►
From YouTube: 2/18/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary
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
A
Here
and
our
first
order
of
business
today
is
hearing
sb
107.
I
would
like
to
note
for
the
members
of
the
committee,
as
well
as
anybody
else
who
might
be
joining
us,
that
a
conceptual
amendment
was
submitted
shortly
before
the
hearing.
It's
my
understanding
that
most
of
the
stakeholders
involved
were
working
on.
That
amendment
is
certainly
not
my
intention
to
blindside
you
with
late
additions
to
the
calendar
so
before
we
dive
in.
A
A
A
All
right
and
for
those
of
you
following
along
at
home,
the
amendment
is
available
on
nellis.
It
is
an
exhibit
through
you
can
access
it
either
through
the
february
18th
meeting
or
through
sb
107.
Again,
it's
not
terribly
lengthy.
So
I
trust
that
you
will
have
time
to
review
it
during
the
presentation
and
you
can
talk
about
it
in
your
testimony.
If
you
need
to
which
brings
me
to
my
next
reminder,
we
will
be
having
testimony
after
the
presentation
of
the
bill,
we'll
start
in
support,
opposition
and
then
neutral
testimony.
A
I
I'm
keeping
track
of
the
people
in
the
queue
the
best
that
I
can
we'll
start
with
20
minutes
in
each
position,
and
I
may
have
to
adjust
up
or
down
if
these
numbers
change
drastically.
Other
than
that.
Please
also
remember
that
you
don't
have
to
repeat
anything
that
anybody
else
has
said.
You
can
always
just
say.
A
My
organization
feels
the
same
way
or
also
in
the
same
position
or
ditto
to
what
the
previous
caller
said
and
as
always,
you
can
submit
your
testimony
in
writing
to
send
jud
at
send.state.nv.us
and
all
of
your
written
testimony
will
also
be
added
to
the
record
and
with
those
quick
reminders.
We
are
now
ready
to
open
up
the
hearing
on
sb
107,
and
I
believe
that
senator
orrinshaw
will
be
presenting
this
bill.
D
D
Certainly
I'm
sure
many
members
have
received
quite
a
few
emails
about
this
bill,
and
I
want
to
assure
the
committee
that
well,
first
of
all,
I'd
like
to
to
thank
all
the
stakeholders
who
worked
on
the
amendment.
The
amendment
is
up
on
nellis
and
I'd
like
to
ask
the
committee
members
to
look
at
the
amendment
on
delos,
which
would
replace
the
original
language
in
the
bill.
D
I
believe
that,
if
enacted,
this
would
actually
bring
more
clarity
to
the
law
and
lead
to
less
litigation
and
less
lawsuits,
perhaps
having
to
be
filed
with
me
today
chair,
I
have
jp
kemp
from
las
vegas
nevada
who's,
an
attorney
who
primarily
practices
in
this
area.
He
also
was
the
attorney
that
litigated
the
touch
case
up
to
the
nevada
supreme
court,
chair
with
your
indulgence,
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
mr
kemp.
E
E
This
bill
deals
with
two
related
issues
related
to
limitations
of
actions
or
also
called
statutes
of
limitations,
though
the
first
one
and
the
main
one
we
were
first
looking
at
in
this
is
the
catch-all
statute
of
limitations,
which
is
four
years
under
nrs
11.220,
and
also
there
is
a
provision
in
section
one
of
the
bill
to
establish
a
statute
of
limitations
for
cases
of
wrongful
termination
and
really
we're
talking
about
common
law.
E
Wrongful
termination
of
employment
cases
it'd
be
helpful
for
me
to
give
a
little
bit
of
background
on
employment
law
in
nevada
I'll.
Do
it
very
briefly,
generally
employment
in
nevada,
unless
you
have
a
contract
for
a
specific
period
of
time
or
contract
that
says
you
can
only
be
terminated
for
for
cause
and
identifying
those
causes
your
employment
is
at
will
and
at
will
means
that
either
party
to
the
employment
relationship
can
end
that
relationship
at
any
time.
E
For
any
reason,
or
for
no
reason
at
all,
you
can
walk
into
work
one
day
and
your
employer
can
say
I
don't
like
the
color
of
your
shoelaces
you're
done
bye-bye,
and
it
can
be
that
arbitrary
and
that
harsh
on
occasion,
but
that
is
the
the
general
rule
that
underlies
all
employment
in
nevada
is
that
it
is
at.
Will
there
have
been
exceptions
to
the
at-will
employment
doctrine
that
have
been
developed
over
the
years
to
ameliorate
some
of
the
harshness
that
can
result
from
having
that
total
arbitrary.
E
Ability
to
terminate
someone
without
any
sort
of
recourse
and
the
exceptions
are
both
statutory
and
through
the
common
law,
sometimes
both
apply
depending
on
the
situation
and
that's
why,
when
we
talk
about
the
conceptual
amendment
to
section
one,
that'll
that'll
become
more
clear
as
we
go
along
the
common
law
exceptions.
The
supreme
court
of
nevada
has
recognized
that
there
are
some
matters
of
public
policy
that
the
atwell
doctrine
has
to
give
way
to.
It
calls
them
rare
and
narrow
exceptions,
but
there
are
exceptions
based
on
compelling
public
policy.
E
The
first
one
that
was
recognized
in
nevada
was
in
1984
in
the
case
of
hanson
versus
harris,
and
that
is
where
an
employer
retaliates
against
an
employee
for
filing
a
workers,
compensation
claim
or
pursuing
their
rights
to
workers
compensation
under
the
nevada,
industrial
insurance
act,
another
one
whistleblower,
retaliation,
recognized
by
wiltsy
versus
baby
grand
and
some
other
cases.
E
That's
essentially
where
an
employee
complains
to
a
government
agency
that
has
regulatory
oversight
about
something
that
the
employer
is
doing.
That
is
illegal
when
an
employee
blows
the
whistle
on
the
employer
and
the
employer
turns
around
and
says:
oh
you,
you
squealed
on
us,
you're
fired
an
employee,
does
have
a
common
law
cause
of
action
for
retaliatory
discharge,
wrongful
termination
for
that
situation
and
another
one
that's
been
recognized-
is
a
refusal
to
do
something
unsafe
or
illegal.
