
or
may
not
be
applied
to
accessibility
on
websites.
So
you
know,
we've
worked
to
to
clarify
those
issues
and
again
this
is
not
necessarily
about
accessibility.
It's
about
when
there
is
human
interaction
on
a
website
and
discrimination
could
be
proven
under
our
existing
public
accommodations
non-discrimination.
D
Statutory
framework
and
they'd
have
to
essentially
bring
civil
action.
Seeking
relief
from
that
and
they'd
have
to
bring
evidence
to
support
that.
We're
just
making
sure
that,
again
that
online
business
that
operates
100
percent
online
in
offering
their
services
is
held
to
the
same
standards
as
a
brick
and
mortar
business,
offering
the
same
goods
or
services.
F
All
right
and-
and
I
appreciate
that,
what
you're
saying-
and
I
I
agree
with
the
theory
that
everybody
should
be
on
the
same
playing
field
in
terms
of
non-discrimination.
But
what
I'm
not
getting
is
you
know,
let's
take
brick-and-mortar
facilities
off
the
table
because
it
already
applies
to
them.
They
are
public
accommodations,
but
if
we
under
this
proposal,
establish
all
or
any
online
establishment,
that's
exclusively
online
as
a
public
accommodation
we're
establishing
that
the
entity,
the
entire
operation
is
a
public
accommodation
and
now
they
are
are
subject
to,
and
I
would
respectfully
disagree.
F
F
This
would
open
the
door
to
an
online
establishment
having
liability
on
their
premises,
and
so
this
this
would
be
greatly
expansive
in
terms
of
the
impact
on
on
businesses.
But
might
let
me
ask
my
question
a
little
differently
because
I
wanted
what
I
want
to
get
to
is:
how
is
the
law
we
have
today
insufficient
because
we
have
public
accommodation
law?
We
have
non-discrimination
law.
Where
is
the
the
the
gap?
Can
you
point
to.
D
It
thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
pickard
howard
watts,
for
the
record.
First
of
all,
I'd
respectfully
disagree
with
you
and
note
two
things.
This
is
amending
nrs,
chapter
651,
and
so
the
intent
is
that
it's
limited
to
the
confines
of
that
chapter.
I
know
public
accommodations
are
discussed
in
many
places
in
statute.
This
is
just
seeking
to
amend
that
chapter,
which
really
deals
with
issues
of
discrimination
and
to
your
second
question
around
what
gap
is
this
addressing?
D
So
it
is
not
clear
and-
and
the
analysis
done
by
mr
brody's
organization
has
indicated
that
in
many
states
it
is
unclear
whether
these
protections
would
apply
to
nevadans
engaging
in
in
commerce
with
online
only
businesses.
So
that's
what
this
bill
is
seeking
to
fix,
and
if
you
have
a
suggestion
for
tighter
language,
please
do
send
that
along.
F
Let
me
just
ask
one
more
question:
if
I
may,
mr
brody,
does
your
firm
pursue
these
cases
in
litigation.
E
F
So
this
bill
would
directly
improve
your
client-based
pool,
correct.
E
It
it
could
if
we
end
up
bringing
anything
in
in
nevada.
I
have
no
from
my
knowledge,
I'm
not
familiar
with
any
cases.
We've
brought
under
anti-discrimination
laws
in
nevada,
and
if
there
was,
I
mean
we,
we
use
a
variety
of
statutes,
but
the
short
answer
is
yes:
it
could.
C
D
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
hardy
howard
watts
for
the
record.
The
short
answer
to
your
question
is:
yes:
switch
has
physical
locations
located
in
the
state,
although
for
anyone
who's
visited,
switch
they're,
not
exact,
it's
not
exactly.
Their
facilities
are
open
for
public
access,
they're
highly
secured.
D
However,
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
you're
speaking
to
is
the
fact
that
there
may
be
businesses
that
operate
online,
but
do
have
some
sort
of
physical
location
here
in
the
state.
This
is
something
that
I've
actually
been
talking
with
some
of
the
stakeholders
as
well
as
legal
about,
and
we
may
bring
an
amendment
to
clarify
that
intent
further
to
indicate
that
again,
if
you're,
already
operating
a
brick
and
mortar,
that
is,
that
would
apply
as
a
public
accommodation.
D
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
hardy
howard
watts
for
the
record,
so
in
in
that
particular
instance
you're
discussing
data
centers
and
what
would
happen,
I
think,
you're
referring
to
they're
hosting
certain
entities
and
what
happens
if
there's
discrimination
from
one
of
those
entities
switch
wouldn't
be
liable.
It'd
be
the
company
that
is
directly
interacting
with
the
consumer.
H
Think
about
it
by
sure
I
was
just
kind
of
curious.
You
brought
up
the
discussion
of
you,
know
photography
and
things
of
that
nature.
So
what,
if
an
individual
for
their
wedding,
whatever
they
send
off
the
photos
to
another
country
or
you
know
they
go
online,
they
find
a
place
that
creates
the
cards
to
say,
thank
you
for
showing
up
to
the
wedding
and
things
of
that
nature
and
they
find
out
that
they've
been
discriminated
against.
How
will
the
ag
go
after
a
business?
That's
completely
domiciled
in
another
country.
D
Thank
you
for
that
question.
Senator
settlemyre
howard
watts,
for
the
record.
We
did
receive
some
questions
about
civil
action
and
and
how
to
proceed
if
the
entity
is
not
physically
based
out
of
the
state
of
nevada
and
there's
quite
a
bit
of
case
law
to
describe
how
those
those
cases
would
be
pursued
and
have
been
when
there
are
conflicts,
even
if
not
all
the
residents
are
within
the
same
or
not,
all
the
entities
are
within
the
same
state
as
for
international
law,
that's
something
I'm
I'm
less
clear
on.
H
I
appreciate
that
at
some
point,
because
that's
my
concern,
so
much
of
the
digital
stuff
is
generally
not
done
in
the
united
states
of
america,
it's
being
done
in
other
countries
when
you
go
on
to
vistaprint
and
things
of
that
nature
and
have
wedding
cards
printed
up
or
things
of
that
nature.
You
may
not
be
dealing
in
the
united
states
at
all
and
most
likely
you're
not,
and
I
can
attest
to
that,
just
based
on
where
it
gets
shipped
from
anything
I
get
in
the
mail.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you
for
that
and,
if
I
may
briefly
just
add
an
additional
clarification,
that's
something
that
would
have
to
be
looked
into
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
again
some
of
the
activities
may
be
outsourced
outside
of
the
country,
but
the
business
itself
may
have
a
license
and
be
based
have
a
principal
headquarters
somewhere
within
the
united
states.
That
would
likely,
if
an
act
of
discrimination
occurred
and
action
needed
to
be
taken,
that
would
likely
be
the
the
most
likely
avenue
would
be
to
pursue
it
within
the
united
states.
H
I
appreciate
that
again,
my
concern
is
out
of
the
country.
I
had
a
friend's
mind
that
were
same-sex
marriage
and
they
wanted
a
plate
made
up
and
it
was
in
india
and
they
refused
to
do
it
based
upon
their
disagreement
with
it,
and
I'm
just
curious
how
you're
going
to
go
after
india.
How
are
you
going
to
go
after
a
whole
other
country,
because
their
cultural
beliefs
are
quite
different
than
ours?
Thank
you.
A
I
State
you
vice
chair
neil,
certainly
my
will
being
the
council
for
senate
commerce.
As
far
as
the
the
the
reach
of
this
law
there's
nothing
wrong
with
nevada
enacting
it.
There's
gonna
be
limits
on
how
far
nevada
can
reach
the
international
shu
asahi
medals
and
worldwide
volkswagen
cases
there's
still
a
lot
of
land.
I
know
that
the
supreme
court
recently
issued
an
opinion
which
I
have
not
yet
had
a
chance
to
read
revisiting
those
rather
well-known
cases.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Any
additional
questions,
senator
scheible.
J
So
I
have
two
questions
and
the
first
is
that
I'm
thinking
that
this
might
cover
a
gap
in
the
law
that
addresses
businesses
that
are
conducted
entirely
online.
I
just
want
to
check
my
understanding,
because
I
get
that
a
lot
of
online
businesses
still
have
that
physical
component
they're
mailing
you
a
product,
something
like
that.
But
and
now
of
course,
my
memory
fails
me
for
a
time.
J
It's
happened,
but
you
know
I
have
certainly
been
on
a
website,
wanted
to
read
something
or
access,
something
and
put
my
credit
card
information
and
then
had
access
to
an
article
or
a
subscription,
or
I
think
there
are
actually
like
newspapers
and
news
sources
that
have
gone
completely
online
at
this
point
in
time
and
no
longer
publish
physical
copies.
So
are
those
the
kinds
of
businesses
that
this
bill
would
be
targeting.
D
Thank
you
for
the
question,
senator
howard
watts,
for
the
record.
I
I
would
say
yes
and-
and
it
would
be
in
both
regards
because
it
would
apply
to
complete
100
digital
entities
as
you're,
referring
to,
but
also
the
example
that
I
gave,
for
example,
of
photography
services
we've
seen,
especially
in
light
of
the
pandemic,
more
people
working
from
home,
not
having
a
brick
and
mortar
location
that
is
just
open
for
for
certain
hours
that
people
can
come
into
to
ask
for
goods
or
services.
D
A
J
You're,
saying
that
currently
there
is
no
law
to
protect
that
family,
because
the
photographer
doesn't
have
a
brick
and
mortar
store
and
the
park
isn't
liable.
There's
no
place
of
public
accommodation,
so
now
you're
saying
that
the
place
of
public
accommodation
would
be
the
website
through
which
they
originally
booked
me
as
their
photographer.
D
Thank
you,
howard
watts,
for
the
record.
Essentially,
yes,
that's
correct,
so
if
you
operated
a
photography
store
again
out
of
a
strip
mall
and
you
had
a
tiny
place
and
people
could
come
in
to
get
your
services,
then
I
think
no
matter
whether
someone
comes
to
you
in
person
or
online,
because
you
have
that
physical
presence,
any
discriminatory
action
you
take
is
subject
to
our
public
accommodations
law.
J
Okay,
that
that
makes
sense
to
me-
and
that
does
seem
like
an
important
gap
to
fill
in
the
law.
I
just
have
one
more
question
if
I
may,
on
the
disability
piece,
because
I
understand
there's
a
difference
between
you
know
the
the
ada
and
you
know
making
reasonable
accommodations
versus
actual
discrimination
based
on
a
disability,
and
it's
not
my
area
of
expertise,
but
I
am
just
wondering:
would
a
plaintiff
be
able
to
bring
suit
against?
J
D
Thank
you
for
that
question.
Senator
howard
watts
for
the
record.
That's
an
that's
an
excellent
question.
I
appreciate
you
making
the
distinction.
This
is
specifically.
This
measure
is
specifically
focused
on
acts
of
discrimination
so,
to
the
extent
that
federal
or
state
laws
apply
to
reasonable
accommodations
this
this
is
focused
on
acts
of
discrimination
based
on
disability.
D
Now,
could
someone
bring
a
suit
making
that
argument?
I'm
sure
they
could,
but
would
it
be
upheld
as
discrimination
versus
being
referred
to,
based
on
its
reasonable
accommodations?
D
So
this
this
bill
is
focused
on
acts
of
discrimination,
so
there
would
have
to
be
discriminatory,
intent
and
action,
whereas
reasonable
accommodations,
there's
doesn't
have
to
be
any
intent,
and
so
that's
that's
the
the
balance
that
the
this
law
is
seeking
to
address.
J
I
could
have
one
more
follow-up,
so
it
sounds
like
what
you're
saying
again
we'll
stick
with
the
photographer.
If
the
photographer
simply
cannot
accommodate
somebody's
disability,
they
don't
know
how
to
communicate
with
them.
They
cannot
arrange
for
the
the
payment
or
or
the
meet
up.
You
know
they
would
then
have
you
know
a
different
conversation
versus
if
I'm
a
photographer,
and
I
respond
with
an
offensive
email
that
says:
I'm
not
photographing
you
because
of
your
disability.
D
J
A
You
any
additional
questions,
so
I
have
a
couple,
so
I
I,
mr
brody,
so
I'm
just
I
get
what's
happening
in
the
bill,
but
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
this.
Whole
bill
literally
brings
me
back
to
law
school.
Like
immediately
when
I
read
it.
I
read
heart
of
atlanta
and
I
was
just
like
boom
what's
happening,
what
are
the?
A
A
A
So,
can
you
talk
to
me
about
the
right
to
choose
your
client
in
an
online
environment
and
how
this
may
be
different
than
a
brick
and
mortar
rule
applied
to
online,
and
I
and
I
and
I
read
the
I
think
it
was
the
case
in
california
right
when
they
sued
under
their
state
statute
etc.
But
I
think
that
you're,
this
walks
us
into
a
different
space.
