Nevada — Workplace Discrimination

Nevada's primary employment discrimination statute is the Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act, codified in NRS 613.310–613.4383. An "employer" under the Act means any person who has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (NRS 613.310(2)). The definition excludes the United States and corporations wholly owned by the United States, Indian tribes, and private membership clubs exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c). The Act prohibits discrimination based on race (including hair texture and protective hairstyles), color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, and national origin. Complaints alleging unlawful employment practices are filed with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission.

Source: NRS 613.310, NRS 613.330, NRS 613.405

The deadline to file an employment discrimination complaint with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) is set by statute — NRS 233.160(1)(b). That section states: a complaint "must be filed not later than 300 days after the date of the occurrence of the alleged practice."

Statutory Authority: This 300-day filing period is mandated directly by Nevada law, not merely by NERC regulation or policy. It applies to all employment discrimination claims within NERC’s jurisdiction, including charges based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, and national origin, as set forth in the Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act (NRS 613.310 et seq.). The window aligns with the federal co-filing period for EEOC charges but arises independently under Nevada statute.

Strictness and Jurisdictional Character: NRS 233.160(1)(b) uses categorical language, with no statutory text providing for extensions, tolling, or equitable exceptions: "must be filed not later than 300 days." Nevada courts typically interpret such deadlines strictly, particularly when they appear as express limitations on agency jurisdiction. There is no published Nevada case holding that NERC or a Nevada court may accept a late complaint or toll this 300-day deadline based on equitable reasons. In current authority, the 300-day period is treated as a jurisdictional bar for NERC administrative complaints. Unless amended by the Legislature, a complaint filed after the 300-day window is beyond NERC’s statutory authority to consider.

Summary:

• The 300-day discrimination complaint deadline is set by statute (NRS 233.160(1)(b)), not just NERC policy.
• The period is mandatory, not extendable, and serves as a jurisdictional bar for late filings.
• There are no published Nevada cases or statutes authorizing tolling or extension of this deadline.

Source: NRS 233.160

NRS 613.330 enumerates the specific actions an employer with 15 or more employees may not take on the basis of a protected characteristic. The statute defines three core categories of unlawful conduct.

Refusal to hire, discharge, or discrimination in terms and conditions (NRS 613.330(1)(a)) It is unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire any person, to discharge any person, or otherwise to discriminate against any person with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of race (including hair texture and protective hairstyles associated with race), color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, or national origin. This subsection reaches initial hiring decisions, termination, and any adverse change to pay, benefits, schedule, job assignments, or working conditions.

Limitation, segregation, or classification of employees (NRS 613.330(1)(b)) It is unlawful to limit, segregate, or classify an employee in a way that would deprive or tend to deprive the employee of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the employee's status, because of a protected characteristic. This prohibition covers job channeling (e.g., assigning women only to certain departments), formal or informal tracking systems, and barriers to promotion or lateral transfer that turn on protected status rather than legitimate business criteria.

Wage-disclosure discrimination (NRS 613.330(1)(c)) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 7 of NRS 613.330, an employer may not discriminate against any employee because the employee has inquired about, discussed, or voluntarily disclosed the employee's wages or the wages of another employee. This protection applies to both private conversations and collective efforts to share pay information; Nevada law mirrors the federal National Labor Relations Act's protection for concerted wage discussion.

Interference with disability aids and service animals (NRS 613.330(4)–(6)) An employer commits an unlawful practice if it interferes with, impedes the use of, or withholds any aid or appliance used by an employee with a disability. Separately, an employer may not directly or indirectly refuse to permit an employee with a disability to keep a service animal (as defined in NRS 426.097) with the employee at all times in the workplace. An exception exists for miniature horses: the employer may refuse to permit a miniature-horse service animal if the employer determines it is not reasonable to comply, using the assessment factors in 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c)(9).