E
E
The
one
of
the
big
cases
on
this
was
deangelo
versus
gartner
in
1991
companion
case
western
state
minerals
versus
jones.
Mr
jones
worked
at
a
mine,
and
the
employer
was
insisting
that
they
work
with
cyanide
when
they
had
an
open
cut,
an
open
cut
on
their
body
and
so
working
with
cyanide
would
have
been
dangerous
and
when
they
refused
to
work
with
the
cyanide
they
got
fired.
E
The
court
said
yeah,
that's
a
compelling
a
compelling
reason
and
we're
going
to
find
an
exception
to
the
at
will
doctrine
there
as
well
statutory
exceptions,
primarily
it's
illegal
discrimination.
E
The
at-will
doctrine
will
be
set
aside
for
issues
of
illegal
discrimination,
the
basis
of
age,
race,
religion,
color,
national
origin,
disability,
sex
and
in
nevada,
sexual
orientation
and
transgender
status
also
are
specifically
recognized
as
protected
classifications,
also
retaliation
for
engaging
in
protected
activities.
If
you,
if
you
go
to
the
boss
and
say
hey,
I'm
being
discriminated
or
harassed
by
my
co-workers
because
of
my
sex,
for
example,
and
the
employer
says
well,
we
like
those
co-workers
better
than
you
so
you're
fired.
E
You
know
that
type
of
a
retaliation
when
you've
engaged
in
protected
activity
will
also
give
rise
to
a
claim
that
would
be
an
exception
to
the
at-will
doctrine.
E
We
also
have
a
great
new
protections
in
chapter
613
for
pregnancy
specifically,
and
there
are
other
statues
out
there
too.
If
you're
fired
for
not
getting
yourself
out
of
jury
duty,
there's
a
claim
if
you're
fired
for
testifying
truthfully
as
a
witness
in
court
or
an
administrative
proceeding,
there's
a
claim
for
that.
That's
under
chapter
50,
under
for
witnesses,
if
you
get
fired
for
not
doing
business
with
particular
people
or
businesses,
that
your
employer
wants
you
to
do
business
with.
E
There's
a
claim
for
that
so
and-
and
there
are
a
number
of
others
throughout
the
statutes,
but
again
the
principle,
one
that
we
looked
at
and
we're
considering
today
are
the
discrimination
cases
which
require
administrative
exhaustion.
E
If
you
get
sexually
harassed
or
you
get
discriminated
fired
for
race
or
sexual
orientation,
you
can't
just
run
off
and
file
a
lawsuit
before
you
can
do
that.
You
have
to
file
a
charge
with
the
state
or
federal
government
agencies
that
have
oversight
over
these
statutes.
The
state
agency
is
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission.
E
The
federal
government
agency
is
the
equal
employment
opportunity,
commission,
and
this
is
sort
of
where
the
amendment
that
we're
looking
at
to
section
one
of
sb107
comes
into
play
because
the
process
for
filing
a
charge
and
you
can
file
with
either
one
the
people
right.
The
vatican,
rights
commission
or
the
eeoc.
E
They
have
a
work
sharing
agreement
because
they
both
enforce
anti-discrimination
laws,
and
so
they
got
together
a
long
time
ago
and
said
we
should
like
kind
of
combine
forces
here,
and
so
they
do
have
a
work
sharing
agreement
where,
if
you
file
with
one,
they
will
automatically
file
with
the
other
agency
for
you.
E
So
if
someone
goes
and
files
with
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission
and
it's
deemed
that
they've
automatically
filed
with
the
eeoc
and
the
the
charge
filing
process
I'll
go
through
nurks,
because
it's
the
medical
rights
commission's
kind
of
that's
the
one
I'll
choose
to
go
through,
they
have
an
intake
portal
on
their
website
where
you
can
go
and
fill
out.
An
intake
questionnaire
on
who
the
employer
is,
who
you
are?
Who
would
be
the
witnesses?
What
exactly
happened?
Where?
What?
What's
your
complaint?
E
E
You
have
300
days
from
the
date
that
you
get
discriminated
against,
to
bring
that
charge
and
and
generally
when
you
submit
the
intake
questionnaire
that
that's
sort
of
deemed,
as
you
intend
to
file
a
charge
until
I
usually
use
that
date.
The
problem
starts
to
rise
with.
It
takes
four
to
five
months
from
the
time
that
you
submit
the
intake
questionnaire
to
get
your
interview,
an
intake
interview
with
the
equal
rights
commission
and
that's
just
a
function
of
how
busy
they
are.
They
get
a
lot
of
cases
and
they
have
limited
staff.
E
It
takes
a
while
for
them
to
process
people
through
so
four
to
five
months
later
you
get
that
interview
at
that
interview.
They
will
generally
type
up
the
charge
or
shortly
thereafter
they'll
type
up
the
charge
and
get
you
to
sign
it
and
that's
a
formal
charge
of
discrimination.
E
They
then
go
into
an
informal
settlement
meeting
and
it
generally
takes
60
to
90
days
to
complete
that
informal
settlement
meeting.
E
If
the
informal
settlement
meeting
settles
the
case,
then
great
it's
done
it's
finished
and
over
with,
but
usually
it
doesn't
and
usually
it
will
then
go
into
investigations
and
it
can
sit
there
for
many
months
waiting
for
an
investigator
to
be
assigned
until
and
then
they
look
at
it.
They
ask
for
information
from
the
parties
and
they
make
a
decision
whether
they
find
probable
cause
or
don't
find
probable
cause
if
they
don't
find
probable
cause.
E
If
they
do
find
probable
cause,
then
they
enter
into
conciliation
where
they
get
the
employer
and
the
employee
together
and
the
the
nerc
basically
takes
off
its
investigator's
have
puts
on
advancement
because
hatton
says
to
the
employer.
Look
we
found
that
there's
probable
cause
that
something
was
wrong
here,
and
so
you
might
want
to
settle
this
case,
and
so
they
they
do.
E
This
formal
dispute
resolution
process
called
conciliation
and
again
either
it
gets
resolved
or
if
it
doesn't,
if
it
doesn't
then
generally
there,
there
can
be
administrative
hearings,
but
in
most
cases
they
issue
a
final
decision.
