Jump to Navigation

Las Vegas Employment Law Blog

Las Vegas restaurant slapped with sexual harassment lawsuits

A Las Vegas restaurant is facing two sexual harassment lawsuits filed on behalf of two former employees. The women, both of whom were bartenders, say the seafood restaurant's general manager inappropriately touched them, commented on their bodies and graphically described sex acts he'd like to engage in with them.

Both women also say that when they objected to the manager's misconduct, the restaurant retaliated against them. Attorneys for the restaurant and the manager have denied the allegations of one of the women and haven't yet responded against the other woman's lawsuit. But an attorney for the women, who are being represented by the same law firm, said their stories have been corroborated by witnesses who no longer work at the restaurant.

You may be wrong about your rights in the workplace

Over the course of our working lives, we hear a lot of things about what our employers legally can and can't do. But not all of these "facts" may be true. Here are 10 myths about your employee rights:

1. An interviewer can't ask you about your religion, national origin, marital status, etc. In most states, actually asking these questions isn't illegal. But it is illegal to base a hiring decision on your answers to them, which is why smart interviewers stay away from them. It is illegal, however, to ask about disabilities.

You may be wrong about your rights in the workplace

Over the course of our working lives, we hear a lot of things about what our employers legally can and can't do. But not all of these "facts" may be true. Here are 10 myths about your employee rights:

1. An interviewer can't ask you about your religion, national origin, marital status, etc. In most states, actually asking these questions isn't illegal. But it is illegal to base a hiring decision on your answers to them, which is why smart interviewers stay away from them. It is illegal, however, to ask about disabilities.

National Labor Relations Board releases social media guidelines

Have you ever badmouthed your company on Facebook? Maybe you were frustrated by something that happened at work and later vented about it on Twitter. If your boss found out, he may have given you a formal reprimand or even fired you. What's the protocol for such matters, and who gets to decide? These are some of the issues that the National Labor Relations Board has outlined in a new report on social media. The report lists over a dozen examples of decisions it's made in social media-related cases.

When it comes to employee rights, social media is relatively new territory.  Disparaging comments made about a person's employer used to be limited to in-person conversations after work or at the water cooler. But disgruntled workers can now tell everyone they know just what they think of their company or their supervisor's treatment, and their friends and co-workers may agree with them. These sentiments can extend beyond small social circles, reaching potential customers, vendors and suppliers. It means more people than ever are affected by the National Labor Relations Act.

Las Vegas-area car dealership settles discrimination lawsuit

It's hard to believe that these days, some employees are still subjected to harassment and discrimination based on the color of their skin. But workplace discrimination remains a serious problem among some employers. Fortunately, employees do have recourse.

Two black employees of an auto dealership in Henderson, Nevada, were recently awarded $150,000 in a settlement following claims they were subjected to discrimination. The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission filed the suit, which claimed that one of the employees endured racial slurs and was humiliated when his boss told him to get down on his knees and beg for his job. The suit also alleged that when the man spoke up about the hostile work environment, he was unlawfully fired. The other black employee was also fired, allegedly because of the company's unfair disciplinary policies.

Las Vegas nurse reinstated after wrongful termination

Have you ever been wrongly blamed for a mistake or faced accusations of poor performance at work that you knew were unfounded? Enduring the hostility that ensues can be difficult, if you're even allowed to. In many cases, employees are discharged without being given a chance to defend themselves. But you may have recourse, as one Las Vegas nurse can attest.

The neonatal nurse, who was removed from her job in 2010, is excited to return to work after an arbitrator determined she had been wrongfully terminated. She was fired after a premature infant in her care died due to blood loss from a broken catheter.

More employers banning smokers, no matter when they light up

Bans on smoking in the workplace are fairly widespread these days. Long gone are the days when workers were allowed to smoke indoors, at their desks or in board meetings. And increasingly, companies are either pushing designated smoking areas behind buildings and other places where they can't be easily seen, or banning smoking on the grounds altogether. But things are getting even more bleak for those who enjoy a cigarette to take the edge off: They aren't even getting past the interview stage. Is it workplace discrimination, or is it fully within an employer's right to demand their workers don't light up, whether at work or anywhere else?

Hospitals are the primary employers refusing to hire people whose urine tests show the presence of nicotine, whether it comes from cigarettes, smokeless tobacco or smoking cessation products like patches. The policies are designed to promote health and reduce insurance premiums. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke causes 443,000 premature deaths and costs the nation $193 billion in health bills and lost productivity.

Forum shops owner settles discrimination case with EEOC for $125,000

On Tuesday, the EEOC and Simon Property Group, Inc., owner of the Forum Shops located at Caesars Palace, filed a proposed stipulated settlement of claims regarding discrimination of Hispanic janitors. The janitors, who filed their lawsuit in July of 2009,  alleged that Simon Property Group violated provisions of Title VII by subjecting the Janitors to harassment, discrimination and a hostile work environment because of their national origin.  Simon Property Group denied the allegations and claimed they addressed the problem before the lawsuit had even been filed.

As part of the settlement decree filed in the US District Court, District of Nevada Simon Property will, among other stipulations, be required to do the following:

Wal-Mart Workers Re-file Gender Discrimination Suit against California Store

In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court notably held that the members of a class action lawsuit, alleging gender discrimination against Wal-Mart, did not have enough in common to continue to sue as a class. The Supreme Court specifically found that the individual circumstances of the over 1 million female employees nationwide were too diverse and therefore could not satisfy the class action requirement that common questions of law or fact must exist between all class members.  The Court, however, did not rule on the merits of the discrimination claims.

In response to this ruling, five of these original Plaintiffs have narrowed their lawsuit by naming just California stores as Defendants in their class action. These women filed suit on October 27, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This amended lawsuit asserts that Wal-Mart stores in California failed to promote women and paid women less than equally qualified men in similar positions.  For instance, the amended lawsuit alleges that a California Regional Vice President suggested that women did not seek management positions because of their "family commitments," and that a California District Manager reasoned that he needed to pay a male employee more than a female employee because the male employee "supports his wife and two kids."

At least 95,000 current and former female employees of Wal-Mart may be covered by this new complaint.

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs plan to re-file similar lawsuits in other states and regions across the country.

EEOC Releases New Guidance On The Use of Conviction And Arrest Records in Hiring

The EEOC recently released new guidance regarding the use of criminal conviction and arrest records in hiring. This guidance, issued on September 7, 2011, came from the Office of Legal Counsel in response to the Peace Corps' questions regarding their applications.

Although Title VII does not prohibit an employer from asking about an applicant's criminal history, an employer's use of this information may constitute discrimination under Title VII.  The EEOC is particularly concerned about the possible discriminatory impact on minorities as a disproportionate number of Hispanics and African Americans are arrested and convicted.

The EEOC has already issued policy guidelines stating that the use of conviction and arrest history in hiring must be used in a manner that is job related and consistent with business necessity. In its recent discussion letter, it aimed to provide further direction on what types of inquiries are permissible.  The EEOC also found that "job related and consistent with business necessity," has a differing application between inquiries into convictions and arrests.  The following is a summary of the EEOC's guidance: