Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 612 - UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.085 (2026)

“Employment”: Services deemed employment unless specific facts shown

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 612.085  “Employment”: Services deemed employment unless specific facts shown.  Services performed by a person for wages shall be deemed to be employment subject to this chapter unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Administrator that:

      1.  The person has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of the services, both under his or her contract of service and in fact;

      2.  The service is either outside the usual course of the business for which the service is performed or that the service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprises for which the service is performed; and

      3.  The service is performed in the course of an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business in which the person is customarily engaged, of the same nature as that involved in the contract of service.

      [Part 2:129:1937; renumbered in error 2.19:129:1937, 1945, 299; A 1949, 257; 1951, 253; 1951, 474; renumbered 2.9:129:1937 and A 1955, 698]—(NRS A 1993, 1804)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: State Dep't of Emp., Training & Rehab. v. Reliable Health Care Servs. of S. Nevada, Inc., 983 P.2d 414 (Nev. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Dep't of Emp., Training & Rehab. v. Reliable Health Care Servs. of S. Nevada, Inc., 983 P.2d 414 (Nev. 1999). · cites it 47× “The district court, however, granted judicial review and reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the temporary health care workers were not employees pursuant to NRS 612.085, and thus were not entitled to unemployment benefits.”
Chambers v. RDI Logistics, Inc., 65 N.E.3d 1 (Mass. 2016). “26, § 1043( 11 )(E) (2016); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.085 (2016); N.M. Stat.”
State, Dep't of Emp. Sec. v. Harich Tahoe Developments, 825 P.2d 1234 (Nev. 1992). · cites it 2× “The pertinent statute, NRS 612.085, adopts a general presumption of covered employment subject to three areas of exception: “Employment”: Services deemed employment unless specific facts shown.”
Advanced Sports Info., Inc. v. Novotnak, 956 P.2d 806 (Nev. 1998). “Gibb replied it would resolve the problem of using NRS 612.085 to enforce the direct seller situation .”
State of Nevada, Dep't of Emp. Training & Rehab. ex. rel. Chagolla v. Lyft, Inc. (D. Nev. 2025). · cites it 22× “” Relator alleges that Lyft knowingly misclassifies its drivers as 24 independent contractors, thereby avoiding its obligation to pay unemployment 25 taxes to the state of Nevada pursuant to NRS 612.085. Relator alleges that Lyft 26 drivers cannot meet the requirements for the…”
State of Nevada, Dep't of Emp. Training & Rehab. ex. rel. Chagolla v. Lyft, Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). · cites it 9× “) Thus, Relator alleges that drivers for 11 Lyft must be considered employees pursuant to NRS 612.085. (Id. at 6). According 12 to Relator, Lyft, therefore, “defrauded the state of Nevada by failing to pay monies 13 to the state of Nevada’s unemployment compensation system.”
Dhananjay Patel & Others v. 7-eleven, Inc.; Dp Milk Street Inc. & Others, Third-party (Mass. 2024). “"); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.085 (same); N.H. Rev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.085(1) — 2 cases
State Dep't of Emp., Training & Rehab. v. Reliable Health Care Servs. of S. Nevada, Inc., 983 P.2d 414 (Nev. 1999). “The district court, however, granted judicial review and reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the temporary health care workers were not employees pursuant to NRS 612.085, and thus were not entitled to unemployment benefits.”
State of Nevada, Dep't of Emp. Training & Rehab. ex. rel. Chagolla v. Lyft, Inc. (D. Nev. 2025). “” Relator alleges that Lyft knowingly misclassifies its drivers as 24 independent contractors, thereby avoiding its obligation to pay unemployment 25 taxes to the state of Nevada pursuant to NRS 612.085. Relator alleges that Lyft 26 drivers cannot meet the requirements for the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.085(2) — 2 cases
State Dep't of Emp., Training & Rehab. v. Reliable Health Care Servs. of S. Nevada, Inc., 983 P.2d 414 (Nev. 1999). “The district court, however, granted judicial review and reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the temporary health care workers were not employees pursuant to NRS 612.085, and thus were not entitled to unemployment benefits.”
State of Nevada, Dep't of Emp. Training & Rehab. ex. rel. Chagolla v. Lyft, Inc. (D. Nev. 2025). “” Relator alleges that Lyft knowingly misclassifies its drivers as 24 independent contractors, thereby avoiding its obligation to pay unemployment 25 taxes to the state of Nevada pursuant to NRS 612.085. Relator alleges that Lyft 26 drivers cannot meet the requirements for the…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.085(3) — 1 case
State Dep't of Emp., Training & Rehab. v. Reliable Health Care Servs. of S. Nevada, Inc., 983 P.2d 414 (Nev. 1999). “The district court, however, granted judicial review and reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the temporary health care workers were not employees pursuant to NRS 612.085, and thus were not entitled to unemployment benefits.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 612.085(l) — 1 case
State Dep't of Emp., Training & Rehab. v. Reliable Health Care Servs. of S. Nevada, Inc., 983 P.2d 414 (Nev. 1999). “The district court, however, granted judicial review and reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the temporary health care workers were not employees pursuant to NRS 612.085, and thus were not entitled to unemployment benefits.”
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.