Nevada
Nevada At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 20, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 20, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Nevada is an at-will employment state, meaning an employer may terminate an employee for any reason or no reason at all, as long as the reason is not an illegal one. This default rule applies to virtually all private-sector employees under Nevada common law.
Is Nevada an at-will employment state?
Nevada is an at-will employment state. Under the common law doctrine applied by Nevada courts, an employer may discharge an employee at any time, with or without cause, and with or without advance notice. Employees may also resign at any time for any reason. This is the default rule for private-sector employment throughout Nevada, and it means that most employees do not need to show "just cause" existed before an employer can terminate them. There is no state statute that generally converts Nevada's default to a for-cause regime, so the common-law at-will rule remains in full force except where a specific exception applies.
Exceptions to at-will employment in Nevada
Nevada recognizes all three of the major common-law exceptions to at-will employment. Each one is narrow and fact-dependent.

Public-policy exception. Nevada recognizes a cause of action for tortious discharge when a termination violates a clear mandate of public policy. The Nevada Supreme Court first articulated this rule in Hansen v. Harrah's, 100 Nev. 60 (1984), holding that retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim stated a claim for tortious discharge. D'Angelo v. Gardner, 107 Nev. 704 (1991) extended the doctrine, holding that firing an employee for refusing to work under unreasonably dangerous conditions likewise violates public policy, and grounding that public policy in Nevada's occupational safety and health statute (NRS Chapter 618). This exception does not cover every firing that seems unfair; it is limited to discharges that offend a well-established policy of the state.
Implied-contract exception. Nevada courts hold that an employer's handbook, written policy, or oral assurances can give rise to an implied contract that limits the right to terminate at will. The leading cases are Southwest Gas Corp. v. Ahmad, 99 Nev. 594 (1983), and American Bank Stationery v. Farmer, 106 Nev. 698 (1990), where the court held that the hiring manager's express oral promise, reinforced by an employee handbook he reviewed with Farmer, created a contract permitting discharge only for cause. D'Angelo v. Gardner, 107 Nev. 704 (1991), likewise recognized that clear commitments in an employee handbook can displace at-will status.
At-will remains a presumption, though, and the employee carries the burden of rebutting it by a preponderance of the evidence. Nevada courts have repeatedly found handbook language insufficient to do that. Vancheri v. GNLV Corp., 105 Nev. 417 (1989), sits on the other side of that line: the employee there had a handbook, but as D'Angelo later described it, "the handbook did not contain employee disciplinary procedures or specification[s]," and the implied-contract claim failed as a matter of law. Vancheri is authority for the at-will presumption, not for the proposition that a handbook creates a contract. Employees who believe a handbook protects them should read it closely for specific, definite commitments about discipline and discharge, and note any language stating that employment remains at will regardless of what the handbook says.
Covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Nevada is among a small minority of states that recognizes a good-faith-and-fair-dealing exception, but the Nevada Supreme Court has kept it deliberately narrow. In K Mart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39 (1987), the court allowed a tort claim where a long-term employee, about six months from full vesting of his retirement benefits, was fired to defeat those contractual retirement benefits. The court was careful to limit its holding to that fact pattern: bad-faith termination for the improper motive of defeating contractual retirement benefits. Nevada courts have not expanded Ponsock into a general "bad motive" exception that applies to ordinary at-will firings. If the employee does not have a contractual retirement benefit that the employer is trying to defeat, the Ponsock theory almost certainly will not succeed.
Is Nevada a right-to-work state?
Nevada is a right-to-work state. NRS 613.230 through 613.300 provide that no person may be required, as a condition of employment, to join or refrain from joining a labor union, or to pay dues, fees, or other charges to a union. This protection applies to both union and non-union workers.
It is important to understand what right-to-work does and does not mean. Right-to-work laws address only the question of union membership and financial support. They have nothing to do with whether your employer can fire you or whether just cause is required. An employee in a right-to-work state is still an at-will employee unless an exception or individual contract says otherwise. Nevada is one of 26 right-to-work states in 2026 (down from 27 after Michigan repealed its right-to-work law effective February 13, 2024).
What at-will employment does not allow in Nevada
At-will status never gives an employer a blank check to fire for any reason whatsoever. Federal law sets a floor that applies across the entire country, including Nevada.