So
can
you
address
that
first
question.
E
Sure,
david
brilliant
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question
you
know.
Businesses
have
have
always
had
the
the
right
to
refuse
service
on
the
basis
of
of
you
know
reasonable
grounds
for
doing
so.
You
know
if
someone
is
belligerent
towards
other
customers,
or
you
know
no
shirt.
No
shoes,
no
service
things
like
that,
but
when
a
business
is
a
place
of
public
accommodations,
what
what
the
law
has
recognized
for
50
60
years
is
that
there
are
certain
criteria
upon
which
you
are
not
allowed
to
to
refuse
service
you.
E
You
can't
refuse
service
because
of
someone's
race
or
sex
or
other
protected
characteristics.
You
you
can't
charge
different
prices
to
to
people
based
on
those
protected
characteristics.
E
You
you
can't,
you
know,
serve
white
customers
through
the
front
door
and
black
customers
through
the
back
door,
as
as
one
of
the
famous
supreme
court
cases
discussed
and-
and
so
you
know,
businesses
have
a
great
deal
of
discretion
in
terms
of
like
who
do.
How
do
they
want
to
advertise?
What
type
of
clientele
do
they
want
to
to
curate,
but
they
they
there's
a
limit
and
and
when
they
start
to
discriminate
on
the
basis
of
these
protected
characteristics?
A
Thank
you,
and
so,
and
then
my
second
question.
So
when
we
talk
about
so
under
title
two
which
to
me
six
nrs651,
you
know
it
walks.
It
walks
these
provisions
into
the
door.
So
you
could
have
you
could
have
a
you,
can
have
an
accusation
that
a
business
is
acting
under
the
color
of
law
right
which
triggers
a
state
action.
So
in
this
context
of
us
inserting
online
establishments
into
651,
which
is
public
accommodations.
A
How
then,
would
the
acting
under
color
of
law
be
triggered
and
then
estate
action
occur?
If
someone
alleges
a
race
violation
or
something
else.
E
David
breit
for
the
record,
so
you
know
typically
when
when
an
entity
is
acting
under
color
law
and
and
I'm
I'll
caveat
by
saying,
I
am
not
a
nevada
law
expert,
and
so
I
will
defer
to
the
the
advice
of
the
committee's
council
and
and
others,
but
generally
speaking,
when
an
entity
is
acting
under
color
of
law,
that
that
means
that
it's
a
state
actor.
It
means
that
it's
a
a
state
agency
or
a
law
enforcement
officer,
or
someone
like
that
when
a
private
entity
is,
is
discriminating.
E
It's
not
necessarily
acting
under
color
of
law,
but
the
law
still
applies
so
so
entire.
In
the
case
of
title
ii
of
the
civil
rights
act
of
1964
applies
to
private
actors,
whether
or
not
they
are
acting
under
color
of
law,
and
then
there
there
are
additional
provisions
of
the
civil
rights
act
specifically
focused
on
state.
A
Actors,
so
thank
you,
for
that
I
mean
I
don't
want
to
get
into
like
a
a
little
law
session,
but
I
know
that
under
color
of
law
goes
a
little
bit
beyond
state
actors,
just
there's
a
small
caveat
there,
but
I'll
leave
that
there
so
talk
to
me
about
the
remedial
actions.
That
would
be
that
you
expect
to
occur.
If
someone
who
triggers
this
as
a
plaintiff,
what
then,
would
be
the
perceived
remedial
actions
that
would
come
into
play
mainly
because,
if
somebody
challenges
under
equal
protection
right,
it's
an
online
establishment.
A
So
the
question
that
I'm
trying
to
understand
is:
how
do
we
discern
that
you
were
that
this
was
a
violation
of
equal
protection
and
that
you
were
not
given
that
access,
because
the
current
case
law
in
the
space
you
at
least
have
to
try
to
apply
that
you
were
treated
differently
at
least
invoke
some
kind
of
statistical
measure,
something
that
proves
that
you,
sam
jones,
were
not
allowed
into
the
online
establishment.
So
talk
to
me
walk
me
that
pathway
help
me
understand.
E
Certainly
david
brody
for
the
record,
so
my
understanding
of
the
nevada
law
is
that
it's
an
intentional
discrimination
statute,
which
would
mean
that
the
plaintiff
has
the
burden
of
showing
that
the
defendant
intended
to
discriminate
against
them
on
the
basis
of
their
race
or
sex
or
other
protected
characteristic,
and
so
the
plaintiff
has
to
acquire
and
put
on
that
evidence
and
there
there's
various
ways
that
could
happen.
There
are
certain
types
of
of
online
businesses
where
it
could
be
very
obvious
what
someone's
race
or
sex
was.
E
If,
if
so,
for
example,
I'm
I'm
testifying
here
through
zoom
I'm
on
video,
you
can
see
what
my
race
is.
You
can
you
can?
You
know
tell
what
my
gender
expression
is.
You
know
you
can.
You
can
make
some
assumptions
about
what
my
identity
is,
and
so,
similarly
you
know
other
sorts
of
video
programs.
E
You
could
do
similar.
There's
other
types
of
businesses
where
you
know
race
or
sex
or
religious
information,
is
disclosed,
for
example,
on
google
or
facebook
you
can
target
ads
based
on
sex.
The
platforms
require
their
users
to
disclose
their
sex
so
that
they
can
do
that
ad
targeting
and
then.
Similarly,
you
know,
there's
lots
of
information.
You
could
figure
out
and
there's
an
ent.
E
But
the
short
answer
is
the
burden
is
on
the
plaintiff
to
show
that
the
defendant
intended
to
discriminate
on
the
basis
of
a
protected
characteristic
and
then
the
remedy
available
could
be
damages.
It
could
also
be
an
injunct
injunction
to
order
the
defendant
to
change
their
business
practices
in
order
to
stop
discriminating.
A
Thank
you
for
that
and
then
my
final
question
is
the
commerce
right,
and
so
I
want
to
get
into
kind
of
like
a
small
commerce
clause,
discussion
around
the
online
establishment
because
it's
public
accommodations,
but
what
what
I'm
not
clear
on
and
what
I'm
trying
to
process-
and
I
understand
assemblyman
watts-
you
get
multiple
points
for
boldness,
because
this
is
very
new.
A
How
do
we
deal
with
so
all
markets
are
not
equal.
Let
me
put
that
out
there.
So
when
we
talk
about
business
presence
right
and
mr
king
talked
about
international
shoe
and
drawing
that
in,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
presence
that
they
have
within
the
state
builds
that
nexus
and
that
connectivity
right
in
order
for
us
to
touch
them
and
so
all
online
establishments,
although
you're
plugging
them
into
public
accommodations.
A
I
do
think
that
there
could
be
an
argument
made
around
a
couple
of
things:
number
one,
the
market
that
they're
playing
in
and
then
how
how
someone
argues
that
they're
being
treated
differently
or
there's
a
distinction
between
the
public
accommodation,
brick
and
mortar,
that
you
are
assessing
and
then
their
online
presence
within
that
same
context,
and
so
can
you
talk
about?
A
I
guess
the
only
thing
you
really
could
talk
about
is
your
legal
theory
of
what
would
happen
if
somebody
challenged
that
and
then
two,
what
are
the
doorways
that
have
been
opened?
I
guess,
since
the
california
case
or
other
cases
that
have
tried
to
insert
this
into
their
public
accommodation
statute,
and
then
I
have
a
follow-up.
E
Thank
you,
david
broad,
for
the
record
with
regard
to
the
the
jurisdiction
issue.
Again,
I
I'm
not
an
expert
in
a
battle
law,
so
I
don't
want
to
speculate
too
far,
but
what
I
would
say
is,
depending
on
what
nevada
law
says
about
personal
jurisdiction
and
how
far
it
goes
as
well
as
what
the
constitution
says
about
the
limits
of
personal
jurisdiction,
like,
like
mr
keane
said
earlier,
it
would
have
to
do
with
the
degree
of
contacts
that
the
business
has
with
the
state.
E
So,
for
example,
if
there
was
an
online,
only
business
that
was
specifically
targeting
nevada
residents
for
some
sort
of
product
or
service
right,
like
their
their
they're
marketing
to
nevada
residents
in
a
very
specific
way
they
are
are,
are
specifically
going
after
that
market.
You
know,
I
think
that
there's
a
stronger
case
there
for
why
an
out-of-state
business
in
that
circumstance
would
have
minimum
contacts
with
the
state.
But
again
I
I'm
not
an
expert
in
nevada
law,
so
take
it
with
a
grain
of
salt,
and
I
I
apologize.
A
We
can
leave
it
there
because
I
want
to
get
to
something
else.
I
really
need
to.
I
got
to
go
to
another
place
so
so
immediately
when
I
read
this
bill
like
the
first
time-
and
I
read
it
like
a
month
ago
and
then
I
re-read
and
then
I
was
just
like
wait
a
minute
because
and
I'm
gonna
take
you
to
a
tangential
place,
because-
and
I
mean
that
literally
so
when
I
was
thinking
about
this
case-
and
I
immediately
triggered
into
wayfair
right
and
I'm
not
having
a
way
fair
discussion.
A
But
when
you
read
wayfarer
around
commerce
clause,
there
is
a
very
distinct
argument
outside
of
wayfarer
outside
of
physical
presence
outside
of
there.
But
there's
there's
a
there
is
a
there's.
This
conversation
that
they
had
in
that
case
about
something
a
little
bit
more
than
physical
nexus.
They
talked
about
market
competition.
They
talked
about
market
distortion.
A
They
talked
about
a
lot
of
different
things
where
that
in
the
in
the
fine
lane
of
which
it
was
dealing
with
the
commerce
clause,
you're
touching
on
a
whole
other,
I
would
say:
market
competition
and
market
activity.
That
has
not
been
fully
fully
legit.
Well,
I
won't,
I
won't
even
say
it's
been
fully
legislated.
It
hasn't
been
fully
legislated,
nor
has
it
been
brought
through
the
courts
in
a
way
for
us
to
really
understand
how
this
impacts
the
commerce
clause,
and
so
I
really
want
you
to
talk
to
me
about
I
am
in
georgia.
A
I
have
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
something
that's
going
on
in
in
vegas,
which
is
going
on
now,
and
I
feel
that
I
was
discriminated
against,
but
the
online
establishment
does
not
necessarily
have
a
physical
or
principal
place
of
business
that
exists
in
nevada,
but
they
are
doing
activity
here.
So
how?
How
does
that
work
when
they
start
to
argue
that
you're
infringing
upon
me
and
this
this
plaintiff
has
no
real
relationship
to
my
business.
They
encountered
it
once
or
twice
and
now
they're
claiming
public,
accommodations
and
discriminatory
behavior.
E
I
think
david
bray
for
the
record.
So
if,
if
I
understand
your
your
the
hypothetical
the
the
the
plant
fears
in
georgia,
they
interact
with
an
online
only
business
that
is
operating
in
in
las
vegas,
but
the
business
itself
is
not
based
in
nevada
right
trying
to
use
this
law.
E
You
know
I,
I
think
that
that's
a
situation
where
the
exact
facts
would
be
very
important
and
the
the
scope
of
nevada's
personal
jurisdiction
law,
which
would
would
really
come
into
play
and
that's
something
I
I'm
unfortunately
not
an
expert
on.
I
think,
though,
that
you
know
that's
that's
a
a
question
that
is
sort
of
you
know
it's
more
of
a
jurisdictional
question.
E
Apart
from
this
bill,
I
I
can
only
speculate
on
on
how
nevada
courts
would
interpret
that,
and
you
know
I
I
don't
want
to
you
know,
go
out
on
a
limb
on
an
area.
I'm
not
expert
in.
A
A
H
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair.
As
you
were
talking
a
couple,
other
things
came
up
and
I
was
just
wondering
under
section
1
line
12.
It
talks
about
online
establishment
means
a
business
whether
or
not
conducted
for
a
profit,
and
I
was
kind
of
curious
whether
or
not
conducted
for
a
profit.
Would
this
then
mean
there
are
some
online
entities
that
do
genealogy
and
things
of
that
nature.
D
I
might
need
a
little
bit
of
additional
clarification
on
your
question,
but
I
will
speak
broadly
to
the
first
part
of
it,
which
is
that
already
a
non-profit
entity
that
offers
goods
or
services
broadly
to
the
community,
physic
from
a
physical
location,
already
falls
within
our
public
accommodations
law.
So
the
the
goal
was
to
mirror
that
in
the
expansion
into
the
the
digital
realm.
H
All
right,
I
appreciate
that
I
guess
I'm
just
concerned
I'll
have
to
look
into
that
a
little
bit
further,
because
again,
some
entities
out
there
do
a
very
large
genealogy
type
programs
that
help
track
family
heritage
and
they
may
not
necessarily
agree
with
same-sex
marriages
and
do
they
currently
track
those
or
not,
or
do
they
show
up
within
those
type
of
programs,
and
then
would
this
mean
they
would
have
to?
