Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.070 (2026)

Termination or threat of termination of employment because of service as witness prohibited; penalty; remedies

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 50.070  Termination or threat of termination of employment because of service as witness prohibited; penalty; remedies.

      1.  Any person, corporation, partnership, association or other entity who is:

      (a) An employer; or

      (b) The employee, agent or officer of an employer, vested with the power to terminate or recommend termination of employment,

Ê of a person who is a witness or who has received a summons to appear as a witness in a judicial or administrative proceeding, who deprives the witness or person summoned of his or her employment, as a consequence of his or her service as a witness or prospective witness, or who asserts to the witness or person summoned that his or her service as a witness or prospective witness will result in termination of his or her employment, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

      2.  A person discharged from employment in violation of subsection 1 may commence a civil action against his or her employer and obtain:

      (a) Wages and benefits lost as a result of the violation;

      (b) An order of reinstatement without loss of position, seniority or benefits;

      (c) Damages equal to the amount of the lost wages and benefits; and

      (d) Reasonable attorney’s fees fixed by the court.

      (Added to NRS by 1981, 366; A 1995, 209)

IMPEACHMENT

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1995–2018 · leading case: Shoen v. Amerco, Inc., 896 P.2d 469 (Nev. 1995).
Shoen v. Amerco, Inc., 896 P.2d 469 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 4× “As Amerco argues, NRS 50.070, which prohibits employers from terminating an employee who is summoned to serve as a witness in any proceeding, provides Shoen with an adequate tort-type remedy that makes it unnecessary to allow a claim for tortious discharge.”
Jones v. Reno Hilton Resort Corp., 889 F. Supp. 408 (D. Nev. 1995). “§§ 50.070, 613.310) to be sufficiently "comprehensive” to bar a tortious discharge claim.”
Batts v. Comput. Sciences Corp. (Nev. 2018). · cites it 7× “Batts sued CSC, alleging a claim for wrongful termination under NRS 50.070 and alleging a common law tort of wrongful refusal to hire.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.070(1)(a): 1 case
Batts v. Comput. Sciences Corp. (Nev. 2018). “Batts sued CSC, alleging a claim for wrongful termination under NRS 50.070 and alleging a common law tort of wrongful refusal to hire.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.070(2): 1 case
Batts v. Comput. Sciences Corp. (Nev. 2018). “Batts sued CSC, alleging a claim for wrongful termination under NRS 50.070 and alleging a common law tort of wrongful refusal to hire.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 50.070(2)(c): 1 case
Shoen v. Amerco, Inc., 896 P.2d 469 (Nev. 1995). “As Amerco argues, NRS 50.070, which prohibits employers from terminating an employee who is summoned to serve as a witness in any proceeding, provides Shoen with an adequate tort-type remedy that makes it unnecessary to allow a claim for tortious discharge.”
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.