An employer may not terminate an employee because of a protected characteristic. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) covers employees 40 and older. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects qualified individuals with disabilities. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) bars discrimination based on genetic information. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) requires reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions. The Equal Pay Act bars sex-based wage discrimination.
Retaliation for protected activity is also unlawful regardless of at-will status. Federal protections cover employees who report workplace safety violations (section 11(c) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 660(c), which reaches complaints and proceedings under or related to that Act), engage in concerted activity with coworkers (NLRA), take or request protected leave (FMLA), complain about wage violations (FLSA), serve in the military (USERRA), or blow the whistle on certain illegal conduct.
Retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim is not part of that federal floor. Workers' compensation is a state system, and in Nevada the protection comes from state common law: the tortious discharge claim recognized in Hansen v. Harrah's, described above.
Nevada state law adds an independent layer. NRS Chapter 613 prohibits adverse employment actions based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age (40 and over), disability, national origin, and other protected characteristics. NRS 613.310(2) defines a covered employer as one with 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks, the same threshold Title VII and the ADA use, so Nevada does not generally reach smaller employers than federal law does. Nevada is broader in two other ways. Its age protection starts at 40 under NRS 613.350(3) and applies to employers with 15 to 19 employees, which the federal ADEA does not reach because its own threshold is 20 employees. Nevada also protects characteristics federal law does not expressly name, including sexual orientation and gender identity or expression, and NRS 613.333 protects an employee's lawful use of any product outside the employer's premises during nonworking hours.
If you were fired in Nevada
At-will employment means an employer in Nevada does not have to give you a reason for letting you go. The absence of a reason is not itself illegal. What matters is whether the actual reason, even if unstated, was an illegal one.

If you were recently terminated, document everything you remember: the date, who told you, what was said (or not said), your job performance history, any complaints you made before the firing, and whether others in similar situations were treated differently. Look at any handbook, offer letter, or other written policy you received. Check whether a disclaimer appears. If the employer made specific oral or written promises about job security, note those as well.
Consider whether one of Nevada's three exceptions might apply. Were you fired for refusing a task that would have violated the law or endangered your safety? Did the employer have a handbook setting out specific progressive-discipline procedures? Were you close to vesting in a pension or retirement benefit? Even if you cannot answer yes to any of those questions, the federal and state floors may still apply if a protected characteristic or retaliatory motive was involved.
Act promptly. Claims under Nevada anti-discrimination law and federal employment statutes have short filing deadlines, sometimes as brief as 180 to 300 days from the adverse action. Missing a deadline can bar your claim permanently. If you believe the firing was unlawful, have a Nevada employment lawyer check your claim against those deadlines in a free case evaluation (attorney advertising). See whistleblower protections if you believe retaliation for a report of illegal conduct was a factor.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Employment law varies by state and changes frequently, and it is not a substitute for advice about a specific termination. For guidance on your situation, consult a licensed employment attorney in Nevada.
See also: At-Will Employment by State | Whistleblower Protections
More Nevada Laws
- Nevada Employee Monitoring Laws
- Nevada Final Paycheck Laws
- Nevada Whistleblower Laws
- Nevada Workers Compensation Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Nevada an at-will state?
Yes. Nevada follows the at-will employment doctrine, meaning an employer can terminate an employee at any time and for any reason unless an exception (public policy, implied contract, or narrow good-faith covenant) or a state or federal anti-discrimination law applies.
Can I be fired for no reason in Nevada?
Generally yes. At-will employment means a Nevada employer does not have to provide a reason for discharge. However, if the underlying reason was illegal (discrimination, retaliation, or a bad-faith firing to defeat contractual retirement benefits), the termination is still unlawful even if no reason was stated.
Is Nevada a right-to-work state?
Yes. Under NRS 613.230 to 613.300, Nevada employees cannot be required to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of keeping their job. Right-to-work is about union membership only, not about whether an employer needs cause to fire you.
Can my employer fire me for filing a workers' comp claim or reporting illegal activity in Nevada?
No. Retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim is a tortious discharge under Nevada common law (Hansen v. Harrah's, 100 Nev. 60 (1984)); that protection is state law, not federal, because workers' compensation is a state system. Firing an employee for reporting illegal conduct can violate Nevada public policy and, depending on what was reported, federal whistleblower statutes as well. Document any connection between protected activity and your termination and consult an attorney quickly.