And
I
guess
that's
my
concern,
I
guess
I'll
have
to
take
that
offline.
Thank
you.
A
D
D
So
essentially
what
this
is
is
you
know
this
is
particularly
replies
to
some
of
the
entities
within
resorts
that
are
clearly
covered
within
public
accommodations
law
and
so
we're
trying
to
describe
places
that
are
located
within
places.
You
know
there
there
can't
be
any
barriers
to
people
accessing
those.
So
a
lot
of
the
the
new
language
in
there
is
just
clarifying
that
to
be
to
maintain
its
original
intent
for
physical
location
as
we're
adding
online
entities
into
this
statute
into
651.
A
D
D
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
Senator
pickard.
F
Thank
you,
madam
by
sir,
and
this
discussion
has
been
really
interesting
because
I,
like
senator
neil,
I
I
do
frequently
go
back
to
law
school
when
some
of
these
things
come
up
and
the
discussion
brought
up
the
masterpiece
cake
shop
case
in
my
mind,
and
I
recognized
that
that
was
actually
decided
on
an
administrative
law
principle.
F
But
the
dicta
was
pretty
heavy
and,
as
I
recall,
it
was
justice
kennedy
that
wrote
the
opinion
and
he
pointed
out
the
that,
and
that
was
where
it
was
an
actual
public
accommodation.
It
was
a
brick
and
mortar
shop,
but
they
preserved
for
the
individual,
the
right
to
essentially
or
he
left
open
the
door
for
the
individual
to
decide
who
his
customers
ultimately
would
be.
F
And
so,
as
I
look
at
this,
this
looks
like
it's
an
attempt
to
kind
of
clarify
a
position
with
respect
to
the
dicta
in
in
the
masterpiece
case.
Wouldn't
this
further
erode
the
the
individual's
right
to
choose
their
customer
and
I'm
thinking
that
the
discussion
was
about
the
photographer,
and
this
is
what
triggered
in
my
mind
the
masterpiece
cake
shop
case.
F
Wouldn't
this
then
tell
the
individual
who
didn't
have
a
brick
and
mortar
operation
who
maybe
to
use
the
the
idea
of
maybe
he's
a
he
or
she,
the
photographer
is
a
pastor
or
a
someone
who's
active
in
their
church
who,
for
whatever
reason,
I
don't
know
any
churches
now
that
take
this
position,
but
they
say
you
know
no.
F
We
can't
condone
same-sex
marriage
just
to
stay
within
the
cake
shop
case.
It
seems
to
me
that
masterpiece
stood
for
the
idea
that
the
person
could
choose
their
customer.
Wouldn't
this
work
against
that
that
now
that
individual
he
doesn't
have-
or
she
doesn't
have
a
physical
presence,
but
now
she
no
longer
can
make
that
determination.
D
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
howard
watts
for
the
record.
Just
going
back
to
some
of
the
discussion.
That's
already
been
had
that
folks
do
have
the
right
to
choose
their
customers,
however,
when
they
do
that
in
a
discriminatory
fashion,
state
public,
accommodations
laws
can
step
in
and
so
not
being
an
expert
on
the
the
nuances
of
that
decision.
D
My
understanding
is
if
a
bakery
was
generally
open
to
the
public
here
in
the
state
of
nevada,
operated
from
a
brick
and
mortar
location
and
clearly
refuse
to
provide
service
based
on
one
of
those
protected
characteristics,
that's
a
violation
of
existing
state
law.
Today.
What
we're
seeking
to
clarify
is
that
if
those
same
services
are
being
offered
through
a
website
only
and
that
same
act
of
discrimination
occurs
that
our
non-discrimination
laws
would
apply
there
as
well.
D
So
you
know,
I
believe
that
there
is
a
balance
between
the
ability
to
choose
one's
customers
and
the
responsibility
to
be
non-discriminatory
in
one's
activities,
and
that's
really
what
this
bill
is
is
seeking
to
address
so.
B
B
G
G
In
addition,
plaintiffs
who,
as
I've
already
been
pointed
out,
would
have
the
burden,
would
have
the
choice
of
law
of
where
to
bring
the
suit.
Under
these
circumstances,.
G
And
then,
as
has
already
been
pointed
out,
title
three
of
the
americans
with
disabilities
act
as
amended
in
2008,
already
covers
this
issue.
But
then
we
do
have
a
similar
framework.
G
In
terms
of
anti-discrimination,
so
this
is
just
expanding
that
to
ensure
that
folks
have
equal
rights
to
access
businesses
as
their
peers
and
then
just
to
address.
One
last
point:
the
reasonable
accommodation
theory
that
was
brought
up
typically
applies
to
title
one:
employment
issues.
Would
that
meant
last
year?
Thank
you
and
I
yield.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
So
I
forgot
to
bring
up
so
we're
going
to
do
two
minutes
each
person,
so
the
next
person
in
support.
B
K
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Anyone
else
in
support
bps.
B
If
you
recently
just
joined
us,
we
are
currently
still
in
support
of
ab207.
If
you
would
like
to
testify
and
support,
please
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue.
B
K
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
committee,
this
is
janine
hanson
state,
chairman
of
the
independent
american
party.
We
oppose
ab207,
which
limits
free
speech
and
assembly
on
the
internet,
making
private
online
discussion
forums
with
more
than
a
thousand
participants
subject
to
the
public
accommodations
law,
including
those
which
are
not
for
profit
ab207.
K
Why
is
the
government
trying
to
regulate
private
online
discussion
forums,
interfering
with
the
god-given
constitutionally
protected
exercise
of
free
speech
and
assembly
where,
in
the
u.s
constitution
or
the
nevada
constitution,
article
1,
sections,
9
and
10?
Is
there
a
limit
on
the
number
of
people
as
in
this
bill
1000?
Who
can
exercise
free
speech
or
assembly?
K
When
will
this
number
be
moved
to
a
hundred
or
can
how
will
this
affect
private
churches
which
have
online
religious
services
and
discussions,
discussion,
forums
and
bible
studies
of
more
than
a
thousand
people
and
mel
may
sell
bibles
during
the
emergency?
Many
churches,
religious
organizations
and
other
groups
met
online
with
many
having
more
than
a
thousand
participants.
K
How
will
this
affect
other
religious
affiliated
organizations
which
may
also
sell
religious
items?
How
will
this
affect
political,
patriotic
organizations
who
may
join
together
to
discuss
issues
and
offer
bumper
stickers
for
sale?
Is
the
government
now
planning
to
regulate
free
speech
and
assembly
if
more
than
a
thousand
people
participate?
How
is
this
government
overreach
to
be
enforced?
B
Yes,
vice
chair
caller
with
the
last
three
digits
of
379.
Please
slowly
spell
and
state
your
name
for
the
record.
You
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin.
G
I
have
concerns
that
the
government
regulation
of
large
online
not
for
profit
discussion
groups,
could
place
limits
on
what
is
discussed
on
these
forums
and
who
those
running
those
forms
wish
to
invite
to
participate.
It
may
also
affect
nonprofit
groups
fundraising
activities.
Now,
if
we.
M
G
G
B
Yes,
vice
chair
caller
with
the
last
three
digits
of
616..
Please
slowly
spell
and
state
your
name
for
the
record.
You
have
two
minutes.
It
may
begin.
K
Karen
england
k-a-r-e-n-e-n-g-l-a-n-d
with
nevada
family
alliance
and
I'm
calling
to
oppose
ab207,
it
is
a
clear
violation
of
the
first
amendment.
The
scope
and
places
included
in
the
definition
of
online
establishment
is
extremely
broad
and
truly
unprecedented
under
ab-207,
any
for-profit
or
non-profit
organization
that
merely
offers
goods
or
services
to
a
person
in
nevada
is
subject
to
the
law.
It
doesn't
require
a
sale
being
involved.
Thus,
a
jewish
graphic
designer
in
new
york,
who
has
a
website,
could
be
punished
under
nevada
law
if
the
designer
refused
to
create
an
anti-semitic
design.
K
Even
a
retailer
overseas
in
china
or
india
could
be
subject
to
this
broad
definition
of
online
establishment.
8207
seeks
to
broadly
extend
the
reach
of
its
regulations
to
every
corner
of
the
country
and
will
significantly
impact
first
amendment
rights
of
countless
americans
in
other
states.
I
urge
a
no
vote
on
207.
B
K
K
The
one
thing
that
we
do
see
is
that
our
liberties
are
being
eroded
more
and
more
every
single
day,
I'm
directing
my
comments
to
section
two
of
this
bill
quote
without
freedom
of
thought.
There
can
be
no
such
thing
as
wisdom
and
no
such
thing
as
public
liberty
without
freedom
of
speech,
unquote
ben
franklin's
letter
printed
in
the
new
england
current
july,
nine,
seventeen
twenty
two
in
this
section
there's
a
thousand
participants
were
given
as
a
threshold.
K
Excuse
me,
I
wonder
how
long
it
will
take
for
that
threshold
to
be
reduced
down
to
less
than
a
hundred.
How
will
this
section
be
implemented
and
how
will
the
state
know
if
there
are
a
thousand
participants
or
not?
Will
the
state
be
working
with
big
tech?
K
K
We
should
be
very
careful,
I'm
not
really
sure
that
we
would
be
careful
with
section
two
of
this
bill
quote
once
a
government
is
committed
to
the
principle
of
silencing
the
voice
of
opposition.
It
has
only
one
way
to
go,
and
that
is
down
the
path
of
increasingly
repressive
measures
until
it
becomes
a
source
of
terror
to
all
its
citizens
and
creates
a
country
where
everyone
lives
in
fear.
Unquote.
A
Thank
you.
Anyone
in
neutral
for
ab207.
B
A
E
E
E
I
appreciate
y'all
considering
the
really
important
issue
and
and
thank
you
very
much.
L
Ab190
would
allow
persons
who
need
to
take
time
off
to
care
for
their
loved
ones
to
use
the
sick
leave
they've
already
accumulated
the
use
of
sick
leave,
for
this
purpose
would
be
to
assist
a
immediate
family
member
with
a
medical
appointment
or
other
authorized.
Medical
need.
The
same
conditions
that
apply
to
the
employee
when
taking
such
leave
would
apply
to
these
with
family.
If
a
family
has
a
sick
leave,
has
a
sickness.
L
L
Ab-190
program
would
apply
to
all
employers
who
have
sick
leave,
and
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
there
is
a
trend
right
now
that
is
moving
to
plo
personal
leave.
So
you
can
basically
take
time
off
for
any
reason,
if
you
need
a
mental
health
day,
I
think
these
are
actually.
The
ab190
is
specifically
for
companies
that
have
a
sick
leave
policy.
L
So
I've
sort
of
heard
every
argument
and
one
of
the
one
of
the
things
that
people
have
said
to
me
is
that
they
sometimes
find
themselves
in
a
position
where
they
have
to
lie
to
their
employer
and
act
like
they're
sick,
because
their
mother
has
an
appointment
or
something
and
where,
if
you
were
allowed
to
do
this,
you
could
say:
listen,
I'm
going
to
take
an
extra
hour
on
my
lunch,
so
I
can
take
my
mom
to
the
doctor's
appointment
and
I'll
be
back
in
the
afternoon
and
don't
have
to
like
you
know,
you
know
cough
on
the
phone
and
say
I'm
sick.
L
L
Another
important
impact
to
this
measure
is
for
our
senior
population
once
again,
according
to
aarp
than
in
the
national
conference
of
state
legislatures.
There
are
ten
000
baby
boomers
that
turn
65
every
day
and
each
person
has
about
a
70
chance
of
needing
some
type
of
support
or
long-term
care
in
their
remaining
years.
The
bulk
of
the
care
that
is
provided
is
by
unpaid,
family
caregivers,
and
it's
been
found
that
family
caregivers
help
seniors
to
remain
independent.
L
I
know
in
2017
I
was
an
unpaid
caregiver
for
my
husband
who
was
in
a
coma
in
the
hospital
for
three
weeks
and
then
needed
caregiving
at
home
after
rehab
for
several
months
after
that,
so
I
was
very
lucky
that
my
boss,
at
the
time,
was
very
worked
with
me,
a
lot
to
see
how
we
she
could
accommodate
me.
But
not
everybody
has
that
opportunity,
and
so
that's
why
I
thought
this
bill
was
so
important.
L
So
I
will
of
course
remain
here
for
questions,
but
I
do
have
a
couple
folks
who
are
on.
I
have
glenn
fuchs
from
aarp
he's
the
national
senior
legislative
representative,
and
I
think
you
all
know,
barry
gold
so
who
needs
no
introduction.
So
with
that
and
your
permission,
madam
vice
chair,
I'll
turn
it
over
to
glenn
fuchs.
Thank
you.
