Nevada Supreme Court Decides Loss Of Minimum Wage Exemption Became Effective In 2006 And Applies A Two Year Statute Of Limitations To MWA Claims

Volume 15, Issue 23
October 28, 2016

In 2006, before the enactment of the Minimum Wage Amendment ("MWA"), certain categories of employees were exempt from the minimum wage under NRS 608.250, specifically:

  • Casual babysitters;
  • Domestic service employees who reside in the household where they work;
  • Outside salespersons whose earnings are based on commissions;
  • Employees engaged in an agricultural pursuit for an employer who did not use more than 500 days of agricultural labor in any calendar quarter of the preceding calendar year;
  • Taxicab and limousine drivers; and
  • Persons with severe disabilities whose disabilities have diminished their productive capacity in a specific job and who are specified in certificates issued by the Rehabilitation Division of the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation.

However, in 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in Thomas v. Nevada Yellow Cab Corp. that the MWA completely eliminated those exemptions. As such, these types of Nevada employees are presently entitled to minimum wage. After Thomas, the unresolved question was when did the exemption cease to exist: on November 28, 2006 when the MWA became effective or on June 26, 2014, the date of the Thomas decision? Yesterday, in Nevada Yellow Cab Corp. v. The Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court answered this question. The Court decided that the elimination of the minimum wage exemptions became effective on November 28, 2006. As such, the types of employees previously exempted from minimum wage under NRS 608.250 have been eligible for minimum wage since November 28, 2006. For employers who did not begin paying minimum wage to the previously exempted employees until after the 2014 Thomas decision, the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling yesterday in Perry v. Terrible Herbst, Inc. provides some clarity. The Court held that the MWA has a two-year statute of limitations.
If you have questions about how to apply these decisions to your specific employees, please contact a KZA attorney.

KZA Employer Report articles are for general information only; they are not intended and should not be construed to be legal advice. Reading or replying to such articles does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In addition, because the subject matters and applicable laws discussed in Employer Report articles are often in a state of change and not always applicable to every type of business entity or organization, readers should consult with counsel before making decisions based on the same.