Nevada — Hiring & Onboarding

Nevada’s salary history ban is not just a formal prohibition—it’s backed by clear enforcement mechanisms, penalties, and remedies for applicants. The ban, codified at NRS 613.133, makes it unlawful for employers to seek, rely on, or require disclosure of an applicant’s wage or salary history. If an employer violates these rules, applicants have a statutory process to seek redress.

Who enforces the ban? Enforcement falls to the Nevada Labor Commissioner. Any applicant who believes an employer has violated NRS 613.133 may file a complaint with the Office of the Labor Commissioner. Notably, this is not restricted only to applicants for new hire positions—internal transfers and promotions are included.

Penalties and remedies:

• The Labor Commissioner may impose an administrative penalty of up to $5,000 per violation. Penalties may be assessed for each distinct violation, and the employer may be ordered to cover the costs of the investigation and hearing. (NRS 613.133(3))
• Retaliation against an individual for filing a complaint, providing information, or assisting in an investigation under the salary history statute is itself an unlawful employment practice. (NRS 613.340)
• If 180 days have passed since the complaint was filed, and the Labor Commissioner’s process is not resolved, the complainant may request a "right to sue." Upon this request, the Labor Commissioner must issue a right-to-sue notice, after which the applicant has 90 days to bring a civil action in Nevada district court. (NRS 613.134)

In summary: Violations can trigger agency penalties, private recovery (including costs), and a private right of action. Anti-retaliation protections apply throughout.

Source: NRS 613.133 Source: NRS 613.134 Source: NRS 613.340

Nevada prohibits public employers from asking about an applicant's criminal history on the initial employment application. This "ban-the-box" requirement applies to state agencies (including appointing authorities governed by Chapter 284 of NRS and the Administrator of the Division of Human Resource Management), counties, incorporated cities, and unincorporated towns. Private employers are not covered by Nevada's ban-the-box law and may ask about criminal history at any stage of the hiring process, subject to federal anti-discrimination requirements.

When Criminal History May Be Considered

Covered public employers may inquire about and consider an applicant's criminal history only after one of three trigger points:

1. After the final interview for the position;
2. After extending a conditional offer of employment; or
3. Upon certification of the applicant, if applicable under the employer's procedures.

The initial employment application form must not include any question asking whether the applicant has been convicted of a felony or has any criminal convictions.

Required Procedural Protections

When a public employer intends to reject an applicant or rescind a conditional offer based on criminal history, NRS 284.281 and NRS 284.283 impose specific procedural requirements. The employer must follow a multi-step process that includes written notice to the applicant, specification of the conviction(s) that form the basis for the adverse decision, and an opportunity for the applicant to discuss the matter with the appointing authority's human resources director or designee.

The employer must consider five individualized factors before making a final adverse decision: (1) the nature and gravity of the offense; (2) the time elapsed since the offense; (3) the nature of the position sought; (4) the relationship of the offense to the position; and (5) evidence of the applicant's rehabilitation. Public employers may not consider convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or pardoned.

Enforcement

Under NRS 613.330(8), it is an unlawful employment practice for a covered public employer to consider criminal history without following the required procedures. Applicants who believe their rights under Nevada's ban-the-box law have been violated may file a complaint with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission, which enforces the state's anti-discrimination employment laws.

Source: NRS 613.330 Source: NRS 284.281 Source: NRS 284.283

In Nevada, NRS 613.132 makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire someone solely because a pre-employment screening test shows the presence of marijuana. This applies to any form of pre-hire screening — blood, urine, hair, or saliva test.

Key exceptions:

• Applicants for firefighter positions (as defined in NRS 450B.071) and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) as defined in NRS 450B.065;
• Positions that require operation of a motor vehicle and are subject to federal or state drug testing requirements;
• Any position that, in the employer’s reasonable determination, could adversely affect the safety of others.

If the employer requires a screening test within the first 30 days of employment, the employee may request, at the employee’s own expense, a second screening test to rebut the initial positive result. The employer must accept and give appropriate consideration to the results of the second screening test (note: this is the phrasing used in the statute; the law does not define "appropriate consideration" further).

Additional carve-outs: NRS 613.132 does not apply (i) where doing so would conflict with an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement, (ii) to the extent it conflicts with federal law, or (iii) to positions funded by a federal grant.

Bottom line: For most private-sector hires in Nevada, a positive marijuana screen cannot alone justify a refusal to hire—unless a statutory exception applies.

Source: NRS 613.132

Nevada law prohibits employers from requesting, requiring, suggesting, or otherwise causing a prospective or current employee to submit a consumer credit report or other credit information as a condition of employment, promotion, or for any employment-related decision, unless a statutory exception applies (NRS 613.570). Employers also may not use, accept, refer to, or inquire about such information, nor take adverse action—such as refusing to hire, promote, or otherwise disciplining—based on a refusal to provide this information or on the contents of a report. Retaliation for exercising rights or participating in proceedings under these statutes is expressly barred.

Statutory exceptions (NRS 613.580): An employer may request or rely on credit information only if:

1. State or federal law requires or authorizes its use; or
2. The employer reasonably believes, based on information specific to the person, that the individual engaged in activity that may violate state or federal law; or
3. The information is reasonably related to the position. NRS 613.580(1)(c) enumerates example categories for this exception, including positions that involve:

• The handling of money or financial assets;
• Managerial or supervisory functions;
• Access to trade secrets or confidential business information;
• Regular access to personal financial information of others;
• Law enforcement duties;
• Employment with a financial institution; or
• Employment with a licensed gaming establishment.

Remedies and enforcement (NRS 613.590): Anyone aggrieved by a violation may bring a civil action within three years for actual damages, employment, reinstatement or promotion, and recovery of lost wages and benefits. Actions may be brought individually or on behalf of others similarly situated.

Source: NRS 613.570 Source: NRS 613.580 Source: NRS 613.590

Nevada law prohibits employers from requesting access to the personal social media accounts of prospective employees as a condition of hire. Aimed squarely at protecting the privacy of job applicants, NRS 613.135—effective October 1, 2013—bars several distinct employer practices during hiring:

Prohibited employer acts:

• Requiring or requesting an applicant to disclose a username, password, or any other authentication information for a personal social media account.
• Compelling an applicant to access their personal social media account in the employer’s presence.
• Requiring an applicant to add the employer or its agent to the list of contacts associated with a personal social media account.
• Retaliating or discriminating against an applicant for refusing to comply with any of the above (for example, by rejecting their application).

Scope and exceptions:

• The term “social media account” is defined broadly to cover any electronic service, account, or content, including emails, messages, website profiles, blogs, photographs, and more.
• The law does not prevent employers from requesting access to information that is publicly available.
• Exception: An employer may require disclosure only in the narrow context of conducting an investigation into specific allegations that the applicant has engaged in misconduct, or violated law or employer policies using their social media account—but only as necessary for the investigation.

Enforcement:

• The Labor Commissioner may impose an administrative penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. The statute does not describe a private applicant complaint process.

Source: NRS 613.135