N
Good
morning,
madam
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
glenn
fuchs
and
I'm
the
director
of
health
care
access
and
affordability
with
aarp's
government
affairs
department
in
washington
dc.
I
focus
on
health
and
family
caregiving
issues.
Thank
you
to
assemblywoman
bill
gray
axelrod
for
inviting
me
to
join
you
virtually
to
discuss.
Ab190
bills
like
ab190,
are
part
of
a
larger
trend
of
states
recognizing
the
tremendous
work
of
family,
caregivers
and
better
supporting
them.
Since
2014
over
500
family
caregiver,
focused
laws
have
been
enacted
in
all
50
states.
N
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
that
basis.
In
addition,
another
13
states
that
have
state
paid
leave
requirements
allow
for
that
leave
to
be
used
for
family
caregiving
purposes.
N
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
has
has
already
already
described,
and
I
will
point
out
where
those
items
are
in
the
bill.
Thankfully,
for
all
of
us,
ab-90
is
pretty
straightforward
section.
One
has.
N
Section
one
has
seven
parts.
The
first
part
requires
that
if
a
private
employer
provides
employees
with
either
paid
or
unpaid
sick
leave
benefits
that
the
employee
be
allowed
to
use
that
sick
leave
to
care
for
the
illness
or
medical
need
of
an
immediate
family
member,
in
addition
to
the
employee's
own
illness.
N
N
N
There
are
no
potential
hipaa
issues
here,
because
if
the
employer
does
choose
to
require
a
doctor's
note,
one
can
be
provided
with
the
consent
of
the
sick,
family,
member
and
I'll
point
out.
This
is
exactly
how
it
works.
Currently,
when
an
imp,
when
an
employee
takes
fmla
lead
part,
two
allows
an
employer
to
limit
the
amount
of
an
employee's
stick
leave
that
can
be
taken
to
assist
a
family
member
but
provides
that
the
employee
should
should
be
allowed
to
use
at
least
half
of
their
yearly
sick
leave
amount
for
family
medical
purposes.
N
Essentially,
this
bill
is
meant
to
be
a
floor
and
not
a
ceiling
on
employee
sick
leave
rights
in
specific.
This
part
mentions
that
this
bill
will
not
extend
leave
available
under
the
federal
family
and
medical
leave
act.
How
employers
provide
and
treat
fmla
is
not
touched
by
this
bill.
Part
five
prohibits
an
employer
from
retaliating
against
an
employee
for
using
existing
leave.
As
allowed
by
this
bill,
part
6
states
that
this
bill
does
not
apply
to
the
extent
that
it
is
prohibited
by
federal
law.
N
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
illinois
and
the
new
mexico
bills
that
passed
in
recent
years.
Part
six
also
excludes
employees
who
are
covered
under
a
valid
collective
bargaining
agreement.
So
this
doesn't
apply
to
them.
N
It's
my
understanding
again
that
these
sections
simply
put
this
bill
on
equal
footing
as
other
wage
and
employment
laws
in
the
nevada
code
when
it
comes
to
enforcement,
and-
and
with
that,
with
your
permission,
madam
vice
chair
I'll
turn
it
over.
To
my
colleague,
barry
gold,
the
associate
state
director
for
advocacy
for
aarp
nevada,
who
will
discuss
what
ab190
would
mean
for
working
caregivers
in
the
state.
Okay,.
C
Thank
you
good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
for
the
record.
My
name
is:
barry
gold.
I'm
the
director
of
government
relations
for
aarp
nevada,
a
very
famous
founder
of
a
nationally
known
caregiving
institute,
has
said:
there's
four
kinds
of
people:
there's
those
who
are
caregivers,
those
who
have
been
caregivers,
those
who
will
be
caregivers
and
those
who
will
need
a
caregiver.
C
That's
what
defines
humanity
we
take
care
of
each
other.
That's
what
we
do.
People
who
take
care
of
each
other
is
just
the
natural
humane
thing
to
do,
and
it
really
saves
the
state
a
lot
of
money,
as
we
heard
before
it
is
the
primary
source
of
care
and
people
would
rather
stay
home
being
taken
care
of
than
to
go
in
an
institution.
So
what
I
want
to
mention
is
just
a
few
statistics.
C
Very
briefly:
aarp
has
this
caregiving,
which
I
know
you
can't
see
that
a
report
that
came
out
in
2020
we
have
studied
caregiving
extensively
and
you've
heard
some
of
those
ideas
already
so
you've
heard
that
60
of
caregivers
still
are
working
full
or
part-time
and
how
many
people
there
are.
We
know
that
older
workers,
especially
older
women,
are
most
likely
to
have
these
caregiving
responsibilities
and
they're
an
increasing
part
of
the
workforce,
because
they
now
account
for
a
more
significant
portion
of
their
family's
income.
Their
jobs
and
security
are
even
more
important
than
before.
C
We've
always
known
that
more
women
are
caregivers
than
men.
It's
about
60
percent
of
them
are
women,
lost
income
and
benefits
on
average
for
family
caregivers
over
50,
due
to
providing
caregiving
is
about
303
thousand
dollars
over
the
course
of
the
lifetime,
and
it's
up
to
324
000.
When
you
look
at
just
women
I
bill.
Excuse
me:
assemblywoman,
bilbray
axelrod
had
mentioned
that
more
companies
are
moving
towards
just
a
general
paid
leave,
and
that
may
be
true.
However,
sick
leave
is
not
going
away.
C
The
aarp
research
showed
that
in
2020,
58
of
businesses
still
give
paid
sick
leave
and
that's
actually
increased
up
from
only
that's
increased,
only
fifth
from
50
percent
in
2015,
so
more
companies
are
also
giving
some
kind
of
a
paid
sick
leave.
C
C
Some
people
have
asked
well
what
happens
if
these
caregivers
accuse
abuse
their
paid,
sick,
leave
and
say
they're
caring
for
someone,
and
then
you
see
them
on
facebook
at
the
lake
or
something
well.
The
same
provisions
apply
is
if
they
were
using
the
sick
leave
for
themselves.
The
same
provisions
that
you
can
do
if
he
abused
sick
leave,
saying
they're,
sick
or
someone
else.
It's
really
about
so
people
as
the
assembly
woman
said,
don't
have
to
go
I'm
sick
today
and
I
can't
come
in
it's
having
them
tell
the
truth
and
be
honest.
C
What
they
found
out
is
caregivers.
Employees
are
much
more
productive
and
much
better
workers
if
there's
caregiver
friendly
benefits
in
a
corporation.
So
that's
what
I
kind
of
really
wanted
to
talk
about.
I
wanted
to
also
say
that
many
businesses
are
already
doing
the
right
thing.
Many
businesses
are
already
letting
people
have
this
humane
use
of
their
sick
leave.
However,
many
of
them
are
not
doing
that.
So
really.
C
What
we're
just
trying
to
do
is
to
make
sure
that
all
the
businesses
so
nevada
caregivers,
who
deserve
this
flexibility
to
care
for
their
loved
ones
without
having
to
sacrifice
for
their
financial
security
of
their
families,
so
we're
really
just
asking
for
a
humane
use
of
sick
leave,
and
with
that
we'll
open
it
to
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Someone
senator
picker.
F
That's
okay,
a
silly
woman.
I
I
think
we
both
graduated,
but
thank
you
I
I
I
I
had
a
kind
of
a
basic
question
coming
in,
but
mr
fuchs,
you
raised
an
interest
or
you
made
an
interesting
statement
to
me
and
that
was
that
adjustments
to
existing
state
laws
aren't
necessary.
F
We
just
adjusted
this
state
law
last
session
and
so
clearly
we
think
at
least
this
one
is
necessary,
but
you
know
we
passed
in
2019
a
requirement
that
all
businesses-
and
I
don't
remember
if
there's
a
population
cap
to
that
in
608-
I
forget
the
the
the
section.
But
now
all
employers
have
to
raise
or
provide
a
paid
leave
at
a
certain
amount
per
hour
worked
with
that
in
mind.
F
This
bill
seems
to
and
I'm
not
necessarily
antagonistic
to
the
thought,
but
this
bill
seems
to
expand
the
fmla
leave.
That
is
unpaid
leave
to
now
the
same
requirements
in
state
law
for
paid
leave,
and
that
causes
me
a
little
concern
because,
although
in
in
my
firm,
we
don't
have
a
problem
with
this,
because
we
have
we
already
pretty
much
do
this,
but
in
in
those
particularly
larger
employers,
where
you
have
a
fair
amount
of
turnover.
F
F
They
take
that
doctor's
note,
and
now
it's
still
covered
by
hipaa
they're
not
allowed
to
disseminate
that
information,
but
what
what
ultimately
is
going
to
be
required
of
employers
when
it
comes
to
record
keeping
and
and
and
privacy
rights,
particularly
if
they're
recording
the
reasons
in
order
to
apply,
as
was
just
mentioned
by
mr
gold,
that
the
existing
rules
regarding
sanctions
for
dishonesty
are
still
in
place?
How
does
this
affect
the
employer's
requirements
and
responsibilities
when
it
comes
to
record
keeping.
L
Shannon
bill
very
actually
for
the
record,
so
there
are
a
few
things
that
I'd
like
to
sort
of
unpack.
From
that
question
and
and
part
of
the
second
part
of
your
question,
I
will
turn
over
to
glenseeks,
but
I
did
want
to
reference
the
bill
that
was
passed
in
the
last
session
and
that
was
for
employers
that
employ
over
50
employees
and
it
was
making
it
a
personal
time
off,
which
I
talked
about
before,
which
means
that
you
could
take
it
because
you
want
to
you,
know,
netflix
and
chill
all
day.
That's
fine!
L
You
need
a
mental
health
date.
That's
personal
time
off.
This
is
actually
for
actually,
but
I
believe
in
mr
gold
can
and
verify
this,
but
I
believe
it's
something
like
75
percent
of
businesses
in
nevada
are
under
50
employees,
so
they
were
not
covered
by
the
bill
in
the
last
session.
So
I
did
want
to
put
that
on
the
record
and
then
I
will
turn
it
over
to
mr
fuchs,
because
I
do
think
that
there's
some
clarification
that
that
needs
to
as
far
as
hipaa
fmla
and
what
ab190
does.
N
Sure
thank
you,
glenn
fuchs,
for
the
record,
madam
chair
to
you
and
through
you
in
response
to
senator
pickard's
question.
N
So
regarding
hipaa,
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
just
to
verify
the
employee's
time
off.
It
doesn't
even
necessarily
need
to
have
any
more
detail
than
that
than
just
the
the
doctor
verifying
that
fact.
N
Yes,
it
would
be
an
extra
step,
but
the
employer
does
not
have
to
require
this.
If
they
do.
The
employee
would
just
need
to
understand
that
this
kind
of
documentation
is
going
to
be
required
and,
as
was
mentioned-
and
this
is
how
it
already
works
when
an
employee
takes
long-term
leave
under
federal
fmla.
N
As
I
understand
it,
if
an
employee
takes
fmla
leave
to
care
for
an
ill
family
member,
they
need
to
submit
a
medical
certification
to
the
employer,
and
that
includes
the
health
and
information
of
the
family
member,
again
very,
very
basic,
just
that
it's
certified
as
part
of
that
process.
The
ill
family
member
authorizes
their
health
provider
to
release
the
necessary
information,
and
so
that
the
process
would
be
similar.
Here
and
again.
I
I
don't
want
to
lose
sight
of
the
fact
that
we're
talking
about
family
members
here,
family
members
helping
each
other
out.
N
So
it's
really
hard
to
imagine,
too,
that
it's
going
to
come
up
very
often
that
the
ill
family
member
isn't
willing
to
release
some
very
basic,
necessary
information
so
that
their
family
member,
the
employee,
can
can
help
them
while
they're
sick,
and
even
if
that
were
the
case,
employers
could
always
adjust
their
policies
to
account
for
that
and
take
that
out.
C
Madam
chair
for
the
record,
barry
gold
yeah.
I
can't
remember
the
exact
figure
figure
for
the
number
of
businesses
that
were
under
50
employees,
but
I
know
it
was
more
than
70..
I
can't
remember
it
was
72
percent
or
78,
so
the
vast
majority
of
businesses
in
our
state
are
less
than
50
employees,
which
that
paid
time
off
bill
that
was
passed
last
session
would
not
apply.
F
F
F
I
recognize
and-
and
I
agree
that
under
fmla
the
current
practices
you
get,
that
medical
necessity
certified
certification
and
but
that
doesn't
usually
at
least
the
ones
I've
seen
haven't,
included
a
release
for
dissemination,
so
that
can
be
used
and
as
proof
it
stays
private
in
the
file.
But
now,
if,
if
that
were
ever
used
as
part
of
a
a
disciplinary
action,
if
someone
weren't
telling
the
truth,
that
would
be
a
technical
violation
of
hipaa.
