Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.200 (2026)

Prevention of employment of person who has been discharged or who terminates employment unlawful; criminal and administrative penalties; exception

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 613.200  Prevention of employment of person who has been discharged or who terminates employment unlawful; criminal and administrative penalties; exception.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 613.195, any person, association, company or corporation within this State, or any agent or officer on behalf of the person, association, company or corporation, who willfully does anything intended to prevent any person who for any cause left or was discharged from his, her or its employ from obtaining employment elsewhere in this State is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.

      2.  In addition to any other remedy or penalty, the Labor Commissioner may impose against each culpable party an administrative penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such violation.

      3.  If a fine or an administrative penalty is imposed pursuant to this section, the costs of the proceeding, including investigative costs and attorney’s fees, may be recovered by the Labor Commissioner.

      4.  The provisions of this section do not prohibit a person, association, company, corporation, agent or officer from negotiating, executing and enforcing an agreement with an employee of the person, association, company or corporation which, upon termination of the employment, prohibits the employee from disclosing any trade secrets, business methods, lists of customers, secret formulas or processes or confidential information learned or obtained during the course of his or her employment with the person, association, company or corporation if the agreement is supported by valuable consideration and is otherwise reasonable in its scope and duration.

      [1911 C&P § 514; RL § 6779; NCL § 10461]—(NRS A 1967, 635; 1993, 901; 1995, 1039; 2003, 797; 2017, 1862)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2023 · leading case: HD Supply Facilities Maint., Ltd. v. Bymoen, 210 P.3d 183 (Nev. 2009).
HD Supply Facilities Maint., Ltd. v. Bymoen, 210 P.3d 183 (Nev. 2009). · cites it 12× “[1] The 1995 Legislature added paragraph 4 to NRS 613.200 "to make it clear that the statute of Nevada does not prevent th[e]se kind of reasonable contracts from existing.”
Traffic Control Servs., Inc. v. United Rentals Nw., Inc., 87 P.3d 1054 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 4× “” Finally, they argue that judicial enforcement of Burkhardt’s covenant does not violate public policy or NRS 613.200; 8 rather, public policy supports enforcement of the covenant to protect the health of the business and its goodwill.”
Jones v. Deeter, 913 P.2d 1272 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 10× “In its order, the district court found that: (1) the covenant not to compete was reasonable and enforceable; (2) Jones had violated the terms of the covenant; (3) the $50,000 liquidated damages provision was “an amount meant to punish” Jones and instead awarded damages of…”
Hansen v. Edwards, 426 P.2d 792 (Nev. 1967). · cites it 7× “Hansen contends that NRS 613.200 is Nevada's legislative expression that restrictive covenants are invalid.”
Minshew v. Donley, 911 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (D. Nev. 2012). · cites it 3× “Count Seven — Violation of Nevada Statutes Count seven of Minshew’s Amended Complaint alleges Alpha-Omega engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes §§ 613.200(1), 613.210(2), and 613.340(1).”
Shores v. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., 422 P.3d 1238 (Nev. 2018). “2d at 1275 ; see also NRS 613.200(4) (stating that noncompete agreements are enforceable when reasonable in scope and duration).”
Matthys v. Barrick Gold of North Am., Inc. (D. Nev. 2020). · cites it 6× “210; (4) 20 preventing plaintiff from obtaining new employment in violation of NRS § 613.200; and (5) 21 intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.”
Shores Vs. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., 2018 NV 61 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 2× “2d at 1275; see also NRS 613.200(4) (stating that noncompete agreements are enforceable when reasonable in scope and duration).”
Shores Vs. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., 2018 NV 61 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 2× “2d at 1275; see also NRS 613.200(4) (stating that noncompete agreements are enforceable when reasonable in scope and duration).”
PlayUp, Inc. v. Mintas (D. Nev. 2021). · cites it 2× “22, 2011) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.200 ). Here, the Employment 21 Agreement provides a restrictive covenant preventing Defendant from engaging or participating 22 in an employment, business, or other activity competitive with the Company in the United 23 States during the…”
Matthys v. Barrick Gold of North Am., Inc. (D. Nev. 2023). · cites it 2× “210; (4) preventing him from obtaining new employment in violation of NRS § 613.200; 8 and (5) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (“IIEPA”).”
Danam v. Elaine Kelley (D. Nev. 2019). “25 Plaintiff appears to claim he was wrongfully terminated from his employment as a third 26 grade teacher by Elaine Kelley, Principal of Somerset Academy Aliante Charter School.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.200(1) — 1 case
Minshew v. Donley, 911 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (D. Nev. 2012). “Count Seven — Violation of Nevada Statutes Count seven of Minshew’s Amended Complaint alleges Alpha-Omega engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes §§ 613.200(1), 613.210(2), and 613.340(1).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.200(4) — 5 cases
HD Supply Facilities Maint., Ltd. v. Bymoen, 210 P.3d 183 (Nev. 2009). “[1] The 1995 Legislature added paragraph 4 to NRS 613.200 "to make it clear that the statute of Nevada does not prevent th[e]se kind of reasonable contracts from existing.”
Traffic Control Servs., Inc. v. United Rentals Nw., Inc., 87 P.3d 1054 (Nev. 2004). “” Finally, they argue that judicial enforcement of Burkhardt’s covenant does not violate public policy or NRS 613.200; 8 rather, public policy supports enforcement of the covenant to protect the health of the business and its goodwill.”
Shores v. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., 422 P.3d 1238 (Nev. 2018). “2d at 1275 ; see also NRS 613.200(4) (stating that noncompete agreements are enforceable when reasonable in scope and duration).”
Shores Vs. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., 2018 NV 61 (Nev. 2018). “2d at 1275; see also NRS 613.200(4) (stating that noncompete agreements are enforceable when reasonable in scope and duration).”
Shores Vs. Global Experience Specialists, Inc., 2018 NV 61 (Nev. 2018). “2d at 1275; see also NRS 613.200(4) (stating that noncompete agreements are enforceable when reasonable in scope and duration).”
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.