We
found
a
probable
cause.
Conciliation
has
failed.
You
have
90
days
to
go
file,
a
lawsuit.
F
E
And
so
the
statute
of
limitations
for
a
wrongful
termination
case
that
we're
talking
about
here
it
creates
a
conflict.
It
creates
a
problem
and
a
tension
between
these
two
processes,
because
your
common
law
wrongful
termination
case
there
is
no
administrative
process,
for
you
have
to
bring
it
to
court
and
you
have
to
bring
it
to
court
in
time.
E
The
equal
rights
commission
process
can
sometimes
take
three
or
four
years
and
paradoxically,
the
stronger
the
case
is
the
more
you
know
likely
that
there
is
discrimination.
That's
going
on
the
longer
the
process
with
equal
rights.
Commission
takes
so
it
can
take
three
or
four
years
to
to
get
through
the
administrative
exhaustion
process.
E
Meanwhile,
the
supreme
court
of
nevada,
in
case
I
had
called
patos
versus
las
vegas
bistro
las
vegas
bistro,
is
the
name
for
the
corporate
name
for
larry
flint's
hustler
club.
Ms
patosh
was
an
office
manager
there
who
tripped
and
fell
into
her
workers.
Comp
claim
took
about
three
years
to
work
its
way
through
with
all
of
the
treatment
that
she
had
and
she
came
to
me
and
wanted
to
file
a
lawsuit.
E
Well,
the
federal
courts
had
looked
at
this
and
they
decided
that
there
was
a
two-year
statute
of
limitations,
even
though
there's
no
statute
of
limitations
listed
in
chapter
11
of
nrs.
E
For
that
claim,
and
so
the
federal
courts
had
been
following
that
and
a
lot
of
these
cases
do
end
up
in
federal
court,
because
the
federal
claims
that
are
brought
under
title
vii
or
the
americans
of
disabilities
act
or
age
discrimination,
employment
act.
E
When
you
bring
those
cases
along
with
your
state
cases,
then
the
employer
has
the
ability,
under
the
federal
question,
rule
to
remove
the
whole
case
to
federal
court,
and
so
that's
why
the
federal
court
had
mostly
ruled
on
this.
The
supreme
court
of
nevada
had
never
addressed
the
issue
of
what
the
statute
of
mutations
is
for
this
wrongful
termination
claim
and
looking
at
it.
E
Nrs
11.220
is
the
catch-all
and
it
says
if
there's
no
other
statute
limitations
listed
in
here
use
four
years,
and
so
I
said
well,
there's
no
other
statute
of
limitations
listed.
So
I
guess
it
should
be
four
years,
and
so
we
went
and
we
argued
that
with
the
supreme
court
and
they
said
well,
we
see
your
point,
but
now
we're
going
to
go
with
the
two
years.
Now
it's
interesting.
E
The
two-year
statute
of
limitations
comes
from
the
personal
injury
and
wrongful
death
statute,
and
it
says,
and
I'll
quote
it
here-
an
action
to
recover
damages
for
injuries
to
a
person
for
the
death
so
for
injuries
to
a
person
or
for
the
death
of
a
person
caused
by
the
wrongful
act
or
neglect
of
another
is
a
two-year
statute
of
limitations.
E
And
I
looked
at
that
and
I
scratched
my
head-
and
I
said
you
know
no
reasonable
nevada
citizen
is
going
to
read
that
statute
and
come
to
the
conclusion
that
if
they
got
fired
from
their
job
for
an
illegal
reason
that
they
only
have
two
years
so
again,
the
supreme
court
looked
at
it
and
said:
well,
it's
injuries
to
personal
interests,
and
so
we're
going
to
go
with
the
two
years.
E
Common
law
claim
that
you
can
bring,
and
you
have
a
statutory
discrimination
claim
that
you
can
bring
you're
going
to
have
to
go
to
court
long
before
equal
rights
commissions
has
finished
with
their
process,
and
so
lawsuits
have
to
get
filed
and
money
has
to
start
getting
spent
before
we've
ever
gone
to
the
to
the
part
where
we
see
if
we
can
do
conciliation
and
reach
a
settlement
of
the
matter,
while
it's
still
in
the
administrative
process.
E
So
because
there
was
no
prior
specific
statute
limitations,
the
catch-all
would
have
been
four
years.
We
thought
well.
Four
years
would
be
a
good
period
of
time
to
to
use
to
to
give
time
for
this
to
work
its
way
through
the
system,
and
that's
why
the
section
one
of
sb
107
is
written,
the
way
that
it
is
and
it's
put
under
the
subsection
two
of
nrs
11.190,
which
is
a
four
year
statute
of
limitations.
E
E
While
still
you
know
sticking
with
this
two-year
limitations
period
and
so
the
conceptual
amendment,
it
will
essentially
say:
okay
for
the
common
law
retaliatory
or
wrongful
discharge
type
of
claim,
it
will
be
a
two-year
statute
of
limitations.
However,
that
two-year
statute
limitations
doesn't
start
to
run
until
so,
it's
told-
and
it
doesn't
start
to
run
until
the
pending
related
state
or
federal
administrative
agency
charges
or
complaints
have
been
exhausted
or
if
there's
a
related
industrial
insurance
claim
workers,
compensation
that
that
has
been
closed
and
that
one's
important,
the
workers
comp.
E
I
just
like
to
point
out
workers
compensation
when
it
gets
to
the
end
of
a
claim
they
have
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
employer
is
going.
If
the
person
can't
go
back
to
the
job
they
were
doing
originally.
E
So
at
that
point,
even
if
the
employer
had
previously
terminated
the
employee,
they
could
look
at
it
and
say
well,
you
know
why
don't
we?
We
could
probably
use
this
person.
We've
got
a
job
that
we
could
put
them
in
and
they
wouldn't
have
to
go
through
the
vocational
rehabilitation
rehabilitation
process.
