Yuku free message boards

Yes I do. The lawyers did exactly what they were supposed to do. Botch the case.

For instance.

When Justice Michael Douglas asked Greenberg if the dealers were at-will employees, which would allow the casino to modify its hiring agreements, the attorney said the resort should have terminated all employees and asked them to reapply for their jobs if it wanted to change the employment agreements.

Rather than questioning the courts on how employers can modify their employment agreements to the point of violating state law, Mr Greenberg suggested that Wynn should have terminated his employees so he could violate state law.

Instead of asking the Justice Douglas if he realized that Nevada is one of six western States that recognize the three major exception to employment at-will, he played along with Justice Douglas's suggestion that in all cases Nevada's at-will doctrine would allow employers to change their employment agreements even if they violate public policy.

All I can say is that Nevada has three exceptions to at-will employment and neither the judge nor the lawyer supposedly representing the Wynn dealers brought up this point. Why? Why did both the judge and the lawyer representing the Wynn dealers neglect to bring up the fact that Nevada recognizes three exceptions to at-will employment. Are they in cohoots?

Please now let me explain a little about these three exceptions to At-Will Employment which Justice Douglas and Leon Greenburg both pretended did not exist.

This article focuses on the three major exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine, as developed in common law, including recognition of these exceptions in the 50 States. The exceptions principally address terminations that, although they technically comply with the employment-at-will requirements, do not seem just. The most widespread exception prevents terminations for reasons that violate a State's public policy. Another widely recognized exception prohibits terminations after an implied contract for employment has been established; such a contract can be created through employer representations of continued employment, in the form of either oral assurances or expectations created by employer handbooks, policies, or other written assurances. Finally, a minority of States has read an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing into the employment relationship. The good-faith covenant has been interpreted in different ways, from meaning that terminations must be for cause to meaning that terminations cannot be made in bad faith or with malice intended. Only six western States-Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming-recognize all three of the major exceptions.

Public policy exception.
Under the public-policy exception to employment at will, an employee is wrongfully discharged when the termination is against an explicit, well-established public policy of the State. For example, in most States, an employer cannot terminate an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim after being injured on the job, or for refusing to break the law at the request of the employer. The majority view among States is that public policy may be found in either a State constitution, statute, or administrative rule, but some States have either restricted or expanded the doctrine beyond this bound. The public-policy exception is the most widely accepted exception, recognized in 43 of the 50 States.

Here is a administative public policy rule for you. Sorry for the repost, however, I guess Mr Greenberg never read it.

AC 608.160 Withholding of amounts from wages due. (NRS 607.160, 608.110)

1. Without the written authorization of an employee, an employer may withhold from the wages due the employee:

(a) Any amount required by law; and

(b) Any employee contribution to a benefit program, such as health insurance or a pension plan, as permitted pursuant to NRS 608.110.

2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, an employer may not deduct any amount from the wages due an employee unless:

(a) The employer has a reasonable basis to believe that the employee is responsible for the amount being deducted by the employer;

(b) The deduction is for a specific purpose, pay period and amount; and

(c) The employee voluntarily authorizes the employer, in writing, to deduct the amount from the wages.

3. An employer may not use a blanket authorization that was made in advance by the employee to withhold any amount from the wages due the employee.

While the courts of Nevada have suggested that state laws do not prohibit employers from mandating tip pooling as a condition of employment, what they have overlooked is the fact that such conditions of employment require blanket authorizations which are prohibitted by state law.

When employers mandate tip pooling as a condition of employment, the employees who are being required to pool their tips have no way of knowing exactly what amount of tips will be deducted from the wages so that others may receive a share of their tips.

When employers mandate tip pooling as a condition of employment, the employees who are being required to pool their tips have no way of knowing who and how many other workers will be receiving part of their tips.

When employers mandate tip pooling as a condition of employment, the employees are required to consent to blanket authorizations where deductions from their tips will be made for no particular purpose, no particular time period and no particilar amount.

Clearly the deductions resulting from employer mandated tip pooling are in violation of state laws proving beyond any doubt that such conditions of employment are in direct violation of state law.

Where is that voluntary authorization, required in wrting and required by law when employers are allowed to mandate undefined and unlimited tip pooling deductions as a condition of employment?

It looks like Daniel Baldonado, the one seated on the right, has just now figured out that his lawyers are stabbing him in the back.