F
But
you
say
more
than
a
dozen
states
have
implemented
this
rule.
Have
we
seen
any
litigation
on
this
point
in
any
of
those
12
states
where
hipaa
was
involved
or
the
record
keeping
was
considered
inappropriate
or
use
of
the
records
rather
was
considered
inappropriate
to
your
knowledge.
N
N
Again,
as
I
mentioned,
the
fact
that
these
are
taking
place
within
families
is
probably
going
to
nip
99
of
those
problems
right
in
the
bud
right
and
so
again
the
the
certification,
the
medical
certification
that
requires
some
kind
of
a
doctor's
signature
it
would,
it
would
simply
all
you
would
need
to
add.
There
is
another
line
for
a
signature
for
the
family
member
to
authorize
this
type
of
a
release.
N
F
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Senator
lange.
O
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair.
Thank
you
for
being
here
assemblywoman.
My
question
is
about
the
50
full
50
employees
would
that
be
50,
full-time
employees
or
50
bodies?
How
would
you
define
that.
L
Thank
you
for
the
question
the
that
was
in
reference
to
the
bill
that
we
passed
last
session.
So
this
does
not
have
a
number.
This
is
for
all
businesses
in
nevada,
but
what
the
bill
did
last
session
was
create
a
pto.
So
if
you
have
over
50
employees,
you
do
not
have
a
sick
leave
policy.
You
have
a
pto
policy
per
the
bill
in
the
last
session,
so
this
is
trying
to
capture
so
it
it
will
be
businesses
under
50,
which
now
that
you
said
it.
Oh
shannon
bilbray
axelrod
for
the
record.
L
Sorry,
now
that
you
said
it,
it
was
78,
I'm
99
sure
so.
78
percent
of
businesses
in
nevada
have
under
50
employees
and
we're
not
captured
in
the
bill
from
last
session.
So.
O
So
then,
my
question
working
for
a
small
business
with
under
50
employees.
O
A
lot
of
small
businesses
have
just
enough
employees
to
be
able
to
run
their
day-to-day
and
really
can't
afford
to
have
anyone
gone
and-
and
you
know
they
managed,
they
don't
have
sick
leave
and
they
can
it's
hard
for
them
when
people
are
gone,
and
this
would
add
another
layer
that
would
impact
those
small
businesses.
So
I'm
wondering
how
you
see
that
working.
L
O
And
one
more
question,
please
and
then
just
one
more
follow-up
question
on
that,
so
for
businesses
that
do
have
sick
leave
policies
and
they're
using
it
for
under
this
bill
for
care
for
family
members,
but
then
they
have
their
own
sick
leave.
I
could
see
instances
where,
if
I
had
to
take
my
mother
to
the
doctor,
she
goes
fairly
regularly
and
I'd
miss
a
lot
of
days
and
then
people
end
up
exhausting
their
leave
on
their
family
and
then
you
never
know
when
you're
going
to
be
sick
and
then
there's
no
sick
day.
O
So
I'm
just
wondering
if
there
are
in
your
research.
If
there
were
states
that
limited
it
say,
a
person
gets
a
pool
of
sick
leave,
10
12
days
a
year.
Let's
just
theoretically
sing,
they
limit
the
amount
they
can
use
for
for
family
members
because
they
need
some
for
themselves.
In
case
they
get
sick.
L
Shannon
bilbray
oxford
for
the
record
that
is
in
this
bill.
You
can
only
use
half
of
the
time.
So
if
you
have
10
days
annually,
you
can
use
five
of
those
days,
but
I
think
what
you'll
see
is
a
more
productive
workforce,
because
this
now
allows
you
to
say
I'm
going
to
add
that
additional
hour
to
my
lunch
or
I'm
going
to
come
in
an
hour
late
because
of
this
instead
of
taking
the
full
the
full
day.
A
Thank
you
for
that
senator
scheible.
Thank
you.
J
J
Many
a
time
even
discussed
in
depth,
and
so
my
question
is
not
about
expanding
it
or
changing
it,
but
whether
every
company
would
be
limited
to
this
definition
or
whether
they
could
add
additional
people
in
their
definition
of
immediate
family.
The
reason
I
ask
is
that
the
relationship
I
don't
see
in
there
is
for
a
step
parent
in
law
which
might
sound
distant,
but
if
your
spouse's,
stepmother
or
stepfather
is
an
important
person
to
them,
you
may
end
up
wanting
to
try
to
help
that
person
out.
L
Shannon
bilberry
axelrod
for
the
record.
You
know
that's
so
funny
that
I
didn't
think
of
that,
because
my
husband
often
takes
my
father
to
his
doctor's
appointments.
Like
often
so
that's
exactly
what
that
would
be.
I
don't
know
if
legal
counsel
wants
to
I.
I
assume
that
this
is
the
narrow
scope.
This
is
the
floor,
but
shannon
bilbray
axelrod
did
I
say
that.
Thank
you.
I
I
This
is
just
saying
what
the
minimum
requirement
is
that
if
an
employer
offers
sick
time,
they
have
to
offer
at
least
half
of
it
for
family
sick
and
they
for
those
purposes
the
immediate
family
are
the
people
listed.
So
if
an
employer
wanted
to
minimize
their
obligation,
they
could
limit
the
employee
to
only
using
immediate
family
members
in
the
definition.
But
this
is
a
floor.
It's
not
limiting
an
employer
from
doing
more.
Thank
you.
C
Madam
madam
chair,
if
I
may,
for
the
record,
barry
gold,
we
also
included
in
their
foster
child,
and
that
was
really
important.
The
children's
action
alliance
had
reached
out
to
us
in
a
prior
session
and
said
that
is
a
really
important
addition
to
put
in
there,
because
foster
parents
all
sometimes
have
very
big
problems,
because
a
lot
of
them
are
caring
for
foster
children
that
have
serious
chronic
medical
conditions.
So
that's
why
you
see
foster
child
in
there
as
well.
J
A
B
B
B
G
Vice
chair
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
andrew
lee,
pilbert
last
name:
l
e,
p
e,
I
l
b
e
t
and
I
represent
the
combat
wounded
veterans
of
the
military
order,
the
purple
heart
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
the
65
000
disabled
american
veterans
in
the
state
of
nevada,
as
well
as
I
am
the
current
chair
of
the
united
veterans
legislative
council,
representing
250
000
veterans
in
our
state
and
500
000
nevadans.
When
you
count
their
family
members,
we
are
in
support
of
this
bill.
G
Ab190
with
that
said,
we
have
just
one
concern
the
fiscal
and
financial
impact
of
the
smaller
businesses
in
our
state
they're,
trying
to
retain
employees
and
they've
started
sick,
lead
programs,
those
10
to
20
and
30
employees.
G
B
K
K
The
pandemic
has
drawn
a
huge
bright
line
around
the
need
for
recognition
of
the
role
of
family
caregivers
as
family
members
felt
the
need
to
bring
their
loved
ones
home
due
to
concerns
about
facility
safety
or
have
needed
to
step
up
their
role,
because
the
fears
of
bringing
outside
caregivers
into
the
home
the
burden
on
families
has
been
huge.
This
bill
helps
provide
protections
to
employees
who
need
more
flexibility
on
how
they
can
use
their
sick
leave.
Thank
you
so
much
and
we
encourage
the
committee
to
pass.
K
B
B
I
G
Tom
mccoy,
mccoy
nevada,
chronic
care
collaborative
our
members
are
nevada
advocates
working
together
to
bridge
the
gaps
in
chronic
care.
One
of
those
gaps
is
caregiving,
representing
nevada
patients
with
chronic
diseases.
We
know
that
the
need
for
ongoing
or
even
short-term
caregiving
often
goes
unmet.
The
caregiver
sickly
bill
would
help
to
meet.
Those
unmet
needs
family,
caring
for
family
nevada,
chronic
care
collaborative
asked
the
senate
committee
on
commerce
and
labor
to
pass
ab190.
B
G
G
A
lot
has
been
said
about
the
paid
time
off
bill
that
was
passed
last
session,
and
while
it
doesn't
apply
to
those
employers
with
less
than
50
employees,
we
believe
this
is
a
good
step
in
the
right
direction
to
be
able
to
make
sure
our
employees
are
happy
healthy
and
taking
care
of
what
they
need
to
take
care
of.
We
think
it's
very
important
to
note
that
the
bill
does
not
require
sick
leave
to
be
offered.
G
The
bill
does
not
require
any
more
expenditures
from
a
business
than
they
are
already
comfortable
with,
and
we
believe
that
this
empowers
employees
and
employers
to
be
able
to
provide
the
right
mix
of
benefits
that
will
enable
their
businesses
to
grow
and
eventually
then
become
subject
to
the
larger
pto
bill.
With
that,
we
urge
your
support
of
assembly
bill
190,
and
we
thank
you
for
your
time.
B
K
Good
morning,
committee
members
and
madam
chair-
I'm
connie,
mcmullen
c-o-n-n-I-e
capital,
m-c
capital,
m-u-l-l-e-n
and
I'm
representing
my
business,
a
small
business
senior
spectrum
newspaper
and
I
very
much
am
support
of
ab190.
K
B
G
Good
morning,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
will
pregnant
with
battleborn
progress
w.
I
l,
l
p
like
peter
r
r-e-g-m-a-n.
We
support
ab-190
to
expand,
paid
sick
leave
to
employees
caring
for
ill
family
members.
This
bill
helps
family
members
provide
support
in
their
time
of
need,
whether
it's
taking
a
family
member
to
an
appointment
or
caring
for
them
directly.
Nevada
families
deserve
the
chance
to
care
for
their
family
members
denying
time
off.
G
These
circumstances
puts
the
family
member
in
need
of
help
at
risk,
but
also
the
well-being
of
the
employee
themselves,
who
can't
be
there
for
their
loved
one.
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
billy
axelrod,
for
bringing
the
school
forward,
and
we
urge
your
support.
B
K
Good
morning
my
name
is
marlene
lockhart
l-o-c-k-a-r-d
and
I'm
representing
the
retired
public
employees
of
nevada.
We
are
in
strong
support
of
ab190
and
thank
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
for
her
tenacious
pursuit
of
getting
this
important
legislation
passed
so
often
seniors
rely
completely
on
family
members
to
assist
them.
This
bill
does
not
ask
for
any
additional
time
off
or
new
benefit.
It
simply
provides
a
person
entitled
to
sick
leave
already
to
use
for
family
members.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
consideration.
B
K
Committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
katie
ryan,
k-a-t-I-e
r-y-a-n,
then
system,
director
of
nevada
government
relations
for
dignity,
health,
saint
rose
dominican,
I'm
here
today
in
support
of
av-190,
just
as
everyone
else
is
apparently,
and
I
wanted
to
quickly
thank
the
bill
sponsor
and
mr
gold
for
their
continued
work
on
this
issue.
Thank
you.
B
I
would
I'll
make
one
more
announcement:
yeah.
A
B
K
Good
morning
my
name
is
natalie:
eustis
n,
a
t,
a
l,
I
e
e.
U
s
t
I
c
e
and
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
nevadans
for
the
common
good.
We
support
ab190
in
the
past.
Ncg
has
supported
legislation
that
helps
seniors
stay
in
their
homes
longer,
which
is
what
seniors
prefer
and
it
saves
the
state
money
in
the
long
run.
Ab190
would
protect
caregivers
of
such
seniors
from
fear
of
losing
their
jobs
that
they
have
to
take
time
off
work
to
take
an
aging
relative
or
disabled
household
member
to
a
medical
appointment.
K
The
only
way
I
could
accompany
my
husband
to
this
important
appointment
was,
if
I
paid
the
substitute
myself,
my
husband
had
not
been
able
to
work
for
some
time,
and,
as
I
was,
the
only
wage
earner
in
my
family's
budget
was
very
tight.
However,
I
had
to
scrape
together
the
money
for
the
sub
ncg
supports
ab190,
because
it
allows
nevada
employees
to
use
their
earned
paid
time
off
to
care
for
their
loved
ones.
Thank
you.
B
B
G
Good
morning,
madame
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
paul
moratkin
m-o-r-a-d-k-h-a-n
with
the
vegas
chamber,
the
chamber
is
neutral,
is
neutral
to
ab190.
We
were
originally
opposed
this
bill
in
2019.
However,
we
do
not
have
issue
with
expansion.
The
sick
leave
definition
now,
as
many
of
our
employers
have
been
transitioning
to
a
paid
time
off
program,
because
the
greater
flexibility
offers
to
employees
with
a
with
adoption
of
senate
bill
312
in
2019.
G
B
One
more
vice
chair
caller
with
the
last
ridges
of
781.
Please
slowly
spell
and
state
your
name
for
the
record.
You
have
two
minutes.
It
may
begin.
K
Good
morning
matt,
madam
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
nick
vanderpool
v-a-n-d-e-r-p-o-e-l
with
capital
partners
on
behalf
of
the
reno
sparks
chamber
of
commerce.