E
So
again,
if
an
employer
goes
ahead
and
put
somebody
back
to
work
after
they've
finished
their
claim,
there
wouldn't
be
any
reason
to
file
a
lawsuit
at
that
point,
because
the
person
would
continue
to
work
for
the
employer,
even
though
there
had
been
a
gap
in
time,
but
they
had
been
receiving
workers,
compensation
benefits
in
the
meantime,
and
so
that's
kind
of
where
our
conceptual
amendment
to
section
one
of
sb
107,
is
coming
in
it's
to
basically
provide
for
the
time
for
administrative
processes
to
work
their
way
through,
so
that
people
don't
have
to
rush
up
to
court
to
meet
this
two-year
time
limit.
E
E
We
we
would
still
like
to
make
clear,
nrs
11.220,
which
is
the
catch-all
we'd
like
to
see
that
made
clear
that
if
there
is
no
other
statute
limitations
listed
somewhere
use
the
four-year
limitations
period,
there
have
been
a
couple
of
so
so
the
supreme
court
in
nevada
I
mean,
and
the
way
that
these
things
are
done
in
a
number
of
other
jurisdictions,
are
that
when
there
is
no
specific
statute
of
limitations,
the
court
will
look
for
an
analogous
statute
of
limitations
to
apply,
and
so,
for
example,
there
have
been
a
one
case
that
comes
to
mind
is
intentional
interference
with
prospective
business
advantage
or
sometimes
called
intentional
interference
with
respect
to
economic
advantage.
E
There's
no
statute
of
limitations
listed
for
that
one,
but
the
court
has
analogized
it
to
being
well.
In
one
case
they
analogized
it
to
being
like
fraud
and
applied
a
three-year
statute
of
limitations
and
in
another
one
they
analogized
it
to,
because
it
interferes
with
contract
that
it's
somehow
like
a
an
unwritten
contract,
which
is
four
years
so
they've
actually
got
a
little
bit
of
a
conflict
there.
E
But
again
it
would
be
much
better
and
and
people
would
have
much
more
stability
they
if
they
could
rely
on
the
fact
that
the
court
was
not
going
to
try
and
guess
a
different
time
period
and
just
use
what
the
legislature
has
indicated
that
the
legislature
in
nrs
11.20
has
said
hey
if
there's
no
other
time
limit
listed
use
the
four
years
and
if
so,
if
you
can
stick
with
that,
it
really
lends
predictability
to
the
process,
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
very
good
improvement
in
this
area
of
the
law.
E
I
think
that
I
love
love
to
hear
myself
talk,
but
I
think
I've
gone
on
long
enough.
I'm
sure
if
there's
any
questions
or
anything,
I
can
help
try
to
clarify
or
explain.
I'd
should
be
happy
to
do
that.
A
C
Pickard,
thank
you
church.
I
will
and-
and
thank
you,
mr
kemp,
and
senator
oran
shaw
for
presenting
the
bill.
Honestly,
I
had
trouble
reconciling
the
four-year
and
the
two-year
the
way
it
was
originally
written.
I
do
really
like
the
amendment
and
I
agree
with
your
analysis
as
to
the
catch-all
it's
not
a
catch-all
if
we
then
have
to
still
go
back
and
consider
you
know.
What's
analogous,
I
do
like
that.
C
I
just
the
only
question
I
have
is
particularly
after
you've
exhausted
and
I
recognize
some
of
the
nerc
and
eeoc
claims
take
more
than
four
years.
So
without
this
we
actually
lose
the
ability,
in
some
cases,
to
go
after
a
judicial
review
if
the
administrative
efforts
are
exhausted
and
don't
come
up,
the
way
that
the
applicant
may
want,
but
in
any
event,
I
I
still
tend
to
agree
with
the
supreme
court's
reasoning
that
this
is
a
a
type
of
injury.
C
E
Right
senator
picker
through
the
chair
to
you
and
for
the
record,
jp
nevada,
justice
association.
The
the
reason
that
we
had
gone
with
the
four
years
is
because
of
the
length
of
time
that
it
can
take
that
that's
what
we
had
in
the
original
bill.
We
said.
Well,
you
know.
Sometimes
these
kids,
I
mean
I
have
one
that
I
filed
recently,
where
it
it
was
just
over
three
years
that
it
was
with
the
nevada,
equal
rights.
Commission,
the
vatican
rights
commission
did
find
probable
cause.
E
We
went
through
the
conciliation
process,
we're
not
able
to
find
a
resolution,
and
so
we
did
have
to
go
to
litigation
so
yeah.
That
gentleman
was
terminated
in
2017,
so
it
does
take
that
period
of
time.
We
thought
four
years
would
be
in
the
run
of
things
a
lengthy
enough
period
of
time
to
get
everything
accomplished
before
we
would
have
to
turn
to
litigation.
E
The
amendment
would
work
just
as
well,
because,
basically
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
rushing
off
the
court
and
not
go
no,
not
having
the
opportunity
to
go
through
the
administrative
resolution
processes.
So
I
I
think
it
accommodates
both
concerns,
because
you
know
there
are
some
some
of
the
two
like
whistleblowing.
E
For
example,
there
are
some
osha
whistleblower
complaints
that
can
be
made
administratively,
but
a
lot
of
those
will
not
have
administrative
claims
file
again,
if,
if
employer
requires
somebody
to
do
something
illegal
or
unsafe
there,
a
lot
of
those
would
not
have
administrative
processes
to
go
through
either,
and
so
the
two-year
statute
of
limitations
makes
sense
there
again.
E
I
I
know
that
some
of
some
people
in
opposition
to
this
point
out
well,
somebody
knows
that
they've
been
done
wrong
and
should
should
be
able
to
do
this
within
two
years
and
and
and
that's
that's
a
fair
criticism
in
most
cases,
that's
true.
There
are
a
lot
of
cases,
though,
where
people
don't
actually
learn
about
that
their
rights
have
been
violated
that
something's
been
done
illegally
to
them
until
much
later.
E
Maybe
they
run
into
a
former
co-worker
in
the
grocery
store
and
say
yeah,
you
know
they
fired
you
because
you
wouldn't
steal
for
them
or
something
like
that,
so
they
may
not
learn
about
it
until
later,
but
yeah
the
two-year
statute
of
limitations
is
generally
sufficient.
A
lot
in
a
number
of
cases,
it's
true,
but
the
lengthier
period
of
time
for
the
administrative
process
is
kind
of
what
we're
looking
at
here.