Does an employee handbook protect me in Nevada?
It depends on the language of the handbook. Nevada courts have held that a handbook or written policy can create an implied contract limiting at-will termination (Southwest Gas Corp. v. Ahmad, 99 Nev. 594 (1983)), and that a handbook reviewed with the employee at hiring can become part of an express oral for-cause contract (American Bank Stationery v. Farmer, 106 Nev. 698 (1990)). But at-will is a presumption you must rebut by a preponderance of the evidence, and general handbook language is often not enough. In Vancheri v. GNLV Corp., 105 Nev. 417 (1989), the employee had a handbook, but it set out no employee disciplinary procedures and the implied-contract claim failed as a matter of law. Read your handbook for specific, definite commitments about discipline and discharge.
What is the good-faith exception in Nevada, and does it apply to me?
Nevada's good-faith exception is narrow. Under K Mart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39 (1987), a tort claim arises only when an employer fires a long-term employee in bad faith to defeat that employee's contractual retirement or pension benefits. It does not extend to general bad-faith or arbitrary firings outside that specific scenario.
How long do I have to file an employment discrimination or wrongful termination claim in Nevada?
Filing deadlines are short. Federal discrimination claims generally require a charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the adverse action. Nevada state law claims have their own deadlines. Missing these windows can permanently bar your claim, so consulting an attorney promptly after termination is critical.
Updates
Corrected the descriptions of K Mart Corp. v. Ponsock, American Bank Stationery v. Farmer, and D'Angelo v. Gardner to match what the Nevada Supreme Court actually held.
Corrected the implied-contract section to attribute the employee-handbook rule to Southwest Gas v. Ahmad, American Bank Stationery v. Farmer and D'Angelo v. Gardner rather than to Vancheri v. GNLV Corp. (which rejected the claim on its facts), moved workers' compensation retaliation out of the federal-protections list and back to Nevada common law under Hansen v. Harrah's, and replaced the employer-threshold comparison with the actual 15-employee definition in NRS 613.310(2).
Fixed a citation mix-up: the page had swapped the holdings of two Nevada public-policy cases, crediting Hansen v. Harrah's with the dangerous-working-conditions holding and D'Angelo v. Gardner with the workers'-compensation-retaliation holding. The attributions are now correct throughout the KeyTakeaways, body text, and FAQ.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 613: EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
§ 613.230“Labor organization” defined.In force
As used in NRS 613.230 to 613.300, inclusive, the term “labor organization” means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2000
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 3 v. Bing Construction Co. (Nevada Supreme Court 1974, 90 Nev. 183)“…rity agreement in violation of Nevada’s right to work laws. NRS 613.230-613.300. Appellants contend that the…”
- Painter's Local Union No. 567 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers v. Tom Joyce Floors, Inc. (Nevada Supreme Court 1965, 81 Nev. 1)“…ement which was in violation of Nevada’s Right to Work law (NRS 613.230-613.300) because it contained a nondisc…”
- Cone v. Nevada Service Employees Union/SEIU Local 1107 (Nevada Supreme Court 2000, 1 Nev. 473)“…rovisions of NRS Chapter 288 or Nevada’s Right to Work Law (NRS 613.230-.300) and that, in the alternative, app…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 613.330Unlawful employment practices: Discrimination on basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, national origin or discussion of wages; interference with aid or appliance for disability; refusal to permit service animal at place of employment; consideration of criminal history without following required procedure.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 613.350, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer: (a) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any person, or otherwise to discriminate against any person with respect to the person’s compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability or national origin; (b) To limit, segregate or classify an employee in a way which would deprive or tend to deprive the employee of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his or her status as an employee, because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability or national origin; or (c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 7, to discriminate against any employee because the employee has inquired about, discussed or voluntarily disclosed his or her wages or the wages of another employee.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-07 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 150 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Chavez v. Sievers (Nevada Supreme Court 2002, 118 Nev. 288)“…arge action based upon alleged racial discrimination. Under NRS 613.330(1), the Nevada Legislature has provided…”
- Freeman Expositions, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Nevada Supreme Court 2022, 520 P.3d 803)“…7 Freeman Expositions also argues that NRS 613.330-.435 preempts negligenc…”