I
echo
the
statement
from
my
colleague
mr
morakken
from
the
vegas
chamber,
and
I
give
kudos
to
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
on
working
very
diligently
on
this
issue.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
B
K
Good
morning,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
jennifer
richards.
I
hold
the
office
of
the
attorney
for
the
rights
of
older
persons
and
persons
with
a
disability
which
is
houses
in
the
aging
disability
services
division.
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
for
this
committee
some
salient
facts
from
the
elders
count
2021.
K
K
The
bill
does
not
create
paid
time
off
for
businesses
under
50
employees,
but
instead
provides
that
if
they
do
have
sick
leave,
those
employees
can
choose
to
use
that
time
to
provide
care.
Giving
this
bill
will
help
support
the
well-being
of
nevadans
and
help
older
adults
and
persons
with
disabilities
remain
in
their
homes.
A
A
C
Sheriff
I
made
very
very
very
briefly:
this
is
barry
gold
with
aarp.
If
I
may,
I've
worked
with
glenn
fuchs
for
the
last
10
years
on
health
issues.
If
you've
heard
me
testify,
it
is
most
likely
that
I
have
talked
to
him
on
these
bills.
I
have
to
tell
you
he
recently
got
a
huge
promotion.
In
fact,
starting
today
he
is
now
the
director
of
health
care
access
and
affordability
for
government
affairs
for
aarp
national
office,
and
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
it
has
been
a
pleasure
working
with
him.
A
A
J
Oh,
I
think
yeah
am
I
just
not
talking.
J
J
First,
the
first
issue
is
to
authorize
the
board
to
register,
inspect
and
regulate
chiropractic
practices
that
are
not
wholly
owned
by
a
nevada
licensed
chiropractic
physician
second,
to
harmonize
language
throughout
our
practice.
Act
to
use
the
current
and
modern
term
chiropractic
physician
and
replace
the
older
term
chiropractor.
J
Madam
chair,
that
was
a
brief
highlight
of
what
our
board
is
seeking.
Would
you
like
me
to
go
through
the
entire
section
by
section
or
be
available
for
questions.
A
J
A
I
know
I
do
okay,
so
let's
just
might
as
well
just
start
okay,
so
in
section
four
sub,
two
you're
establishing
the
written
policy
and
procedure
for
secure
storage
and
transfer
medical
records-
and
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
is-
has
has
this
been
a
problem
so
you're?
Why?
Why
are
you
inserting
this?
I
know
why
you're
inserting
it,
but
is
there
an
issue
where
people
have
not
been
properly
storing
the
records.
J
I
apologize
julie
strandberg
for
the
record
that
that's
particularly
addressing
registering
business
entity
entities
which
is
new,
for
this
will
be
new
language
for
us,
so
that
is
addressing
that
business
entities
have
to
provide
records
similar
to
it.
The
way
chiropractic
physicians
already
have
to
so.
A
J
A
I
know
there
was
another
section
I
had
a
question
on.
It
was
involving
the.
I
think.
It's
in
section
section,
six
sub
two,
no
it's
section
seven,
where
you're
talking
about
if
an
applicant
is
actively
engaged
in
the
practice
in
another
state,
and
so
I
really
wanted
to
can
you?
Can
you
explain
that
provision?
A
Because
this
is
an
affiliate
the
way
I've
read
the
bills
like
an
affiliate
business
right
and
then
you
have
an
applicant,
that's
outside
of
the
state
and
then
you're,
giving
the
10
years
immediate,
pre
proceeding
10
years
without
any
adverse
disciplinary
action
taken
against
them,
and
so
I'm
really
trying
to
understand
the
time
the
time
period
and
then
just
give
a
little
bit
more
explanation
on
the
section
and
application
sure.
J
So
people
who
graduated
let's
say
30
years
ago,
those
parts
three
and
four
were
not
available
by
the
national
board.
Our
existing
law
requires
those
parts
to
be
taken.
So
now
we're
trying
we're
reaching
out
to
those
folks
who
only
parts
one
and
two
were
available,
and
but
they've
been
practicing
for
several
years.
A
A
J
A
A
So
this
is
where
the
it's
you
have
section,
16
step,
two,
a
chiropractor
physician
may
recommend,
dispense
or
administer
any
drug
or
device
for
which
the
prescription
or
order
of
a
practitioner
is
not
required
by
federal
or
state
law.
I'm
not
I'm
not
clear
on
what
that
means,
because
when
I
read
the
whole
chapters
that
nothing
in
the
chapter
shall
be
construed
to
permit
a
chiropractor
physician
to
practice
medicine
except
for
authorized
by
subsection
two,
but
then
it
says
the
chiropractic
physician
may
recommend
or
order
not
required
for
federal
state
law.
A
Q
When
this
was
submitted,
we
tried
to
submit
it
with
the
words
over
the
counter
and
lcb
rightly
said
you
can't
have
that
term.
So
this
is
lcb
for
over
the
counter.
Okay
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
say
with
this
language,
chiropractors,
do
not
and
cannot
by
law,
prescribe,
administer
or
dispense
prescription
medications,
and
they
don't
want
that
authority.
We
don't
want
that
authority
through
this.
Q
This
is
attempting
to
say
that
over-the-counter
medications
can
be
recommended
or
sold
from
a
chiropractic
practice,
so
the
the
prescription
or
order
for
a
practitioner
not
required
by
federal
or
state
law,
is
simply
to
cover
both
scenarios.
Q
Most
law,
most
of
drug
law,
of
course,
is
covered
by
federal
law,
but
there
are
occasionally
in
state
law
products
that
are
recognized
by
the
state
of
nevada
that
might
not
be
recognized
by
the
fda,
and
so
this
would
allow
over-the-counter
products
that
are
recognized
by
the
state
that
might
not
be
recognized
by
the
federal
government.
A
A
What's
the
relationship
on
how
they
actually
purchase
these
items
and
then
put
them
up
for
sale
in
their
office,
I
mean
there's
a
whole
lot
in
that
section
and
our
current
is
this
currently
happening.
This
is
new.
This
is
new
right.
I
mean
I
it's
clearly
new,
but
I'm
wondering
if
someone
else
is
doing
this,
because
I
guess
when
I
get
and
I'm
going
to
use
this
example
when
I
go
to
the
eye
doctor,
I
don't
really
like
them
selling
me
anything
right.
A
I
just
want
to
go,
get
my
freaking
glasses
and
sometimes
they're
too
expensive,
and
so
I
go
somewhere
else
like
I
go
to
eyeglass
world.
So
if
I
know
I
can
go
to
walgreens
or
cvs
and
go
get
my
over
the
counter
medication,
why?
Why
would
I?
Why
would
the
chiropractic
physician
want
to
sell
me
these
items
in
their
office
and
then
who
is
who
is?
Who
is
having
the
conversation
with
me
about
the
drug
interaction?
A
Even
if
it's
over
the
counter-
because
there
can
be
right-
I
mean
we're
not
talking
about
just
you
just
giving
me
some.
What
is
that
ben
gay
and
I'm
not
minimizing
chiropractors,
but
I'm
just
saying
that's
not
what
we're
talking
about
it's
a
little
bit
more
than
that.
Q
Lewis,
ling
for
the
record
vice
chair
neil.
Actually,
that
is
what
we're
talking
about
what
they
sell
out
of
chiropractic
practices,
and
this
has
historically
been
the
practice-
have
been
dietary
supplements,
vitamins
they
don't
generally
tend
to
carry
or
sell.
Oh,
I
don't
know
your
advil
or
or
aspirin
those
they
just
tell
you
go
get
some
at
the
local
store.
Q
These
would
like
likely
be
and
continue
to
be
things
that
the
chiropractic
practice
wants
to
be
able
to
sell
directly
to
the
to
the
patient.
That
may
not
be
generally
available,
like
I
said,
like
some
of
their
vitamins
and
their
their
supplements.
Q
It
also
is
intended
to
reach,
and
that's
where
the
federal
or
state
law
comes
in
you
know
say:
nevada
allows
hemp,
oil,
for
example.
It
would
be
something
that
they
could
sell
out
of
their
practice,
rather
than
sending
them
off
somewhere
else
to
get
that
product.
So
that
is
the
intent
here.
They've
already
are
doing.
This
chiropractors
have
been
historically
recommending
or
selling
over-the-counter
medic
products
out
of
their
practices,
and
yes,
some
of
them
are
topical.
They
could
be
topical.
Okay,
you
know
pain,
patches
or
or
creams.
Ointments,
that's
already
been
occurring
all
right.
Q
They
already
know
they
can't
do
prescription
medications.
All
we
were
trying
to
do
with
this
is
to
the
board's
heard
my
lecture
a
thousand
times.
Okay,
when
I
represent
my
boards,
I
say
you
gotta
say
what
you
mean.
Okay,
and
this
is
our
chance.
We're
gonna
have
a
bill.
Let's
say
what
we
mean
and
if
we
mean
to
say
that
you
can
do
over-the-counter
medications,
let's
just
say
it:
let's
put
it
in
the
law
so
that
everybody
can
do
so
and
do
so
safely.
Q
Device
would
be
pillows
sleeping
aids.
You
know
that
that
they
sell
special
bed
pads
and
other
things
to
assist
patients
to
be
able
to
sleep
better
or
sleep
in
better
positioning,
for
example,
I
can
think
of
those
as
being
devices.
Those
are
non-prescription
items
that
the
the
doctor
may
carry.
I
can
think
of
a
doctor.
He
used
to
be
on
our
board,
who
sells
those
kinds
of
products
and
that's
something
he
believes
in
very
strongly
and
his
patients
believe
in
strongly.
So
it's
pillows
and
and
sleeping
devices
it
might
be.
Q
A
So
and
then
just
one
final
question
or
do
you
not
no
do
do
you
have
a
question?
Senator
lay
okay,
so
the
liability.
So
I
know
there's
no
liability
on
a
pillow
but
technically
when,
if
it's
in
your
possession
right
and
then
you
sell
it
to
me
and
it
doesn't
work
or
it's
defective,
what
then
happens
with
the
patient?
It's
they
go
back
and
get
a
refund
from
the
doctor.
Can
they
sue
the
doctor?
What's
what's
the
what's?
A
Q
Lewis,
ling
vice
chair
neal,
it
would
be
the
same.
I
mean
the
liability
would
be
for
the
decision
that
you've
made
okay.
If
you
recommend
a
particular
vitamin
or
you
recommend
a
a
particular,
I
don't
know
over
the
counter
analgesic
or
something
your
liability
is
going
to
be,
as
you
just
said
earlier,
you're
liable
for
assisting
the
patient
with
that
decision
and
what
you
tell
the
patient
about
how
to
take
it,
and
if
the
patient
takes
it
correctly,
but
it
causes
a
problem.
Q
That's
probably
going
to
be
with
the
manufacturer
that
problem,
not
the
doctor
aspirin,
for
example,
does
we
all
know
it
has
certain
side
effects
and
as
long
as
you've
warned
the
patient
about
the
side
effects
of
aspirin,
and
you
tell
them
to
take
some
aspirin,
I
think
you're
covered.
As
far
as
the
chiropractic
physician
is
concerned,
okay,.
O
Hi,
would
it
be
fair
to
say
that
a
lot
of
the
vitamins
that
you're
getting
from
a
chiropractor
are
more
on
the
wellness
side
of
the
spectrum.
Q
Okay,
lewis,
lange,
yes
senator
lang.
Yes,
many
chiropractors
again,
it's
long
been
part
of
the
practice
of
chiropractic,
as
defined
in
our
statutes
that
they
give
a
nutritive
advice.
So
a
lot
of
them
do
engage
in
wellness
practices
and-
and
that's
part
of
those
are
the
supplements
that
they
may
recommend
or
sell.
O
And
would
it
be
fair
to
say
that
those
supplements
aren't
necessarily
supplements
that
you
can
go
and
buy
like
at
your
pharmacy?
Their
specialty
supplements
they
may
be
available
online
in
certain
circumstances,
but
they're
more
specialty
supplements
for
particular
conditions
that
the
patient
might
have.
Q
Lewis,
lang
to
senator
lange,
yes,
but
of
course
again
there's
nothing
in
here
that
would
require
you
if
they
want
you
to
take
vitamin
d,
for
example,
to
help
with
your
bones,
you
can
go
down
to
your
grocery
store,
you
can
order
it
online
or
you
could
buy
it
from
them.
Okay,
there's
nothing
in
here
that
would
require
that
they
have
to
buy
it
from
the
chiropractic
physician.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Okay,
so
seeing
no
questions,
we
will
go
ahead
and
open
up
for
support
of
ab10
unless
you
guys
have
any
additional
comments.
Okay,
so
anyone
in
support
for
ab10
on
the
phone
lines,
bps.