C
Yes,
and
so
with
the
amendment,
though
we're
back
to
the
two
years
after
we've
told
the
the
the
case
for
the
exhaustion
of
the
administrative
remedies
is.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,
that's!
That's,
okay,
all
right,
I'm
satisfied!
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
Madam
chair.
Welcome.
A
All
right
the
next
hand
that
I
saw
was
senator
settlemyre,
so
I
will
go
to
you
next.
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
that
my
question
was
similar
to
my
predecessor.
I
appreciate
the
amendment.
It
takes
care
of
a
lot
of
the
concerns.
I
had
still
a
little
worried
that
you
know
these
actions.
You
know
take
I'm
told
by
a
friend
of
ours
that
it
takes
300
days.
Usually
you
have
to
file
them
within
300
days
of
termination,
and
then
this
would
toll
it
during
that
time
frame
so
that
potentially
adds
four
years.
I
do
get
concerned
that
sometimes
I'm
told
it
takes
a
little
while
to
find
witnesses.
E
Well
so
section
1983
is
a
statutory
claim
and
that's
why
we
specifically
mentioned
that
these
are
for
tort
claims
for
common
law.
Wrongful
termination,
so
section
1983,
is
a
federal
statute.
So
by
definition
it
would
not.
C
G
Thanks
chair
schreibel,
a
couple
of
questions,
so
you
have
a
federal
process
that
you
go
through
and
that
has
up
to
four
years.
If
I'm
understanding
correctly,
possibly
before
you
can
reach
a
possible
resolution,
you
go
through
the
for
you
federal
process,
you're
unsuccessful.
G
Then
you
want
to
come
back
and
have
another
bite
of
the
apple
on
it
on
a
different
level.
Right,
one
hand
you're,
maybe
just
maybe
a
discrimination
case,
but
now
you
want
to
come
and
start
the
whole
process
over
for
the
employer
on
the
basis
of
an
unr
unlawful
termination
it.
So,
in
effect,
if
my
numbers
are
right,
am
I
pushing
you?
Could
you
could
theoretically
string
this
out
for
six
years
or
more.
E
Madam
chair,
through
you
to
senator
hansen
for
the
record
j.p
kemper
nevada,
justice
association,
senator
in
very
extreme
cases
that
could
happen,
but
I'll
tell
you
in
most
of
the
cases
you
are
going
to
have
it
happen
sooner
than
that
in
terms
of
the
employer
being
concerned
about
well,
you
know
witnesses
and
evidence
disappearing
generally.
They
will
be
collecting
that
through
the
administrative
process.
Anyway,
in
order
to
address
a
charge
with
the
equal
rights
commission,
they
have
to
file
in
the
in
the
eeoc.
E
They
call
it
position
statement,
I'm
not
sure
if
they
use
that
same
nomenclature
for
the
the
state
process,
but
they
essentially
have
to
respond
to
the
charge
generally
within
about
60
days
after
the
charge
after
they
receive
the
charge.
E
They've
got
to
answer
it,
so
they
they'll
be
on
notice
that
they
need
to
preserve
evidence.
They
need
to
figure
out
who
the
witnesses
are
and
figure
out
which
documents
would
apply.
They
would
do
that
in
the
administrative
process.
Again
most
of
these
cases,
somebody
got
fired.
So
it's
basically
the
same.
E
The
fancy
legal
term
is
common
nucleus
of
operative
fact
right,
and
so
the
employer
will
have
had
notice
of
that
and
will
know
what's
going
on
with
that
from
a
fairly
early
stage.
Even
though
you
know
the
administrative
process
could
go
out
for
a
period
of
time,
and
somebody
you
know
would
have
time
after
that
to
file
their
their
claim.
G
Okay,
well,
if
you
have
the
common
nucleus
concept,
that
would
apply
to
your
your
client
in
that
case
as
well,
would
it
not
I
mean,
in
effect,
what
we're
doing
here
from
what
I
can
tell
is
you
have
an
opportunity
first,
to
drag
an
employer
potentially
through
a
several
year
process,
and
then
you
don't
want
that
to
be
tolling
on
the
on
the
current
statute
of
limitations,
you
then
want
to
be
able
to.
Even
if
you
said,
you
did
not
find
a
resolution.
In
other
words
your
client
lost.
G
You
then
want
to
be
able
to
turn
around
and
have
at
least
another
of
maybe
a
four-year
window
to
then
essentially
drag
the
employer
through
another
whole
process
of
possibly
unlawful
termination,
rather
than
what
the
original
cases,
but
it
just
seems
to
me
the
whole
concept
of
speedy
trials.
G
Getting
things
resolved
in
a
reasonable
window
of
time
is
probably
why
the
supreme
court
had
the
two-year
window
and
that
common
nucleus
concept
obviously
would
apply
just
as
much
to
you
and
as
an
attorney.
If
you
have
several
possibly
conflicting
ways
to
sue
an
employer,
then
you
as
an
attorney,
would
pick
the
most
reasonable
one
with
the
strongest
case
to
move
forward
and
if,
in
fact,
after
you've
done
that,
you
fail
in
a
federal
procedure
to
then
turn
around
and
say.
D
All
right,
if
I
could
briefly
reply
to
my
colleague
mark,
thank
you
through
you,
chair
to
senator
hanson
as
I've
studied
the
issue
with
the
current
decision
from
the
nevada
supreme
court
setting
that
statute
of
limitations
at
two
years.
Many
workers
in
this
situation
may
may
rush
to
file
an
action
that
if
the
administrative
remedies
were
to
work
their
way
through
that
process,
whether
state
or
federal
could
be
resolved,
and
this
this
lawsuit
would
never
be
filed.
D
A
All
right
it
looks
like
there
is
one
more
hand
we
have
time,
so
I
will
give
senator
settlemeyer
a
second
bite
of
the
sackle
go
ahead.
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
that
and
I
never
thought
of
this
particular
bill
as
something
dealing
with
workers
comp.
So
when
mr
kemp
said
it
it
kind
of
caught
me
off
guard.
How
does
this
affect?
I
mean
you
know
it
was
a
long
time
ago
way
back
when
the
concept
of
workman's
comp
was
supposed
to
be.