Criminal-history consideration by public-sector appointing authorities (NRS 613.330(8)) For appointing authorities governed by chapter 284 of NRS (state civil service), the Administrator of the Division of Human Resource Management, and the governing bodies of counties, cities, and towns, it is unlawful to consider an applicant's criminal history without following the procedural requirements in NRS 245.046, 268.402, 269.0802, 284.281, or 284.283, as applicable. These cross-referenced statutes mandate "ban the box" sequencing—deferring criminal-history inquiries until after an initial screening or conditional offer.

NRS 613.330 applies only to employers that meet the 15-employee threshold in NRS 613.310(2). Exceptions to these prohibitions are cataloged in NRS 613.350 (bona fide occupational qualifications, seniority systems, testing for ability, business necessity) and NRS 613.370 (national security).

Source: NRS 613.330

As of July 2026, Nevada statutory law (NRS 613.310–613.4383) does not expressly authorize compensatory damages for emotional distress or pain and suffering in private-sector employment discrimination actions under the Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA). Though NRS 613.432 allows district courts to grant “the same legal or equitable relief” as is available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, neither Nevada’s statutes nor published appellate decisions categorically confirm that compensatory damages for emotional distress are available in private-sector NRS 613 cases.

Administrative (NERC) proceedings: The Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC), when it orders remedies following a finding of discrimination, is limited by NRS 233.170 to ordering reinstatement, hiring, back pay (with prescribed interest), and cessation of the unlawful practice. There is no express authority for compensatory or emotional-distress damages in NERC administrative awards, and the Commission’s orders and guidance do not indicate that such damages are available administratively.

District court (civil action) practice: In suits brought in Nevada district court, NRS 613.432’s reference to the relief available under Title VII creates a potential opening for compensatory damages. However, Nevada appellate courts have not expressly held that Title VII’s 1991 Civil Rights Act remedies—including damages for emotional distress (42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3))—are imported into NRS 613 actions. The leading Nevada Supreme Court case, Allianz Ins. Co. v. Gagnon, 109 Nev. 990 (1993), addresses reinstatement and back pay but is silent on compensatory awards for pain and suffering. Routine district court practice, as surveyed in reported decisions and agency publications, is to deny such damages absent explicit statutory or precedent-based authority. The Nevada Legislature has not amended NRS 613 to parallel the full range of Title VII post-1991 remedies. No statute or published appellate case as of 2026 has settled the question in favor of, or categorically against, availability of emotional-distress damages under state law for private-sector employment discrimination cases.

Summary:

• There is no controlling Nevada statute or appellate decision expressly authorizing compensatory (emotional distress) damages under NRS 613.
• The availability of such damages remains unsettled as of July 2026, despite the language in NRS 613.432 referencing Title VII remedies.
• Nevada administrative practice (NERC) does not provide for such damages.
• District courts may consider Title VII precedents, but, to date, no published decision has found emotional distress damages recoverable under NRS 613 for private-sector claims.

Source: NRS 613.432, NRS 233.170, Allianz Ins. Co. v. Gagnon, 109 Nev. 990 (1993)

A complainant who files a workplace discrimination charge with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) may pursue a civil action in district court, but only after either: (1) the NERC has issued a written determination on the complaint, or (2) the NERC issues a right-to-sue notice upon the complainant's request after a specific waiting period.

Requesting a right-to-sue notice: Under NRS 613.405(5), if the NERC has not concluded its investigation or issued a final determination within 180 days after the complaint was filed, the complainant may submit a written request to the Commission for a right-to-sue notice. The Commission is required by statute to issue the notice within 10 days of such a request. This right is permissive (the complainant may, but is not required to, request the notice after the waiting period).

Jurisdictional precondition and effect: Once the right-to-sue notice is issued by the NERC (or a final determination has been made), the complainant has 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice to file a civil action in the Nevada district court. This 90-day filing deadline is jurisdictional – failure to file within this window generally bars the claim. The law provides that receipt of the notice (not just its issuance) triggers the 90-day period. The NERC has no discretion to deny issuing a right-to-sue notice if timely requested after the 180-day period; it is a mandatory obligation.