B
B
By
share,
you
have
no
callers
in
opposition
at
this
time,
anyone
in
neutral,
if
you
would
like
to
testify
neutral
on
ab210,
please
press
star
9,
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
cube.
A
A
And
open
up
the
hearing
on
ab298
similarman
flores
is
on
his
way
down,
we'll
just
give
it
a
couple
of.
A
M
M
M
A
M
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair.
I
intend
to
first
walk
everybody
through
the
genesis
of
this
bill.
What
anecdotally
was
shared
with
me
and
then
I'd
like
to
walk
you
through
how?
I
believe
that
this
bill,
specifically
the
conceptual
amendment
on
nellis,
as
that's
what
we're
going
to
be
working
off
of
addresses
that
very
concern
that
I
was
addressed
or
that
was
presented
to
me
anecdotally
through
some
of
my
constituents
and
then.
M
Lastly,
madam
vice
chair,
I'd
like
to
hand
over
the
presentation
to
ms
romero,
who
is
a
incredibly
talented
attorney
with
the
legal
aid
center
of
southern
nevada,
who
will
walk
you
through
the
technical
aspects
of
this
bill
and
will
explain
more
in
depth
what
she
sees
on
a
daily
through
her
profession.
M
So
to
my
constituents
who
have
suffered
this
particular
issue
with
leases.
This
bill
is
for
you,
madam
vice
chair.
I've
had
on
numerous
occasions,
heard
of
incidences
where
particularly
members,
who
are
either
not
very
comfortable
reading
a
lot
of
technical
language
in
the
contract
and
also
individuals
who
have
language
barriers
who
struggle
with
contracts,
because
they
simply
do
not
speak
the
language
talk
about
instances
where
they
thought
they
were
purchasing
a
vehicle
and
later
down
the
road
learning
that
they
were,
in
fact
just
leasing
a
vehicle.
M
M
Afterwards,
I
had
an
opportunity
to
work
with
legal
aid
center
of
southern
nevada,
specifically
attorney
ms
romero,
who
then
went
on
to
explain
numerous
other
issues
that
we
have
when
it
comes
to
leasing
a
vehicle
in
the
state
of
nevada,
namely.
I
also
wanted
to
say
thank
you
to
all
the
stakeholders
who
worked
with
us,
because
they've
been
incredibly
helpful
in
ensuring
that
we're
going
after
bad
actors
and
that
we're
protecting
those
that
are
working
within
the
industry
fairly.
M
I
also
wanted
to
make
the
point
that
I
am
not
in
any
way
suggesting
that
it
is
the
majority
of
businesses
that
are
doing
this.
In
fact,
I
would
not
even
suggest
that
it's
more
than
40
percent,
it's
obviously
a
very
limited
amount
of
bad
actors
in
this
industry,
but
luckily
the
good
actors
were
willing
to
work
with
us
and
resolve
this
issue.
M
So
if
I
may
provides
some
context
and
just
overarching
background
when
one
purchases
a
car
here
in
the
state
of
nevada,
there
are
certain
built-in
terms
prescribed
in
the
sales
contract
that
are
not
only
helpful
to
consumers,
but
what
they
also
do.
Is
they
level
the
playing
field
amongst
the
actual
industry,
in
that
it
ensures
that
everybody's
working
under
the
same
umbrella
of
the
same
rules,
and
we
ensure
that
we
are
not
in
a
scenario
where
one
business
is
doing
one
practice
and
another
business
is
doing
another
levels,
a
playing
field
amongst
the
dealerships.
M
M
M
Right
now,
there's
currently
no
regulations
as
to
the
definition
of
default,
the
amount
of
fees
that
can
be
charged
or
even
what
happens
when
people
that
are
purchasing
a
car
in
months
and
years
later
down
the
road
realize
that
they're
actually
leasing
an
agreement.
They
don't
know
right.
We
don't
have
any
rules
in
place
presently
that
address
that
issue,
and
so
specifically
working
with
this
romero
and
with
the
stakeholders.
M
In
addition
to
that,
madam
vice
chair,
if
I
may
this
time
I'd
like
to
hand
over
the
presentation
to
ms
romero,
who
will
walk
you
through
the
conceptual
movement,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
working
off
of
that
conceptual
amendment
and
you'll
see
it
there.
As
a
proposed
amendment
for
assembly
bill
298
listed
under
april
27
2021,
I
want
to
make
sure
you're
looking
at
that
and
ms
romero
who's,
an
attorney
with
the
consumer
rights
project
at
the
legal
aid
center
center.
M
A
A
Okay,
so
go
ahead
and
walk
us
through
the
conceptual.
P
Thank
you
vice
chair
neil
good
morning,
vice
chair
neil
and
members
of
the
committee.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
help
present
here
today
for
the
record
and
as
assemblyman
flores
stated,
my
name
is
sophia
romero
and
I'm
a
staff
attorney
in
the
consumer
rights
project
at
the
late
center
of
southern
nevada.
Yes-
and
we
do
have
the
conceptual
amendment,
because
the
original
amendment
that
came
out
wasn't
quite
what
we
had
discussed
and
and
talked
about
with
stakeholders.
P
So
so
we
didn't
need
to
do
another
draft
on
that,
which
is
why
we
are
working
off
the
conceptual
movement.
That's
been
uploaded
before
I
get,
but
before
I
begin,
I
would
like
to
thank
assemblyman
florida
for
bringing
this
very
important
piece
of
legislation.
This
bill
will
be
a
much
needed
addition
to
nevada
law
and
solves
a
problem.
We
see
on
nearly
a
daily
basis,
as
we
know,
second,
to
buying
a
home
purchasing
a
vehicle
is
the
most
expensive
purchase
of
one's
life.
Well,
not
everyone
owns
a
home.
P
Most
everyone,
especially
here
in
nevada,
has
to
buy
a
car
in
order
to
get
to
work.
The
grocery
store
the
doctor
get
their
kids
to
school,
just
essentially
live
life
day
to
day
because
of
the
volume
of
vehicle
sales
and
repairs
in
the
state.
Not
a
day
goes
by
where
somebody
doesn't
reach
out
to
us
seeking
assistance
on
a
car
issue.
P
We
see,
we
see
everything
from
people
being
repossessed
when
they
are
less
than
24
hours
late
with
a
payment,
sometimes
despite
assurances
that
they
wouldn't
be
repossessed
until
a
day
until
a
later
date,
so
they
could
have
a
chance
to
pay
to
being
charged
upwards
of
25
a
day
in
late
fees
and
a
month
amount
that
tends
to
increase
with
time
and
even
people
who
had
no
idea
that
they
leased
a
vehicle
instead
of
purchasing
one
despite
oral
assurances
and
representations
that
it
was
a
sale
to
say
this
is
disproportionately
affects
the
non-english
speaking
community
as
an
understatement.
P
I
have
sat
in
a
deposition
with
a
client,
an
older
gentleman
who
was
almost
in
tears
because
he
kept
having
to
respond
to
opposing
counsel's
question
with.
I
don't
read
or
understand
english
for
each
of
the
72
times
she
pointed
out
the
word
least
in
his
contract
when,
after
years
of
paying
and
being
almost
done
with
his
lease
term,
his
vehicle
was
repossessed
for
only
being
a
couple
days
late,
despite
the
dealership's
promise
that
they
wouldn't
repossess
and
that
he
had
more
time
to
pay
when
he
came
to
our
office.
P
She
was
required
to
pay
on
the
lease
for
a
term
of
115
months
or
nine
and
a
half
years
and
at
the
end
of
the
lease,
would
still
have
to
pay
3
359.50
in
order
to
own
the
car.
The
reality
of
the
matter
is
this:
vehicle
would
not
be
running
nine
years
from
now,
and
even
if
it
is
running,
there
is
no
way
that
it
will
be
worth
300
300.
P
This
woman,
who
is
a
native
english
speaker,
was
completely
shocked
when
she
found
out
it
was
a
lease
agreement,
as
she
thought
she
was
purchasing
the
vehicle.
Additionally,
her
vehicle
was
repossessed
two
days
prior
to
the
due
date
of
her
next
payment
a
date
the
dealership
had
confirmed
with
her
in
a
text
message.
P
Well,
it
used
to
be
one
or
two
dealerships
that
engage
in
these
type
of
practices.
We
now
not
only
see
these
types
of
abuses
on
a
more
regular
basis,
but
we
see
them
from
multiple
dealerships.
It
seems
like
the
unscrupulous
dealerships
have
caught
on
to
the
fact
that
leases
do
not
require
a
disclosed
interest
rate.
Don't
have
a
cap
on
late
fees,
don't
have
regulations
regarding
repossession,
so
they
now
have
switched
their
business
practice
to
exploit
these
statutory
holes.
P
P
P
Again
we're
not
doing
anything
new
here
with
regard
to
the
the
definition
of
default
or
with
anything
regarding
late
payments.
Those
terms
are
already
included
in
all
of
our
sales
contracts
in
the
state.
We
have
one
form
sales
contract
that
every
dealership
wants
to
use.
These
terms
are
already,
including
that
sales
contract
we're
just
simply
expanding
this,
to
be
applicable
to
leases
section
two
focuses
on
used
car
leases
and
requires
certain
terms
to
the
lease
agreement,
whether
an
agreement
itself
or
an
addendum.
P
This
lets
consumers
know
the
term
of
the
terms
of
default,
not
to
sign
the
document.
If
there
are
blank
spaces,
it
limits
the
amount
of
late
fees
which
can
be
charged
to
the
lesser
of
15
or
80
of
the
installment
amount,
which
is
the
same
as
it
currently
is
in
all
sales
contracts
in
nevada,
and
it
contains
terms
regarding
the
residual
value,
early
termination
and
default
charges.
P
It
also
sets
forth
disclosures
that
the
dealership
must
provide
to
the
consumer
and
the
consumer
must
sign.
These
disclosures
include
in
or
bold
large
font
disclosure
that
lets
the
consumer
know.
P
It
is
a
lease
and
not
a
sale
and
that
they
will
not
own
the
vehicle
at
the
end
of
the
contract
term
unless
they
pay
additional
money
to
read
everything
carefully,
because
if
there
are
oral
promises
not
included
in
the
writing,
the
writing
will
prevail
and
that
there
is
no
cooling
off
period
under
nevada
law
and
also
make
sure
that
if
the
contract
contradicts
the
statutory
protections,
the
statute
will
prevail
and
if
the
disclosures
aren't
provided
the
sale
will
be,
the
lease
will
be
considered.
A
sale
section.
P
Four
lays
out
additional
protections
that
are
already
included
in
car
sales,
such
as
the
single
document
rule
and
the
font
requirements
section
puts
forth
the
requirements
that
all
spaces
being
filled
must
be
filled
in
prior
to
having
the
consumer
sign.
The
agreement
section
5.5,
puts
in
a
civil
right
of
action
for
people
when
the
dealership
has
violated
this
section.
P
Section
6
contains
the
definitions
and
sections
7
through
10
ensure
that
the
bill
and
the
current
statute
are
cohesive
and
that
what
currently
applies
to
open-end
leases
in
commercial
leases
will
now
also
apply
to
open
end
leases
in
consumer
transactions.
However,
an
open,
at
least
in
the
consumer
transaction
is
extremely
extremely
rare.
If,
if
even
what
happens,
we
usually
never
see
that
with
that,
I
would
like
to
thank
you
for
your
time
and
I'm
available
for
any
questions
you
might
have.
A
P
You
vice
chair
for
the
question
romero
for
the
record.
So
if
the
company
fails
to
provide
the
disclosure
prior
to
the
sale,
then
the
remedy
is
we
put
in
a
civil
remedy
here
for
for
violating
the
statute,
and
then
it
would
be
treated
like
a
sales
contract.
P
So
in
nevada
we
have
a
standard
sales
contract
that
where
the
terms
are
all
laid
out
and
everything
is
set
forth
in
statute
and
the
sales
contract
is
regulated
by
the
fid,
and
so
we
would
essentially
apply
those
provisions
to
this
contract
rather
than
whatever
provisions
it
might
have
in
the
current
system.
A
Okay,
my
internet
literally
shut
down
in
the
middle.
M
M
A
So,
okay,
section
5.5
in
the
amendment:
this
is
the
provision
where
you
guys
have
the
deceptive
trade
practices
and
you
have
a
secondary
obligor
obligor
under
the
consumer
vehicle
lease
that
may
bring
a
civil
action.
Can
you
can
you
break
that
out
a
little
bit
more
to
explain
so
you're
giving
you're
giving
the
original
debtor
and
then
the
second
a
secondary
person
the
option
to
bring
a
civil
action?
So
can
you
talk
about
that.
P
Vice
chair,
neil
sophia
romero,
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Yes,
it's
essentially
a
co-signer.
So
when
you
buy
a
car,
let's
say
you're
a
younger
person,
you
don't
have
established
credit.