You
know
some
people
call
it
the
grand
remedy.
That
is
the
remedy,
so
you
mentioned
that
in
relation
to
this.
So
how
will
this
affect
workers
comp
claims.
E
So
the
grand
bargain
of
workers,
comp
where
employees
give
up
their
right
to
sue
for
personal
injuries
and
in
return
they
receive
the
set
benefits
under
the
statutes
and
the
workers
compensation
laws.
This
is
so
the
first
case
that
recognized
exception.
E
That
will
doctrine
was
hansen
versus
harris,
as
I
mentioned
in
1984,
and
essentially
it's
it's
outside
of
the
outside
of
the
workers
compensation
process,
because
the
physical
personal
injuries,
I
guess
it
could
also
be
you
know
if
you,
if
you're
a
7-11
clerk
that
gets
held
up
at
gunpoint,
you
have
ptsd
and
it
could
be
those
types
of
mental
injuries
as
well
those
get
handled
through
the
workers,
compensation
process.
You
get
treatment
and
you
get
benefits
for
that.
But
it's
it's
where
the
employer
says.
E
You
know
what
you
filed
a
claim
against
us.
That's
going
to
cost
us
money
and
we
don't
like
that
so
you're
fired.
What
that
does.
Is
that
has
a
chilling
effect
on
other
employees,
filing
workers,
compensation
claims,
and
so
the
the
supreme
court,
1984
and
hanson
versus
harris
said
world
can't
work
that
way.
People
have
a
right
to
those
benefits
under
the
law
and
if
employers
can
go
and
intimidate
people
into
not
filing
claims.
That's
a
terrible,
bad
thing.
E
They're
going
to
be
able
to
sue
you
they're
going
to
be
able
to
get
punitive
damages,
and
it's
going
to
be
very
bad.
So
don't
do
that
we're
going
to
stand
behind
people
who
get
terminated
under
those
circumstances,
and
so
that's,
I
guess
the
extent
of
where
the
interplay
is
this
has
to
do
with
the
employment
relationship
as
opposed
to
the
injury
that
happens
on
the
job.
C
E
Yes
again,
I'm
sorry
chair
through
you
to
senator
settlement.
I
appreciate
that
chair
yeah,
the
this.
This
doesn't
do
anything
to
workers,
compensation
benefits
or
you
know
the
you
know:
the
benefits
of
medical
treatment,
temporary
total
disability
benefits
for
while
you're
off
work,
permanent
partial
disability
for
any
permanent
issues
that
you
have
and
vocational
rehabilitation.
E
I
mean,
I
guess
it
kind
of
touches
on
vocational
rehabilitation,
but
it
doesn't
really
affect
the
benefits,
because
if
you
aren't
able
to
go
back
to
the
job
that
you
had
and
you
don't
have
existing
marketable
skills
and
the
employer
doesn't
offer
you
employment,
you
haven't
been
able
to
find
other
work.
E
Then
you're
going
to
be
entitled
to
vocational
rehabilitation
retraining,
but
that
really
is
a
separate
concept
as
well
from
what
we're
talking
about
with
the
the
lawsuit
for
the
intentional
retaliatory
termination
of
the
employment
because
of
the
workers
conclave.
C
B
Thank
you
chair.
I
was
curious
as
we're
talking
about
this
amendment
and
it
the
statute
of
limitations
not
tolling
until
the
exhaustion
of
administrative
remedies
for
a
wrongful
termination
claim.
Is
there
a
requirement
to
have
brought
that
to
an
administrative
body,
or
is
that
just
a
a
choice
in
terms
of
litigation,
whether
you
would
pursue
pursue
a
case
or
an
administrative
remedy.
E
Thank
you
vice
chair,
the
again
j.p
kemp
for
the
record.
The
the
common
law
claims
don't
go
through
any
administrative
process
per
se,
but
again
there
are
often
companion
theories
that
would
require
administrative
exhaustion
to
go
through
the
state
or
federal
government
agency.
In
order
to
have
them
investigated,
look
at
it
determine
whether
or
not
there's
probable
cause
and
go
through
their
dispute
resolution
processes.
In
fact,
you
know
the
eeoc.
E
E
I
have
one
going
on
right
now
that
originates
out
of
reno
that
we
had
to
bring
the
case
at
two
years,
even
though
the
matter
was
still
with
the
administrative
agency
we
had
to
go
and
file
with
court
or
or
we
were
going
to
lose.
E
That
claim
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
pursue
that
claim,
and
it
would
be
terrible
if
you
got
down
the
road
and-
and
the
court
said
yeah
if
you
brought
that
common
law
claim
that
one
makes
a
lot
of
sense
this
this
statutory
one
that
you're
coming
after
after
them
now
that
one
doesn't
fly
so
you've
got
to,
especially
as
an
attorney
you've
got
to
be
careful.
You've
got
to
make
sure
that
you
are
pursuing
all
available
theories
for
your
client,
and-
and
so
that's
that's
really
where
this
is
aimed
at.
A
B
Is
yes
go
ahead?
Thank
you
so
much.
My
question
is
about
the
time
limit
that
you
have
to
file
after
you
get
some
disposition
from.
Let's
say
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission.
E
Yeah
senator
harris,
thank
you.
That's
excellent
question
and
I'm
glad
you
reminded
me
of
this
jp
kemp
for
the
record.
So
after
the
whole
administrative
process
plays
out.
If
there
isn't
a
resolution
that's
reached
in
the
administrative
process,
you
are
given
notice
that
the
agency
has
gone
as
far
as
it
can
and
it
now
is
closing
its
file,
and
you
have
90
days
to
bring
your
lawsuit
under
under
the
statutory
claim.
E
So
the
the
90
days,
you
know
that
that
90-day
period
is
is
the
time
period
which
you
need
to
bring
your
your
claim
and
that's
true
for
both
the
state
and
the
federal
claims.
Again
you
file
with
one
agency
and
they
file
with
the
other
one
automatically
or
it's
deemed
filed
automatically
with
the
other
one,
and
so
both
federal
and
state
anti-discrimination
laws
have
that
that
90-day
period
after
that,
after
they
finish.
Yes.
E
No,
it
would
not.