Key statutory steps:

• Complainant files with NERC (NRS 613.405(1))
• NERC investigates, pursues conciliation, or makes findings
• If no determination within 180 days, complainant may request right-to-sue (NRS 613.405(5))
• NERC must issue notice within 10 days (NRS 613.405(5))
• Complainant must file civil action within 90 days of receipt (NRS 613.420(2))

Summary:

• Right-to-sue request available after 180 days
• NERC has 10 days to issue the notice
• Complainant has 90 days from receipt of notice to sue
• Right-to-sue post-180 days is mandatory for NERC upon request (permissive for complainant)

Source: NRS 613.405, NRS 613.420

Nevada’s employment disability-discrimination law (NRS Chapter 613) prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of disability—this includes refusing to hire, discharging, or otherwise discriminating “with respect to ... compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment” because of disability (NRS 613.330(1)(a)-(b)). It also prohibits interference with use of disability aids, including service animals (NRS 613.330(5)-(6)).

However, Nevada law does not impose a separate state-law requirement to provide reasonable accommodations to employees or applicants with disabilities, unlike the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). There is no statutory provision in NRS 613 requiring employers to engage in an interactive process, assess undue hardship, or affirmatively provide accommodations for disability (as distinct from pregnancy-related conditions, which are covered under the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act at NRS 613.4371 et seq.).

In practice, employers in Nevada are still subject to the federal ADA, which requires reasonable accommodation, interactive process, and undue-hardship assessment. But Nevada law itself does not add or layer on its own accommodation duty or process.

In sum:

• Under Nevada law, failure to accommodate a disability is not per se an unlawful employment practice — only discrimination as defined by NRS 613.330.
• Under federal law (ADA), failure to accommodate a qualified individual with a disability is unlawful discrimination.
• Nevada does not have its own interactive-process statute or undue-hardship provision for disability accommodations beyond the ADA floor.
• For pregnancy-related conditions, a separate Nevada requirement to accommodate exists under the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act (NRS 613.4371 et seq.).

This means employers operating in Nevada should continue to follow federal ADA accommodation obligations. Nevada law provides broader disability-discrimination protections but does not impose affirmative accommodation duties.

Source: NRS 613.330 (definitions, discrimination, interference); no further accommodation mandate located as of 2026-06-16.

Does Nevada law impose a minimum age requirement for bringing an age-discrimination claim?

Nevada's Fair Employment Practices Act (NRS 613.310–613.4383) prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants “because of … age,” but the statute does not define a specific minimum age threshold for protection. Unlike the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)—which only protects individuals who are at least 40 years old—Nevada law does not limit its coverage to employees or applicants of a certain age. This means that, on the face of the statute, workers of any age could potentially file an age-discrimination claim if an employer takes adverse action against them because of their age.

Carve-outs for persons less than 40 years of age (NRS 613.350): Nevada law does allow employers certain exceptions, but these do not operate as a global bar on claims for younger workers. Under NRS 613.350(3), it is not unlawful for an employer to take action based on age if the person is less than 40 years of age, provided age is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. Additionally, under NRS 613.350(5), employers may exclude persons less than 40 years of age from certain bona fide employee benefit plans, but may not exclude those who are at least 40 because of age.

Uniform application to covered employers: The minimum-age details above apply to all employers covered by the Act (those with 15 or more employees, per NRS 613.310(2)).

Summary: Nevada law does not set a minimum age threshold for asserting an age-discrimination claim. However, employers may rely on certain exceptions when the affected individual is less than 40 years of age, chiefly in bona fide occupational qualification and benefit plan contexts. For most cases, anyone alleging adverse action because of age—regardless of age—can potentially bring a claim under NRS 613, unless an employer can show a statutory exception applies.

Source: NRS 613.330, NRS 613.350

Nevada law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees or applicants who engage in certain protected activities related to employment discrimination. The core anti-retaliation rule is set out in NRS 613.340(1): it is unlawful for any employer to "discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by NRS 613.310 to 613.4383, or because the person has made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under those statutes."