You
might
ask
your
parent
to
co-sign,
or
you
know,
for
instance,
a
husband
and
wife
might
co-sign
on
a
contract
together.
So
it's
this
just
essentially
means
that
you
don't
have
to
be
the
primary
person
on
the
account.
You
can
be
the
co-albacore,
the
co-debtor
and
and
file
an
action
as
well.
A
H
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair.
I
was
just
curious,
so
then
individuals
who
are
not
signatories
to
the
deal
but
because
they're
an
obligator
will
be
responsible.
So
I'm
kind
of
curious
how
that
works
in
a
situation
where
you
didn't
necessarily
know
you
know
a
lot
of
times,
people
nowadays
don't
necessarily
share
the
same
last
name.
H
P
Sophia
romero
for
the
record
through
you,
my
vice
chair
to
the
senator.
This
is
only
talking
about
co
allegories,
which
are
co-signers,
so
they
would
have
to
actually
physically
sign
the
lease
agreement
in
order
to
be
able
to
either
be
obligated
under
the
lease
agreement
or
to
bring
an
action
for
failure
for
a
violation
of
the
statute.
So
they
have
to
be
signed
on
the
the
contract,
or
else
they
wouldn't
have
standing
to
bring
a
legal
matter.
P
Are
you,
madam
vice
chair
to
the
senator,
for
the
record
that
would
be
when
nevada
community
property
law
would
take
over
and
that
would
that
is
just
already
in
standing
in
law?
So
I
believe
senator
pickard
might
know
more
about
this
than
I
do
on
the
community
property
issue.
P
But
yes,
if
your
spouse,
I
believe,
if
your
spouse
signs
a
contract
and
it's
for
a
necessity,
then
it's
believed
to
be
a
an
asset
of
the
community
or
community
debt
and
therefore
the
the
possibility
of
being
liable
either
having
you
know
the
asset
or
having
the
debt,
it
would
be
50
50
because
we
are
a
community
property
state,
but
that
would
that
falls
in
the
realm
of
community
property.
Nothing
in
this
bill
affects
that.
B
B
B
B
A
Okay,
so
we'll
move
to
opposition
for
298.
A
B
G
The
morning,
madam
vice
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
this
is
andrew,
mckay
a-n-d-r-e-w,
mckay
m-a-c-k-a-y,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada
franchise,
auto
dealers
association,
I'm
here
to
speak
from
the
neutral
position
on
assembly
bill.
298.
G
I'll
keep
my
remarks
very
brief,
madame
vice
chair,
but
first
would
like
to
thank
assemblyman
flores,
miss
romero
and
then
bailey
bordelin
in
working
with
with
us
on
this
bill.
G
We
started
talking
about
this
all
the
way
back
and
I
believe
it
was
november
of
last
year
and
they
listened
to
our
concerns
and
much
of
what
is
contemplated
in
the
amendment
addresses
our
concerns
and
focus
on
where
the
problem
is
is,
and
that
is
leasing
of
of
new
vehicles.
Needless
to
say,
we
were
shocked
when
sophia,
the
assemblyman
and
balian.
Let
us
know
what
was
going
on
and
we
firmly
believe
that
what
is
in
front
of
you
is
going
to
address
and
hopefully
will
eliminate
this.
G
This
predatory
practice.
So
for
that,
madam
vice
chair,
thank
you
for
your
time
and
thank
you
to
members
of
the
committee
and
again
thank
you
to
assemblyman
flores.
A
Okay,
all
right
so
assemblyman
flores.
Can
you
can
you
put
on
the
record
before
you
close
out
about
how
the
written
amendment
that
we
got
actually
revises
the
original
bill,
not
the
first
reprint.
M
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,
some
of
the
good
floors
for
the
record
and
I
will
hand
this
off
to
miss
romero.
Miss
romero,
if
you
could
just
please,
for
the
record,
clarify
the
intent
of
the
original
conceptual
amendment,
how
the
reprint
then
came
out
and
then
what
we're
doing
now
with
the
conceptual
amendment
as
it
stands
now,
just
for
the
sake
of
clarity
as
to
the
work
that
was
done
with
these
stakeholders.
P
Thank
you
vice
chair,
neil
for
the
question.
So
the
conceptual
amendment
that
we
are
working
with
now
is
different
from
the
reprint,
in
that
the
reprint
that
we
were
working
off
of,
which
would
be
amendment
number
242,
puts
the
default
terms
as
a
required
term
of
the
contract.
This
puts
it
directly
into
statute
and
just
said
that
this
is
this
is
how
default
is
divine
defined
in
nevada
and
then
a
much
more
a
minor,
much
more
of
a
minor
provision.
It
essentially
changed
subsection.
P
Sorry,
subsection
excuse
me
section
six,
subsection
five
and
it
just
says
that
the
that
the
dealerships
cannot
obtain
a
signature
when
there
was
when
there
are
blank
spaces
on
the
contract.
There
was
an
exception
in
there
for
delivery,
which
does
not
apply
to
consumer
leases.
Usually
when
you're
releasing
a
vehicle,
there's,
not
a
delivery
issue,
you
just
go
to
the
dealership.
You
say:
okay,
I'm
gonna
lose
this
car.
P
You
pick
up
the
car,
you
take
it
home,
so
there's
not
that
delivery
aspect
with
non-commercial
leases,
the
way
that
there
is
commercial
leases.
So
that
is
why
that
language
wasn't
needed,
but
other
than
that
those
are
essentially
the
two
changes
between
the
current
conceptual
amendment
that
we
are
working
with
right
now
and
the
the
amendment
as
reprinted.
A
M
M
The
only
thing
I
wanted
to
say
is
just
we're
trying
to
get
rid
of
some
of
those
loopholes
and
abusive
practices
that
are
existing
out
there
in
the
leasing
world,
because
of
the
lack
of
the
fact
that
we
don't
have
uniformity
across
the
industry,
and
I
wanted
to
once
again
say
thank
you
to
all
the
stakeholders
who
came
together
to
find
common
ground
and
specifically
say
thank
you
to
ms
romero
for
her
incredibly
hard
work,
she's,
an
incredibly
talented
human.
So
thank
you
for
working
alongside
of
us
and
with
that,
madam
chair.
Thank
you.
A
L
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair,
shannon
bilverax
rod
still
for
the
record,
I'm
going
to
try
to
go
really
really
quickly,
because
I
know
we
have
a
bunch
of
vets
who
are
on
on
the
call.
So
I'm
just
going
to
give
you
a
really
quick
overview.
L
What
this
bill
does
in
the
digital
age,
telemedicine
has
emerged
as
one
of
the
greatest
opportunities
and
challenges
facing
both
medicine
and
human
and
veterinarian
telemedicine
when
properly
implemented
and
regulated,
facilitates
consultation,
patient
monitoring
and
the
delivery
of
consumer
information
and
improve
patient
care
to
underserved
and
remote
areas.
In
this
critical
time,
when
nevadans
are
more
reliant
on
technology
than
ever,
nevada
has
an
opportunity
to
shape
the
direction
of
telemedicine
for
optimal
animal
health
and
welfare
benefits.
L
To
date,
nevada
law
and
regulation
are
silent
when,
regarding
telemedicine,
to
ensure
nevada,
consumers
can
access
the
resources
and
benefits
of
telemedicine
without
sacrificing
quality.
Ab200
clearly
authorizes
the
use
of
telemedicine
in
nevada
for
continued
care
of
an
animal
that
has
been
previously
seen
seen
by
a
licensed
nevada.
Veterinarian
ab200
formally
establishes
and
allows
for
telemedicine
as
part
of
veterinary
practice
act
in
nevada.
L
The
intent
of
ab200
is
to
provide
clear
clarity
for
both
consumers
and
the
veterinarians
as
to
the
appropriate
use
of
telemedicine
to
treat
nevada
animals
I'll
briefly
go
through
what
the
bill
does.
Ab200
affirmatively
allows
for
a
licensed
nevada
veterinarian
to
practice
veterinary
telemedicine
in
nevada
for
animals
that
have
previously
been
examined.
This
legislation
affirms
that
the
nevada
state
board
of
veterinary
medical
examiners
have
clear
authority
to
oversee
and
govern
the
acts
of
veterinary
telemedicine.
L
This
is
of
critical
importance.
Not
all
telemedicine
is
good
telemedicine
by
empowering
the
board
with
clear
authority
over
telemedicine
practices.
This
legislation
ensures
that
in
a
modern
age
we
are
ensuring
the
highest
level
of
consumer
protection.
This
legislation
will
expand
the
access
to
veterinary
care.
L
This
legislation
codifies
the
existing
regulations
that
require
a
physical
examination
of
an
animal
to
extend,
establish
what
is
called
the
veterinarian
client
patient
relationship,
the
vcpr,
and
that
is
actually
already
in
our
regulations,
and
so
this
is
just
codifying
into
statute.
So
I'm
going
to
actually
turn
this
over
to
alyssa
nave.
I
have
more,
but
I
know
we're
on
a
time
crunch,
so
I'm
going
to
thank
you.
R
Hi
everyone
vice
chair,
neil
and
the
members
of
the
committee.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
patience
today
and
I
will
quickly
go
section
by
section
through
the
bill
with
us.
Today
is
also
dr
j.j
goykichia,
dr
john
pannell
and
dr
susie
costa,
who
have
been
waiting
with
us
and
going
in
and
out
and
seeing
clients.
I
think
that's
where
dr
costa
is
once
I
go
through
this
section
by
section
I'll
turn
it
over
to
first,
dr
goguccia,
then
dr
pinnell,
and
hopefully
dr
costa,
section
two
of
the
legislation
defines
veterinary
telemedicine.
R
This
definition
was
drafted
to
be
consistent
with
federal
law,
to
ensure
clarity
for
consumers
and
veterinarians
alike.
Section
three
of
the
legislation
clearly
states
that
the
veterinary
telemedicine
is
an
appropriate
tool
to
be
used
to
treat
nevada
animals
for
ongoing
treatment.
Once
a
timely
veterinary
client,
patient
relationship
has
been
established
through
the
physical
examination
of
an
animal.
It
has
been
nevada
law
for
over
20
years.
The
timely
physical
examination
is
required
to
establish
a
vcpr,
which
is
a
legal
term
of
art.
Section
3
brings
that
requirement
currently
codified
under
nac
6380197
into
statute.
R
R
The
proposed
amendment
does
a
number
of
cleanup
items
that
they
believe
is
necessary
for
the
oversight
of
veterinary
medicine
unrelated
to
telemedicine.
It
removes
a
notice
requirement
requiring
publication
of
various
news
outlets.
If
personal
service
cannot
be
made,
it
would
allow
the
board
to
accept
licensure
applications
online
by
removing
the
requirement
for
notarization.
R
It
would
allow
the
board
to
hold
renewals
on
a
bi-annual
basis,
move
the
renewal
expiration
june
30th,
which
is
a
less
hectic
time
for
licensees
to
conduct
renewals
of
their
licenses.
The
amendment
would
allow
licensed
veteran
technicians
to
administer
zoonotic
vaccinations
such
as
rabies,
in
addition
to
veterinarians.
R
It
would
allow
the
board
to
review
consumer
complaints,
make
recommendations
as
a
full
board
or
as
a
committee.
This
would
streamline
the
process
for
investigation
complaints
and,
finally,
it
allows
for
an
expectation
or
committee
to
issue
a
letter
of
correction
which
be
which
would
be
limited
to
certain
areas
of
practice.
The
intent
is
to
fill
the
gap.
The
board
often
finds
between
actions
that
are
either
disciplinary
or
non-disciplinary
and
again
nina
laksa.
A
Stop
you
so
I'm
gonna
have
to
suspend
the
hearing
and
come
back.
We
actually
have
the
tightest
speech
today
on
the
floor,
which
I
forgot
about
that,
so
we
actually
have
to
get
to
the
floor
on
time
and
then
we
can
come
back.
So
I
I
had
this
bill
at
the
last,
because
that's
what
the
chairwoman
requested,
so
you
guys
will
have
to
come
back
and
present
after
floor
after
floor
today.
Yeah
because
we
have
the
we
have
a
titus
coming
in
sorry
for
the
record
to
listen
to.
R
R
A
If
it
doesn't
work,
we'll
just
have
to
reschedule
it.
Probably
the
better
thing
is
probably
to
reschedule
it
for
wednesday
and
allow
you
guys
to
have
a
hearing
with
the
enough
time
for
your
support,
opposition
and
etc
so
that
that
probably
makes
better
sense
to
go
ahead
and
just
have
that
hearing
on
wednesday,
that's
and
I'll.
Just
let
the
chair
know
because,
honestly,
I
think
that's
fair
not
to
have
to
come
back
after
floor,
because
I
don't
know
what
the
schedule
is
for
other
committees.
So
we'll
just
reschedule
this
for
wednesday
and
I'll.