Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.140 (2026)

Right of employee to join or refrain from joining employee organization; exceptions; discrimination by employer prohibited; limitations on nonmember acting on own behalf; membership of law enforcement officer and civilian employee of metropolitan police department

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 288.140 Right of employee to join or refrain from joining employee organization; exceptions; discrimination by employer prohibited; limitations on nonmember acting on own behalf; membership of law enforcement officer and civilian employee of metropolitan police department.

1. It is the right of every local government employee, subject to the limitations provided in subsections 3, 4 and 5, to join any employee organization of the employee’s choice or to refrain from joining any employee organization. A local government employer shall not discriminate in any way among its employees on account of membership or nonmembership in an employee organization.

2. The recognition of an employee organization for negotiation, pursuant to this chapter, does not preclude any local government employee who is not a member of that employee organization from acting for himself or herself with respect to any condition of his or her employment, but any action taken on a request or in adjustment of a grievance shall be consistent with the terms of an applicable negotiated agreement, if any.

3. A police officer, sheriff, deputy sheriff or other law enforcement officer may be a member of an employee organization only if such employee organization is composed exclusively of law enforcement officers.

4. A civilian employee of a metropolitan police department which is organized pursuant to chapter 280 of NRS may be a member of an employee organization only if such employee organization is composed exclusively of civilian employees of a metropolitan police department which is organized pursuant to chapter 280 of NRS.

5. The following persons may not be a member of an employee organization:

(a) A supervisory employee described in paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 288.138, including but not limited to appointed officials and department heads who are primarily responsible for formulating and administering management, policy and programs.

(b) A doctor or physician who is employed by a local government employer.

(c) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, an attorney who is employed by a local government employer and who is assigned to a civil law division, department or agency. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply with respect to an attorney for the duration of a collective bargaining agreement to which the attorney is a party as of July 1, 2011.

6. As used in this section, “doctor or physician” means a doctor, physician, genetic counselor, homeopathic physician, osteopathic physician, chiropractic physician, practitioner of Oriental medicine, naprapath, podiatric physician or practitioner of optometry, as those terms are defined or used, respectively, in NRS 630.014, 630.0118, 630A.050, 633.091, chapter 634 of NRS, chapter 634A of NRS, NRS 634B.050, chapter 635 of NRS or chapter 636 of NRS.

(Added to NRS by 1969, 1377; A 2011, 2900; 2023, 400, 1699; 2025, 1130)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2000–2011 · leading case: Ruiz v. City of North Las Vegas, 255 P.3d 216 (Nev. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ruiz v. City of North Las Vegas, 255 P.3d 216 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 2× “3 Ruiz also contends that NRS 288.140(2) permits him to seek judicial relief separate and apart from any relief that might be available to him through the Union’s CBA.”

Cone v. Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107, 998 P.2d 1178 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 7× “In their complaint, filed on March 7, 1995, appellants alleged that the policy violated the act because it “interfered with, restrained, coerced and discriminated against the [appellants] (and all other employee[s] in the bargaining unit) in the exercise of their right, if they…”

Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107 v. Orr, 119 P.3d 1259 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 4× “270(l)(a) and NRS 288.140, UMC and the Union willfully interfered with and restrained Orr’s rights under the collective bargaining agreement.”

Weiner v. Beatty, 116 P.3d 829 (Nev. 2005). “2d 1178, 1182 (2000); see also NRS 288.140(1); NRS 288.270(2). 30 118 Nev.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.140(1) — 2 cases

Cone v. Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107, 998 P.2d 1178 (Nev. 2000). “In their complaint, filed on March 7, 1995, appellants alleged that the policy violated the act because it “interfered with, restrained, coerced and discriminated against the [appellants] (and all other employee[s] in the bargaining unit) in the exercise of their right, if they…”

Weiner v. Beatty, 116 P.3d 829 (Nev. 2005). “2d 1178, 1182 (2000); see also NRS 288.140(1); NRS 288.270(2). 30 118 Nev.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 288.140(2) — 3 cases

Ruiz v. City of North Las Vegas, 255 P.3d 216 (Nev. 2011). “3 Ruiz also contends that NRS 288.140(2) permits him to seek judicial relief separate and apart from any relief that might be available to him through the Union’s CBA.”

Nevada Serv. Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107 v. Orr, 119 P.3d 1259 (Nev. 2005). “270(l)(a) and NRS 288.140, UMC and the Union willfully interfered with and restrained Orr’s rights under the collective bargaining agreement.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.