Protected activities under NRS 613.340:

• Opposing unlawful employment practices—such as raising or reporting a discrimination concern under Nevada's Fair Employment Practices Act (NRS 613.310–613.4383).
• Filing a discrimination charge or formal complaint, whether with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) or internally to the employer.
• Testifying, assisting, or participating in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the relevant Nevada statutes. This covers both complainants and witnesses, regardless of the outcome of the underlying discrimination allegation.

What actions by employers are prohibited as retaliation? NRS 613.340 prohibits "discrimination" because of protected activity, but does not define the full range of forbidden actions. The statute is interpreted at a minimum to prohibit classic adverse employment actions—such as firing, demotion, pay reduction, denial of promotion, or other similar acts that affect significant terms or conditions of employment—if taken for a retaliatory reason. The Nevada Equal Rights Commission's "Facts About Retaliation" factsheet also lists threats, harassment, denial of benefits, and other tangible workplace penalties as potential retaliation targets.

Limits and application: NRS 613.340 speaks to employer actions taken because of the employee's or applicant's protected activity. The statute itself does not further define "adverse action" or use the federal 'reasonable person' standard seen under Title VII; Nevada courts and the NERC often reference federal cases and frameworks for additional guidance, but the Nevada statute and current NERC publications do not expressly adopt those standards. Practitioners should look directly to statutory text and the NERC factsheet for the Nevada-specific rule, and only analogize to federal law where state authority is silent.

Source: NRS 613.340 Source: Facts About Retaliation (NERC)

Employees who prevail on a claim of unlawful employment discrimination under the Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act (NFEPA), NRS 613.310–613.4383, may access different remedies depending on whether their case is resolved via the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) or in state district court. The primary statutory sources governing available remedies are NRS 233.170 (administrative orders), NRS 613.432 (court-ordered relief), and NRS 42.005 (punitive damages caps).

Remedies in NERC Administrative Proceedings When the NERC finds discrimination and conciliation efforts fail, the agency may order:

• Reinstatement or hiring;
• Back pay with interest (calculated by the prime rate plus 2%);
• For sex discrimination, additional elements such as overtime, shift differential, cost-of-living increases, and lost promotions/benefits may be included;
• Orders to cease the discriminatory practice and implement affirmative steps, like policy changes.

The available relief is set by NRS 233.170 and does not expressly include compensatory damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, or punitive damages. Attorney's fees are not referenced in this context; the statute is silent on their availability in administrative awards.

Remedies in District Court If the claimant brings suit in Nevada district court, NRS 613.432 authorizes the court to award "such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate." This broad language parallels Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and Nevada courts generally follow federal practice in interpreting comparable terms. Available remedies commonly include:

• Back pay;
• Reinstatement or, where impractical, "front pay" as an equitable substitute (front pay is not named in the statute but has been recognized by Nevada courts, see Allianz Ins. Co. v. Gagnon, 109 Nev. 990 (1993));
• Injunctive or other equitable orders to make the employee whole.

Punitive damages may be awarded (in egregious cases) and are subject to the caps found in NRS 42.005—generally, three times compensatory damages for awards over $100,000, or $300,000 for awards under $100,000, unless a statute prescribes a different cap (there is no alternate cap in NFEPA).

Compensatory Damages & Attorney's Fees The NFEPA does not expressly authorize compensatory (emotional distress) damages or attorneys’ fees for private-sector claimants. NRS 613.432’s broad "legal or equitable relief" clause raises the possibility such remedies might be available in some cases, especially by analogy to Title VII, but the Nevada statutes are silent and the issue unsettled. Attorney's fees are expressly provided in NRS 613.490—but this provision applies to public-sector claims only.

