Fines considered in equal-rights cases

By Timothy Pratt

Wednesday, Oct. 9, 2002 | 9:01 a.m.

Continuing a get-tough stance begun last year, the state agency charged with enforcing laws against discrimination in the workplace was to vote today on fines against two heavy hitters in the local economy: The Venetian and Republic Services of Southern Nevada.

The Nevada Equal Rights Commission, in its quarterly meeting, considered whether to assess penalties against the companies for failing to supply information in cases where former workers alleged they were victims of discrimination.

The fines, if they are approved by the five-member commission, are only $500, but they are tools the agency did not use until last year, when a Administrator Lynda Parven took over.

Though Parven has said she would like to see the amount of the fine raised, that would require legislative approval and couldn't be done until 2005. In the meantime, the agency is using fines and subpoenas, which have been allowed since 1971, for the first time.

One fine was levied in July, but the information requested was provided before the company had to pay it, said Karen Rhodes, spokeswoman for the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, the parent agency for the commission. She did not identify the company. At least 15 subpoenas have been issued in the last year and a half.

A third company -- Golden Acres of Nevada -- may also be fined today.

The agency first asked The Venetian for information regarding a former worker's complaint in October 2001, according to documents provided by Parven. Five letters were sent and an equal number of phone calls were made repeating the request, the last ones in June.

The letters and calls were ignored, she said.

The Republic case began in March 1999, with five letters and calls repeating the request until this September. The company twice asked for an extension on the requests and sent what the agency considered to be insufficient information in August.

Calls to both companies about the cases were not returned.

"All we want for employers to do is to respond to our requests for information in a timely manner so we can move cases through the process," Parven said.