It
would
not
affect
that
at
all,
though
that
is
all
covered
under
in
nrs
chapter
613
and
the
the
other,
the
federal.
I
think,
discrimination
statutes
that
all
provide
for
that
19
days.
This
does
not
touch
that
at
all.
This
is
specifically
talking
about
common
law
toward
actions
or
wrongful.
D
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
schreibel,
and
thank
you.
Members
of
the
committee
just
wanted
to
address
the
issue
of
the
exhaustion
of
administrative
remedies.
I
believe
the
the
language
and
the
proposed
amendment
allowing
for
the
tolling
pending
that
exhaustion
of
administrative
remedies
will
try
to
help
those
be
successful
and
avoid
litigation.
D
I
want
to
thank
senator
settlemyre
suggested
that
idea
of
rather
than
a
a
you
know,
a
a
number
of
months
or
years
in
statute
that
we
go
with
that,
and
I
think
it's
a
great
idea,
but-
and
I
think
that
would
give
those
administrative
remedies,
state
and
federal
a
chance
to
try
to
solve
the
problem
rather
than
a
lawsuit
being
filed.
A
Thank
you
all
right,
I'm
not
seeing
anybody
else
raising
a
hand
or
jumping
in
here,
so
we
will
move
on
to
testimony
in
support
of
sb
107..
We
will
budget
20
minutes
for
that
testimony
and
each
caller
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes
per
caller.
If
bps
would
go
ahead
and
start
taking
testimony
in
support.
H
I
I
The
restaurant
industry
is
made
up
of
thousands
of
small
business
owners
who
have
poured
their
heart,
their
soul
and
often
their
life
savings
into
their
businesses.
They
hire
employees
who
they
entrust
to
keep
their
business
and
their
business
and
their
dream
alive,
requiring
restaurants
to
take
on
additional
employment
liability.
Insurance
costs
can
be
very
expensive
to
defend
against,
take
considerable
time
to
respond
to
and
may
result
in,
costly
damages.
I
Additionally,
this
bill
will
likely
increase
the
cost
of
business
liability
insurance
at
a
time
when
restaurants
are
struggling
to
keep
doors
open
and
employees
on
payroll
employees
who
feel
they
have
been
wrongfully
terminated,
have
a
right
to
file
a
legal
claim
and
tend
to
take
action
quickly.
However,
allowing
employees
two
additional
years
to
apply
for
wrongful
termination,
especially
at
a
time
when
hundreds
of
thousands
of
nevadans
have
lost
their
jobs
due
to
the
pandemic,
will
have
a
devastating
impact
on
small
businesses,
including
restaurants.
H
J
Yes,
my
name
is
brett
sutton,
b-r-e-t-t,
sutton
s-u-t-t-o-n,
and
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
myself.
I've
been
practicing
employment
law
and
license
in
nevada
for
over
30
years,
I'm
also
a
member
of
the
nfib
leadership
council
and
on
behalf
of
the
over
1800
nfib
members
around
the
state.
We
are
strongly
opposed
to
this
legislation.
J
The
nevada
supreme
court
in
the
decision
that
was
alluded
to
by
mr
kemp
after
a
thorough
analysis
determined
that
two
years
was
the
appropriate
statute
of
limitations
for
this
claim.
The
district
court
before
that
reached
the
same
conclusion,
and
I'd
also
like
to
note
that
our
neighbor
california
has
a
two-year
statute
of
limitations
for
the
same
claim
to
extend
this
to
four
years
would
be
unprecedented,
would
be
beyond
what
other
states
do
and
would
be
totally
unnecessary.
J
One
of
the
things
that
we
need
to
note
is,
as
mr
kim
stated,
many
of
these
claims
do
not
go
through
the
administrative
process,
and
so
there's
no
when
he
made
the
argument
that
you
know
you'd
go
by
about
this
claim,
the
employer
would
be
when
they
file
an
eoc
claim.
Not
all
of
these
are
eeoc
claims.
J
This
really
is
more
for
what
or
referred
to
as
common
law
claims,
and
then,
when
you
consider
the
fact
that
not
only
did
the
nevada
supreme
court
say
two
years,
other
states,
like
california,
said
two
years,
but
also
the
federal
government
when
establishing
the
eoc
procedure
felt
that
300
days
was
more
than
enough.
There's
absolutely
no
reason.
For
four
years
I
can
tell
you
from
defending
employers.
What
will
happen?
J
Many
of
them
will
be
caught
off
guard.
They
won't
be
able
to
find
employ
co-employees
as
witnesses.
They
won't
have
documents
that
they
need
and
memories
will
have
faded.
So
it's
it's
really
unfair
and
there's
just
no
current
problem
with
the
current
two-year
status
limitations,
as
has
been
recognized
for
the
nevada
supreme
court.
So
for
those
reasons
we
strongly
oppose
this
bill.
H
H
H
F
Yes,
this
is
robert
ostrovsky
o-s-t-r-o-v-s-k-y.
I'm
here
representing
the
nevada
resort
association,
we're
in
opposition
to
the
bill
as
originally
written.
I
will
point
out
that
the
nevada
justice
association
didn't
reach
out
to
me
and
provided
me
an
amendment
earlier
this
morning
we
have
not
had
an
opportunity
to
fully
review
that
with
my
client
and
I
had
promised
the
association
that
we
would
do
so
and
then
meet
with
them
to
see.
If
there's
any
any
way,
we
could
develop
an
amendment
that
we
could
all
support,
so
I'm
more
than
willing
to
do
that.
F
We
agree
that
the
supreme
court's
decision
on
two
years
was
a
unanimous
decision
by
the
court
and
believed
it
was
appropriate,
but
we're
willing
to
look
at
their
alternative
offer.
Just
as
an
aside,
I
was
a
respondent
in
the
harris
vs
hanson
case,
which
would
have
been
the
lewis
versus
mgm
case,
but
they
took
him
in
alphabetical
order.
So
I'm
very
familiar
with
this.
F
This
issue
going
back
for
a
long
ways
and
appreciate
the
justice
association
reaching
out,
and
we
will
we
will
meet
with
them
and
report
back
to
the
committee
if
we
can
reach
some
compromise.
Thank
you.