- Pope v. MOTEL 6 (Nevada Supreme Court 2005, 121 Nev. 307)“…for guidance in discrimination cases. 6 Under NRS 613.330(1), it is an unlawful employment practi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nevada Background Check Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 613.310Definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in NRS 613.310 to 613.4383, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. “Disability” means, with respect to a person: (a) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of the person, including, without limitation, the human immunodeficiency virus; (b) A record of such an impairment; or (c) Being regarded as having such an impairment. 2. “Employer” 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, but does not include: (a) The United States or any corporation wholly owned by the United States. (b) Any Indian tribe. (c) Any private membership club exempt from taxation pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c). 3. “Employment agency” means any person regularly undertaking with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer or to procure for employees opportunities to work for an employer, but does not include any agency of the United States.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 36 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Pope v. MOTEL 6 (Nevada Supreme Court 2005, 121 Nev. 307)“…pposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by NRS 613.310 to 613.435, inclusive, or because he ha…”
- D'Angelo v. Gardner (Nevada Supreme Court 1991, 107 Nev. 704)“…ployment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and under NRS 613.310 et seq. Id. at 439-40 , 777 P.2d at…”
- Sands Regent v. Valgardson (Nevada Supreme Court 1989, 105 Nev. 436)“…rdson and Metzer brought this action claiming violations of NRS 613.310 et seq. and the Age Discri…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nevada Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026)
§ 613.333Unlawful employment practices: Discrimination for lawful use of any product outside premises of employer which does not adversely affect job performance or safety of other employees.In force
1. It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to: (a) Fail or refuse to hire a prospective employee; or (b) Discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee concerning the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, Ê because the employee engages in the lawful use in this state of any product outside the premises of the employer during the employee’s nonworking hours, if that use does not adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform his or her job or the safety of other employees. 2. An employee who is discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of subsection 1 or a prospective employee who is denied employment because of a violation of subsection 1 may bring a civil action against the employer who violates the provisions of subsection 1 and obtain: (a) Any wages and benefits lost as a result of the violation; (b) An order of reinstatement without loss of position, seniority or benefits; (c) An order directing the employer to offer employment to the prospective employee; and (d) Damages equal to the amount of the lost wages and benefits.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Freeman Expositions, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Nevada Supreme Court 2022, 520 P.3d 803)“…bring a claim against their employer under NRS 613.333. Accordi…”
- Ceballos v. NP Palace, LLC (Nevada Supreme Court 2022, 514 P.3d 1074)“…EME COURT, EN BANC. OPINION By the Court, PICKERING, J.: NRS 613.333 creates a private right of action in fa…”
- Bayless v. Board of Education of the Clark County School District (District Court, D. Nevada 2022)“…t, and 2 (4) violations of the Nevada Discrimination Act (NRS 613.333). 3…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 613.350Lawful employment practices.In force
1. It is not an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify or refer for employment any person, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any person, or for an employer, labor organization or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any person in any such program, on the basis of his or her religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability or national origin in those instances where religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, physical, mental or visual condition or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Dayton Christian Schools, Inc. v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1985, 766 F.2d 932)“…1-9(B) (1975); N.Y.Executive Law § 296(11) (McKinney 1984); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 613.350(4) (1981) ; Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 25, § 1…”
- Kaiser v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)“…12 1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 613.350, it is an unlawful employment…”
- Sternquist v. Humble Hearts LLC. (District Court, D. Nevada 2021)“…ions and citation omitted). 27 See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.350(3) (“It is not an unlawful employment p…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 29
§ 630DefinitionsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
For the purposes of this chapter— The term “person” means one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, corporations, business trusts, legal representatives, or any organized groups of persons. The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year: Provided, That prior to June 30, 1968, employers having fewer than fifty employees shall not be considered employers. The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State and any agency or instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a State, and any interstate agency, but such term does not include the United States, or a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States. The term “employment agency” means any person regularly undertaking with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer and includes an agent of such a person; but shall not include an agency of the United States.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 945 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (Supreme Court of the United States 2000, 528 U.S. 62)“…d in 1967, the ADEA applied only to private employers. See 29 U. S. C. § 630 (b) (1964 ed., Supp. III) (defining ter…”
- Gregory v. Ashcroft (Supreme Court of the United States 1991, 501 U.S. 452)“…es as employers. Pub. L. 93-259, § 28 (a), 88 Stat. 74 , 29 U. S. C. § 630 (b)(2). At the same time, Congress amen…”
