En Banc Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies State Minimum Wage Record Keeping and Notice Requirements | Smaller

0

In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court provided guidance on how employers should maintain payroll records and notify employees of minimum wage rate adjustments. On December 30, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a 6-0 bench notice in a class action suit regarding the record keeping requirement of NRS 608.115 and the Minimum Wage Amendment (“MWA”) in the notice requirement of the Nevada Constitution. const. of New Brunswick, s. 15, s. 16(A). In A Taxi, LLC vs. Murray, 137 Nov. Adv. Op. 84 (2021), the named representatives in the class action were taxi drivers who alleged minimum wage violations. A Cab, the former employer, appealed the district court’s granting of summary judgment for the drivers and challenged certain interlocutory and postjudgment orders.

Before addressing the substantive issues before it, the Nevada Supreme Court first analyzed whether the district court had jurisdiction over the class action matter. When calculated individually, the plaintiffs’ claims fell below the court’s damages threshold, which when the suit was filed in 2012 was $10,000.1 A Cab argued that under Castillo v. United Fed. Checkout, 134 Nov. 13, 409 P.3d 54 (2018), the individual claims of class members cannot be consolidated to establish the jurisdiction of the district court. The Nevada Supreme Court noted that current NRCP 23(b), which was amended in 2019, specifically allows representative parties to “aggregate the value of the individual claims of all potential class members to establish court jurisdiction.” of district on a class action”. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the total damages sought by the class must be considered in determining whether the court has jurisdiction under NRS 4.370 and that the jurisdictional interpretation set forth in Chateau regarding aggregation was rejected.

Having held that the district court had jurisdiction over the matter, the Nevada Supreme Court then considered the MWA’s notification requirement. For the bottom, under the MWA”[a]n the employer must provide written notification of the [minimum wage] rate adjustments to each of its employees and make the necessary salary adjustments no later than July 1 following the publication of the [Labor Commissioner] bulletin.” Const. S. 15, S. 16(A). The District Court found that the MWA required an employer to “provide” “each” of its employees with “written notice” of wage rate adjustments minimum, and that A Cab failed to properly notify its employees of the rate adjustments. In reversing the district court’s decision, the Nevada Supreme Court held that there was no express requirement that each employee individually a written notice and that a notice posted in the common work area is sufficient.Since A Cab posted the written notice in the common areas of its employees to which each driver had access, the Nevada Supreme Court held that ‘She had met the MWA’s requirements to provide notice to every employee.

The Nevada Supreme Court also considered an employer’s record-keeping requirements. According to NRS 608.115(1), employers are required to “establish and maintain wage records” for each pay period of their employees which “show[] for each pay period”, among others, the “[g]ross salary”, “[n]and cash wages” and “the total number of hours employed in the pay period noting the number of hours per day”. NTS 608.115(1)(a), (c)-(d). In this case, A Cab provided data from its computerized payroll records and handwritten trip sheets for work prior to 2013. While the trip sheets tallied all hours worked by drivers, including hours of start and end times and notes on breaks during the shift, the computerized data for this period did not contain information on the total number of hours worked per shift. The Nevada Supreme Court accepted the district court’s ruling that this information did not comply with the requirements of NRS 608.115. Specifically, even though drivers could determine hours worked by calculating them from trip logs, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the ordinary meaning of the law requires employers to keep records showing an employee’s wages. and the number of hours worked per day.

The Nevada Supreme Court’s unanimous decision clarifies employers’ obligation to keep records reflecting the number of hours worked per day as well as how to properly notify employees of minimum wage rate adjustments. Nevada employers should consult with a competent attorney to ensure compliance with notification and record keeping requirements.

Footnotes

Share.

Comments are closed.