Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question concernig private right of action. Nevada

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question concernig private right of action. Nevada

    The Nevada Supreme Court recently ruled that dealers who were being forced to pool their tips with managers had no private right of action under Nevada law.

    My question for you is, does part 2 of the following statute imply a private right of action when it clearly states that employees whom tips are bestowed upon cannot be prohibitted from entering into an agreement to divide such tips or gratuities?

    1. It is unlawful for any person to:
    (a) Take all or part of any tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees.
    (b) Apply as a credit toward the payment of the statutory minimum hourly wage establishment by any law of this state any tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees.
    2. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prevent such
    employees from entering into an agreement to divide such tips or gratuities among themselves.

    Wouldn't a ruling suggesting employees have no private right of action concerning their tips totally violate the instruction of this particular statute?

    How can an employee enter into an agreement to divide such property when the Supreme court in this particular state has ruled that an employee whom tips are bestowed upon would have no private right of action?

    It just seems to me that the court ruling is ignoring the law as written. Could anyone please explain what it would take to substantiate that a person had a private right of action. The law in question seems to suggest that employees whom tips are bestowed upon cannot not be prohibitted from entering into a legally binding agreement to share their property among a group. To me, the language clearly suggests that employees whom tips are bestowed upon have legal rights concerning their tips which cannot be infringed upon. Am I wrong in this assumption? Obviously if this law is stating that an employee can enter into an agreement concerning real property, money in the form of tips, then it is implying that the employee, in this particular instance, has and must have somekind of legal right to the property in question. Am I incorrect in my logic?

    Any insight on what is needed to substantiate a private right of action would be appreciated.

  • #2
    Not again.

    Go pay an attorney.
    I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

    Comment


    • #3
      "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

      [Joshua - from the Wargames movie]
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
      Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

      Comment


      • #4
        Intent of legistlation.

        Please also note the the actual author of this particular statute stated, in an Amicus brief to the Nevada Supreme Court,

        The intent of the statute was to protect tipped employees and expand their rights.

        The reason I have brought up this point is because I have been led to believe that the intent of the law plays an important role in determining whether of not a statute creates a private right of action.

        Thank you all again for your insight on this matter.

        Comment

        Working...
        X