- Lehman v. Nakshian (Supreme Court of the United States 1981, 453 U.S. 156)“…rivate sector, see Pub. L. 90-202, § 11 , 81 Stat. 605 , 29 U. S. C. § 630 (b) (1970 ed.), 4 but Congress amende…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Idaho At-Will Employment Laws: Exceptions and Your Rights, Wrongful Termination Laws by State (2026): Deadlines and Claims
§ 660Judicial reviewIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order of the Commission issued under subsection (c) of section 659 of this title may obtain a review of such order in any United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the violation is alleged to have occurred or where the employer has its principal office, or in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, by filing in such court within sixty days following the issuance of such order a written petition praying that the order be modified or set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Commission and to the other parties, and thereupon the Commission shall file in the court the record in the proceeding as provided in section 2112 of title 28.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,040 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- National Realty and Construction Company, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Secretary of Labor, Party (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1973, 489 F.2d 1257)“…85, Sept. 6, 1972. Review by this court is available under 29 U. S.C. § 660(a) (1970). 2 . Occ…”
- Michael P. Gaffney, Thomas Bell, Edward Anderson v. Riverboat Services of Indiana, Incorporated, Riverboat Services, Incorporated, Robert Heitmeier v. Showboat Marina Casino Partnership, Showboat, Incorporated, Showboat Indiana, Incorporated (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2006, 451 F.3d 424)“…was modeled after OSHA's retaliatory discharge provision, 29 U.S.C. § 660 (c). See S.Rep.No. 98-454, at 12 (198…”
- Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1995, 514 U.S. 122)“…402 (b)(6); Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U. S. C. § 660 (a); Federal Mine Safety and Health Act…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Mexico Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026), North Dakota Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026), Wisconsin Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026)
United States Code Title 42
§ 2000eDefinitionsIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
For the purposes of this subchapter— The term “person” includes one or more individuals, governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor unions, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in cases under title 11, or receivers. The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service (as defined in section 2102 of title 5), or (2) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization) which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of title 26, except that during the first year after March 24, 1972, persons having fewer than twenty-five employees (and their agents) shall not be considered…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 39,903 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 470 U.S. 564)“…f the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253 , as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., is a factual finding that ma…”
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1993, 510 U.S. 17)“…f the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253 , as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. (1988 ed., Supp. III). I…”
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (Supreme Court of the United States 2006, 548 U.S. 53)“…based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a), and its anti-retaliation provisio…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: EEOC Sues Mercy Health Over Alleged Antisemitic Harassment, Eleventh Circuit Revives Race Bias Claims Over Drug Test Firings, At-Will Employment by State: Exceptions and Your Rights (2026)
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 613: EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES § 613.010 (Influencing, persuading or engaging worker to change from one place to another by false representations; penalty; damages.)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 613 (Employment Practices)(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- Hansen v. Harrah's, 100 Nev. 60 (1984) — public-policy tortious discharge(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- D'Angelo v. Gardner, 107 Nev. 704 (1991) — public-policy exception(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- Vancheri v. GNLV Corp., 105 Nev. 417 (1989) — implied-contract exception(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- K Mart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39 (1987) — narrow good-faith covenant exception(leg.state.nv.us).gov
- NRS 613.310(2) (employer defined: 15 or more employees), NRS 613.330(1) (protected characteristics), NRS 613.333 (lawful off-duty product use), NRS 613.350(3) (age 40 and over)(leg.state.nv.us)
- D'Angelo v. Gardner, 107 Nev. 704, 819 P.2d 206 (1991) (public-policy exception; describes Vancheri as the case where the implied-contract element was absent as a matter of law)(courtlistener.com)
- American Bank Stationery v. Farmer, 106 Nev. 698, 799 P.2d 1100 (1990) (employee handbook can establish discharge only for cause; at-will presumption rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence)(courtlistener.com)
- 29 U.S.C. 660(c)(1) (OSH Act section 11(c) retaliation; protected activity limited to complaints and proceedings under or related to the OSH Act)(law.cornell.edu)
- 29 U.S.C. 630(b) (ADEA employer defined: 20 or more employees)(law.cornell.edu)
- 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b) (Title VII employer defined: 15 or more employees)(law.cornell.edu)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.