NRS
613.340 Unlawful employment practices: Discrimination for opposing unlawful
practice or assisting investigation; printing or publication of material
indicating prohibited discrimination.
1. It is an unlawful employment practice
for an employer to discriminate against any of his or her employees or
applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any
person, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof
or applicant for membership, because the employee, applicant, person or member,
as applicable, has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by
NRS 613.133 or 613.310 to 613.4383, inclusive, or because he or she
has made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an
investigation, proceeding or hearing under NRS
613.133 or 613.310 to 613.4383, inclusive.
2. It is an unlawful employment practice
for an employer, labor organization or employment agency to print or publish or
cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to
employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or
referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any
classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency,
indicating any preference, limitation, specification or discrimination, based
on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or
expression, age, disability or national origin, except that such a notice or
advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, specification or
discrimination based on religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or
expression, age, physical, mental or visual condition or national origin when
religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age,
physical, mental or visual condition or national origin is a bona fide
occupational qualification for employment.
(Added to NRS by 1965,
692; A 1967,
109; 1973,
982; 1975,
1456; 1991,
1025; 1999,
1939; 2011,
497; 2017,
1786; 2021,
1680)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
42
cases (
31 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case:
Pope v. Motel 6, 114 P.3d 277 (Nev. 2005).
Pope v. Motel 6, 114 P.3d 277 (Nev. 2005).
· cites it 11× “12 We have not previously decided whether Nevada’s anti-retaliation statute, NRS 613.340, supports a retaliation claim when the complaining party has not engaged in protected activity.”
Minshew v. Donley, 911 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (D. Nev. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Finally, § 613.340(1) provides: It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his or her employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any person, or for a labor organization to discriminate…”
Roberts v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 215 F. Supp. 3d 1001 (D. Nev. 2016).
“330; and retaliation under Title VII and NRS 613.340. 47 While discovery in this case was ongoing, Roberts moved for partial summary judgment and requested a finding that he was subjected to discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during the period that the department banned…”
Campos v. Town of Pahrump, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (D. Nev. 2017).
“In Nevada, “NRS 613.340(1) states: It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment .”
Hamby v. Wnba, LLC (D. Nev. 2025).
· cites it 14× “She also sues WNBA, LLC, which 14 operates the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA), for retaliation under Title VII 15 and NRS § 613.340. She alleges the Aces were unlawfully motivated by her pregnancy to trade 16 her to the Los Angeles Sparks, and that both…”
Doe No. 1 v. Wynn Resorts Ltd. (D. Nev. 2023).
· cites it 8× “and NRS § 613.340; (3) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and 21 retention of high-level executives and human resources personnel; (4) intentional infliction of 22 emotional distress; (5) false imprisonment on behalf of Judy Doe Plaintiffs Nos.”
McIntosh v. City of North Las Vegas (D. Nev. 2023).
· cites it 6× “COUNT FIVE: RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII AND NRS § 613.340 5 McIntosh claims CNLV violated Title VII and NRS § 613.”
Rodriguez (D. Nev. 2025).
· cites it 6× “12 Plaintiff brings the instant action alleging claims for negligent supervision and retention, 13 discrimination under Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 613.”
Sternquist v. Humble Hearts LLC. (D. Nev. 2021).
· cites it 5× “1 against discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,”31 or “sexual 2 orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability or national origin.”32 In short, HIPAA 3 and Medicaid violations, although arguably unethical, do not give rise…”
Ramirez v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC (D. Nev. 2022).
· cites it 4× “and NRS § 613.340 22 It is not clear from the complaint or the parties’ briefs under what law Ramirez brings her 23 federal retaliation claim.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.340(1) — 5 cases
Pope v. Motel 6, 114 P.3d 277 (Nev. 2005).
“12 We have not previously decided whether Nevada’s anti-retaliation statute, NRS 613.340, supports a retaliation claim when the complaining party has not engaged in protected activity.”
Minshew v. Donley, 911 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (D. Nev. 2012).
“Finally, § 613.340(1) provides: It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his or her employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any person, or for a labor organization to discriminate…”
Campos v. Town of Pahrump, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1106 (D. Nev. 2017).
“In Nevada, “NRS 613.340(1) states: It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.340(l) — 1 case
Pope v. Motel 6, 114 P.3d 277 (Nev. 2005).
“12 We have not previously decided whether Nevada’s anti-retaliation statute, NRS 613.340, supports a retaliation claim when the complaining party has not engaged in protected activity.”
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.