Court: Nevada Supreme Court; August 25, 1993; Nevada; State Supreme Court
On November 22, 1989, the Welfare Division of the Nevada State Department of Human Resources terminated Terry M. Fowler for allowing unauthorized access to its computer system. Fowler appealed to a Personnel Commission hearing officer, who found that, while Fowler had violated policy, termination was not warranted. Instead, the officer mandated reinstatement with full back pay, allowing the Welfare Division to impose lesser discipline, such as a 90-day suspension or demotion. Fowler returned to work on October 15, 1990, but filed a petition for judicial review to contest the offset of his post-termination earnings against his back pay and the allowance for lesser discipline. The Welfare Division cross-petitioned, challenging the hearing officer's conclusions about the justification for termination and the entitlement to reinstatement.
The district court upheld that Fowler's termination was unjustified, allowed for lesser discipline, and permitted the offset of his subsequent earnings in calculating back wages. It reduced Fowler's suspension period and granted him interest on his owed wages. Fowler's attorney filed for attorney's fees, citing him as a prevailing party, leading to an award of $13,125. The Welfare Division sought to amend this judgment, but the court denied the motion. In its appeal, the Welfare Division argued that there was no statutory basis for awarding attorney's fees, adhering to the principle that such awards require statutory, rule-based, or contractual authority.
Fowler was disciplined by the Welfare Division under NRS 284.383 and 284.385 and subsequently appealed the action under NRS 284.390. The hearing officer's decision could be judicially reviewed under NRS 284.390(7) and NRS 233B.130. NRS Chapter 284 does not allow for attorney's fees in administrative disciplinary proceedings; the sole remedy is reinstatement with full pay if dismissal or suspension is deemed unjust. Judicial review of such actions falls under NRS Chapter 233B, which does not authorize attorney's fees in these cases. Previous court rulings, including Navarro v. State ex rel. Dep't Human Res. and State Indus. Ins. System v. Snapp, reinforce that attorney's fees cannot be awarded unless explicitly provided for by statute. Fowler argued for attorney's fees under NRS 18.010, but the district court ruled against this, as the case did not involve money damages. The court also considered NRS 608.140 for potential authority to award fees but concluded that NRS Chapter 608 applies only to private employer-employee disputes, not public employment disciplinary actions under NRS 284.383 and 284.385.
NRS Chapter 608 was enacted by the Nevada Legislature to regulate private employment, explicitly excluding public employment. "Private employment" is defined in NRS 608.0113 as any employment not under the control of the state or local governments. The entire chapter is deemed inapplicable to state employees, as it solely addresses private employment issues. Fowler argues that the distinction between public and private employers violates equal protection principles under both the Nevada and U.S. Constitutions. However, this argument is rejected since the classification does not concern a fundamental right or a suspect classification, thus permitting rational distinctions for legitimate government purposes. The Welfare Division justifies this distinction by noting that private employees typically work at will and are entitled to actual wages, while public employees have specific termination protections and recovery procedures. Consequently, the court finds Fowler's equal protection argument unconvincing and concludes that NRS Chapter 608 cannot be applied to public employees, leading to the error of awarding attorney's fees to Fowler under NRS 608.140.
Additionally, the district court awarded Fowler interest on back wages according to NRS 99.040, starting from the date the wages were due. The Welfare Division contests this, asserting that neither NRS Chapter 233B nor Chapter 284 provides for interest in these contexts. NRS 99.040 allows interest on unpaid wages after a demand has been made. The court has previously addressed interest issues in related cases, emphasizing a protective approach toward workers in the context of judicial reviews.
The statutes NRS 99.040, NRS 17.130, and NRAP 37 do not apply to workers' compensation awards, nor does Chapter 616 of the Nevada Revised Statutes authorize interest on such awards. The court determined that if the legislature intended to allow interest on workers' compensation awards, it would have explicitly included it in the statutes. Similarly, NRS 284.390(5) does not authorize interest regarding disciplinary actions under NRS Chapter 284, which only allows for reinstatement with full pay. The court concluded that since there is no statutory authorization for awarding interest or attorney's fees in NRS Chapters 233B and 284, the district court's award of both to Fowler was improper. The court reversed the district court's decision, affirming that the statutes do not provide for such recoveries. All other claims of error were deemed meritless.
