Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.330

Unlawful employment practices: Discrimination on basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, national origin or discussion of wages; interference with aid or appliance for disability; refusal to permit service animal at place of employment; consideration of criminal history without following required procedure

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 613.330  Unlawful employment practices: Discrimination on basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, national origin or discussion of wages; interference with aid or appliance for disability; refusal to permit service animal at place of employment; consideration of criminal history without following required procedure.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 613.350, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer:

      (a) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any person, or otherwise to discriminate against any person with respect to the person’s compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability or national origin;

      (b) To limit, segregate or classify an employee in a way which would deprive or tend to deprive the employee of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his or her status as an employee, because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability or national origin; or

      (c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 7, to discriminate against any employee because the employee has inquired about, discussed or voluntarily disclosed his or her wages or the wages of another employee.

      2.  It is an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency:

      (a) To fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any person because of the race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability or national origin of that person;

      (b) To classify or refer for employment any person on the basis of the race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability or national origin of that person; or

      (c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 7, to discriminate against any person because the person has inquired about, discussed or voluntarily disclosed his or her wages or the wages of another person.

      3.  It is an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization:

      (a) To exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any person because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability or national origin;

      (b) To limit, segregate or classify its membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any person, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive the person of employment opportunities, or would limit the person’s employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the person’s status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability or national origin;

      (c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 7, to discriminate or take any other action prohibited by this section against any member thereof or any applicant for membership because the member or applicant has inquired about, discussed or voluntarily disclosed his or her wages or the wages of another member or applicant; or

      (d) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against any person in violation of this section.

      4.  It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including, without limitation, on-the-job training programs, to discriminate against any person because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training.

      5.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 6, it is an unlawful employment practice for any employer, employment agency, labor organization or joint labor-management committee to discriminate against a person with a disability by interfering, directly or indirectly, with the use of an aid or appliance, including, without limitation, a service animal, by such a person.

      6.  It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, directly or indirectly, to refuse to permit an employee with a disability to keep the employee’s service animal with him or her at all times in his or her place of employment, except that an employer may refuse to permit an employee to keep a service animal that is a miniature horse with him or her if the employer determines that it is not reasonable to comply, using the assessment factors set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 36.302.

      7.  The provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection 1, paragraph (c) of subsection 2 and paragraph (c) of subsection 3, as applicable, do not apply to any person who has access to information about the wages of other persons as part of his or her essential job functions and discloses that information to a person who does not have access to that information unless the disclosure is ordered by the Labor Commissioner or a court of competent jurisdiction.

      8.  It is an unlawful employment practice for an appointing authority governed by the provisions of chapter 284 of NRS, the Administrator of the Division of Human Resource Management of the Department of Administration or the governing body of a county, incorporated city or unincorporated town to consider the criminal history of an applicant for employment without following the procedure required in NRS 245.046, 268.402, 269.0802, 284.281 or 284.283, as applicable.

      9.  As used in this section, “service animal” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 426.097.

      (Added to NRS by 1965, 691; A 1967, 108; 1971, 1056; 1973, 981, 1497; 1981, 1300, 1920; 1991, 1024; 1995, 1993; 1999, 1938; 2003, 2976; 2005, 631; 2011, 496; 2015, 271; 2017, 1862, 2103)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 167 cases (110 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton County
Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) scotus · cites it 2× “); Nev. Rev. Stat. §613.330 (1) (2017) (prohibiting discrimination because of “sex, sexual orientation,” etc.”
Chavez v. Sievers (2002) nev · cites it 6× “Respondents moved the district court for summary judgment on the basis that the company does not employ fifteen or more employees and is therefore not subject to the federal laws regarding employment discrimination, or NRS 613.330, governing unlawful employment practices.”
Roberts v. Clark County School District (2016) nvd · cites it 6× “terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability or national origin; or (b) To limit, segregate or classify an employee in a way which would deprive or tend to…”
Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) cal · cites it 2× “§ 48-1004 ; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.330 ; N.H. Rev. Stat.”
Littlefield v. State, ex rel. Department of Public Safety (2016) nvd · cites it 3× “Littlefield timely filed his Amended Complaint, seeking relief for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Nevada Revised Statute sections 613.330, et seq. C.Disputed Facts The parties dispute when the NHP learned of plaintiffs monocular vision, and *1152…”
Roberts v. Clark County School District (2016) nvd “CCSD does not dispute that he began presenting as male and made his request for a records change in 2011 after NRS 613.330 went into effect. Rather, CCSD asks for the names, addresses, and dates of consultation of each health care provider who examined, treated or with whom…”
Stewart v. SBE Entertainment Group, LLC (2017) nvd · cites it 2× “Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.330 (1) is almost identical to Title VII, and courts apply the same analysis.”
Cohen-Breen v. Gray Television Group, Inc. (2009) nvd · cites it 4× “330 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to “discriminate against any person with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of his race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability or national origin”…”
Pope v. MOTEL 6 (2005) nev “6 Under NRS 613.330(1), it is an unlawful employment practice to discharge any individual because of his or her race, color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability or national origin.”
Okeke v. Biomat USA, Inc. (2013) nvd · cites it 2× “Race and National Origin Discrimination under Nevada Statutes Under the Nevada Equal Employment Opportunity Act, Nev.Rev.Stat. § 613.330 et seq., national origin discrimination claims contain the same elements as similar claims under Title VII.”
Apeceche v. White Pine County (1980) nev · cites it 2× “The Commission determined that White Pine County (County) engaged in an unlawful employment practice, in violation of NRS 613.330, by discriminating against Apeceche because she is a' Mexican national.”
Copeland v. Desert Inn Hotel (1983) nev · cites it 2× “The first cause of action in the amended complaint alleged a violation of NRS 613.330(1). 1 The second cause of action alleged violations of sections 503-505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.330(1) — 18 cases
Pope v. MOTEL 6 (2005) nev “6 Under NRS 613.330(1), it is an unlawful employment practice to discharge any individual because of his or her race, color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability or national origin.”
Chavez v. Sievers (2002) nev “Respondents moved the district court for summary judgment on the basis that the company does not employ fifteen or more employees and is therefore not subject to the federal laws regarding employment discrimination, or NRS 613.330, governing unlawful employment practices.”
Copeland v. Desert Inn Hotel (1983) nev “The first cause of action in the amended complaint alleged a violation of NRS 613.330(1). 1 The second cause of action alleged violations of sections 503-505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.”
Littlefield v. State, ex rel. Department of Public Safety (2016) nvd “Littlefield timely filed his Amended Complaint, seeking relief for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Nevada Revised Statute sections 613.330, et seq. C.Disputed Facts The parties dispute when the NHP learned of plaintiffs monocular vision, and *1152…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.330(1)(a) — 7 cases
Chavez v. Sievers (2002) nev “Respondents moved the district court for summary judgment on the basis that the company does not employ fifteen or more employees and is therefore not subject to the federal laws regarding employment discrimination, or NRS 613.330, governing unlawful employment practices.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.330(l)(a) — 3 cases
Chavez v. Sievers (2002) nev “Respondents moved the district court for summary judgment on the basis that the company does not employ fifteen or more employees and is therefore not subject to the federal laws regarding employment discrimination, or NRS 613.330, governing unlawful employment practices.”
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.