Summary Table:

• Back pay: Yes (admin/court)
• Front pay: Court only (recognized by caselaw, not enumerated in statute)
• Reinstatement/hiring: Yes (admin/court)
• Compensatory damages (emotional distress): Statute silent; not expressly provided
• Punitive damages: Court only, subject to NRS 42.005 caps
• Attorney’s fees: Statute silent for private claims; provided for public sector (NRS 613.490)
• Injunctive/equitable relief: Yes (admin/court)

Sources: NRS 233.170, NRS 613.432, NRS 42.005, NRS 613.490

The process for handling Nevada employment discrimination complaints brought before the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) is structured in a series of statutory steps, but does not mirror the federal EEOC model exactly. Here’s how the administrative and court pathways work under Nevada law:

1. Complaint Filing (NRS 233.160) A person may file a written complaint alleging discrimination with the NERC. While federal law (Title VII) sets a 300-day filing window when state agencies participate in charge processing, NRS 233.160 itself does not specify an exact deadline for filing with NERC—the complaint must simply allege an act within the Commission’s jurisdiction (employment, public accommodations, housing, etc.).

2. Investigation and Informal Resolution (NRS 233.170(1)-(2)) Upon receipt, the NERC is required to informally address the complaint by methods such as conference, conciliation, and persuasion to resolve the alleged discriminatory practice. If these informal efforts do not eliminate the issue, the NERC conducts an investigation to determine whether probable cause exists to believe the discrimination occurred.

3. Conciliation and Public Hearing (NRS 233.170(2)-(4)) If probable cause is found and informal conciliation fails, the Commission may convene a public hearing. All parties have the right to present evidence and be represented by counsel. If the Commission finds discrimination did occur, it can order remedies, including hiring, reinstatement, or back pay.

4. Right-to-Sue Notice and District Court Filing (NRS 613.405, NRS 613.420) If the NERC has not issued a final determination within 180 days of the filing, the complainant may request a right-to-sue notice. NERC must issue this notice within 10 days after receiving the request. The complainant then has 90 days from receipt of the notice (or of the final NERC determination after a hearing) to file a civil action in Nevada district court. The court’s jurisdiction is conditioned on issuance of either a determination or a right-to-sue notice, making exhaustion (or waiver) of the administrative process mandatory under state law.

5. Judicial Review of Commission Orders (NRS 233B.130) If a complainant (or respondent) is aggrieved by the NERC's final order, they may seek judicial review under Nevada’s Administrative Procedure Act by filing a petition in state district court within 30 days after service of the final decision. Judicial review is generally based on the agency record, except as the court may allow otherwise.

Summary Table:

• Complaint filed with NERC (no statutory deadline in NRS)
• Investigation, informal resolution, possible public hearing
• If no determination in 180 days, claimant may demand right-to-sue notice (NRS 613.405)
• Suit in district court: within 90 days of right-to-sue notice or final order (NRS 613.420)
• Judicial review of NERC orders: district court petition within 30 days (NRS 233B.130)

Source: NRS 233.160, NRS 233.170, NRS 613.405, NRS 613.420, NRS 233B.130

Nevada’s Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA), codified in NRS 613.310 to 613.435, defines “employer” to mean only those businesses with 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (see NRS 613.310(2)). This threshold applies uniformly to all of the FEPA’s key protections, including prohibitions on discrimination (NRS 613.330), retaliation (NRS 613.340), wage-disclosure protections (NRS 613.330(1)(c)), and the lawful-use-of-products provision (NRS 613.333).

No FEPA provision—including the wage-disclosure rule, anti-retaliation provision, or the lawful-use-of-products protection—creates a heightened obligation for employers with fewer than 15 employees. Every substantive protection in NRS 613.310 to 613.435 utilizes the same definition of “employer” as found in § 613.310, unless a section is expressly limited otherwise (none are, as of June 2026). Thus, businesses with fewer than 15 employees are not subject to Nevada’s state-law workplace discrimination, wage discussion, or retaliation requirements under FEPA. (Note: Certain federal rules—like Title VII and the federal wage discussion protections under the NLRA—may still apply, but the Nevada statutory overlay does not reach small employers.)

Practitioners should also note that unlike some states, Nevada does not have statewide anti-discrimination statutes imposing coverage for small employers outside the FEPA, nor does the Nevada Equal Rights Commission have regulatory authority to expand that scope in rulemaking.

Source: NRS 613.310, NRS 613.330, NRS 613.333, NRS 613.340