H
I
I
I'm
greatly
concerned
with
the
provisions
associated
with
senate
bill
107
and
share
those
concerns
that
have
been
expressed
previously
as
an
attorney
who
works
with
small
businesses
every
day.
I
can
assure
you
that
we
don't
succeed
unless
our
employees
succeed.
Therefore,
employers
take
wrongful
termination
lawsuits
very
seriously.
I
Wrongful
termination
cases
frivolous
or
not
are
very
expensive
for
an
employer
to
defend
against,
take
considerable
time
to
respond
to
and
may
result
in,
costly
damages
and
sbe
107
will
make
that
proposition
even
more
expensive
for
a
small
business.
This
change
to
state
law
would
require
employers
to
retain
records
for
even
longer
periods
of
time,
create
additional
administrative
burden
and
most
certainly
increase
the
cost
of
employment
practice
liability
insurance
as
we
are
barely
starting
to
see
the
light.
I
At
the
end
of
the
tunnel,
with
this
pandemic,
I
submit
to
you
that
now
is
not
the
time
to
burden
the
job
creators
with
additional
costs
that
may
make
putting
nevadans
back
to
work
a
cost
prohibitive
proposition
on
behalf
of
our
business
community.
We
are
opposed
to
this
bill
as
written,
but
we
are
discussing
with
senator
orrin
shaw
and
the
proponent
on
a
possible
amendment
and
will
continue
to
do
so.
Thank
you.
H
F
E-D-E-L-B-L-U-T-E,
I'm
a
commercial
litigation
and
government
affairs
attorney
at
snow
and
wilmer's
las
vegas
office.
Additionally,
I
am
a
committee
member
on
nevada's
advisory
committee
to
the
u.s
commission
on
civil
rights
bruce
nellen
wilmer.
I
am
also
a
member
of
henderson
chamber
of
commerce,
an
organization
that
assists
more
than
1800
businesses
throughout
southern
nevada.
F
F
While
I
appreciate
the
need
to
clarify
nevada
statute
limitation
provision,
we
believe
that
increasing
the
limitation
period
for
wrongful
termination
and
several
other
actions
will
negatively
impact
businesses
at
a
time
when
they
desperately
need
our
support.
Section.
One
of
sb107,
which
seeks
to
enlarge
the
limitations
period
for
wrongful
termination
claims
in
nevada
from
two
to
four
years,
doubles
employers
exposure
to
liability
in
terms
of
time.
For
some,
this
may
be
the
primary
motive
to
support
this
bill,
but
such
an
amendment
would
harm
businesses
and
create
conflicts
with
other
nevada
and
federal
laws.
F
For
example,
nrs608.1
requires
employers
to
maintain
wage
records
for
only
two
years.
Similarly,
the
federal,
fair
labor
standards
act
requires
covered
employers
to
maintain,
maintain
those
same
pay
records
for
two
years
and
all
other
employee
files.
For
three
years,
if
section
one
of
sb-107
goes
into
effect,
the
likelihood
of
filed
claims
with
no
wage
records
or
other
employee
records,
significantly
increases
which
defeats
the
purpose
of
providing
a
larger
limitations
period.
In
the
first
place,
section
two
of
sb07,
which
enlarges
the
limitations
period
for
several
other
claims,
is
also
bad
for
nevada
businesses.
F
Two
such
examples
are
minimum
wage
act
claims
in
nevada
which
currently
have
a
two-year
statute
of
limitations
for
the
nevada
supreme
court,
as
well
as
breach
of
fiduciary
duty
claims,
which
currently
have
a
three-year
limitation
period.
The
reasons
for
not
supporting
an
expansion
of
those
limitation
periods
also
parallel.
H
F
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I'm
paul
enos
enos,
I'm
the
ceo
of
the
nevada,
trucking
association.
I
will
just
echo
the
comments
of
the
previous
testifiers
in
opposition
of
this
bill.
We
do
think
that
this
does
create
an
additional
burden
on
employers
and
I
will
leave
it
at
that.
Thank
you.
H
B
M-O-T-A-R-E-X,
I'm
here
representing
the
nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors.
We
too
are
here
in
opposition
to
sb
107
as
written.
We
appreciate
being
included
in
the
conversation
but
have
not
yet
had
a
chance
to
fully
digest
the
proposed
amendment.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
all
the
stakehold
stakeholders
and
hopefully
reaching
compromised
language.
Thank
you.
H
H
F
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
committee
members,
this
is
brian
reader
b-r-I-a-n-r-e-e-d-e-r,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
contractors
association
as
major
employers
in
southern
nevada,
both
big
and
small
businesses
mca,
as
opposed
to
extending
the
statute
of
limitations
to
four
years.
We
are
reviewing
the
amendment
and
we
will
work
with
the
bill's
sponsor,
but
we
are
opposed
to
the
bill
as
written.
H
F
E
b-r-y-a-n-w-a-c-h-t-e-r,
with
the
retail
association
of
nevada,
and
to
keep
this
short,
we
would
echo
the
comments
of
the
restaurant
association,
the
resort
association
and
the
vegas
chamber
of
commerce
and
our
opposition
to
the
bill.
We
are
currently
looking
at
the
amendment
that
we
got
this
morning
and
we
hope
to
be
able
to
work
together,
but
we
believe
that
we
will
be
in
opposition
to
both
as
this
bill
moves
forward.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
H
H
K
K
K
In
addition,
the
non-economic
damage
provision,
in
that
same
general
provision
of
statute
makes
kind
of
limits,
limits
damages
to
salary
only
and
then
just
to
address.
K
I
do
know
that
the
sponsor
of
this
bill
in
his
committee
has
a
bill
pending
that
addresses
state
personnel
and
then
also
another
committee
member
has
a
standalone
bill.
I
stand
ready,
willing
and
able
to
work
with
the
stakeholders
to
try
to
marry
all
three
in
some
fashion
to
find
a
compromise
with
that
manager.
Thank
you.
H
A
H
H
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
much.
Our
next
meeting
will
not
be
tomorrow.
It
will
be
on
monday.
It
will
be
at
1pm
as
usual.
We
have
one
bill
to
hear
that
day.
The
agenda
is
already
posted
on
nellis
and
I
will
look
forward
to
seeing
you
then
we
are
now.