NV Energy hits mark for renewable generation

By firedawg2000: 6/11/09 at 1 p.m.; Suggest removal

No commercial wind projects??? If there are two things Nevada has an abundance of its sun and wind. NV needs to erect some wind turbines and take advantage of all this wind.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 9:16 a.m.; Suggest removal

Here's the Nevada Open Records Act - N.R.S Chapter 239

Produced by the Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau January 2008
POLICY AND PROGRAM REPORT ON PUBLIC RECORDS

The measure provides that the person having legal custody over a public record must, by the end of the fifth business day after receiving a written request for the record, either allow the requester to inspect or copy the record or notify him of the circumstances as to why he is unable to view the document. If the public record is not available by the end of the fifth business day, the requester may inquire regarding the status of the request.

Any denial of public records inspection due to confidentiality must be in writing and cite the specific legal or statutory authority making the document confidential.

Senate Bill 123 (now NRS 239) stipulates, however, that the government entity shall not deny a request to inspect or copy a record because it contains confidential information if the governmental entity can redact the confidential content.

Finally, the confidential documents of the State Gaming Control Board relating to applications for gaming licenses must remain confidential.

See page 3 - hyperlink below.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/lcb/research/...

By NVtaxpayer: 6/12/09 at 9:28 a.m.; Suggest removal

It sounds like Ty Robben may have too much time on his hands. Are we, as taxpayers, paying for this guy to spend his day researching ways to sue the State? So, this is the second law suit he has filed....hmmmm...after financial gain?

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 9:34 a.m.; Suggest removal

Robben filed suit Tuesday against state Personnel Director Teresa Thienhaus on grounds that the 2007 investigation is public record.

Pet statute - NRS 239 & The Nevada Open Records Act, confidential Personnel investigation records and audio depositions are in fact, public records and NAC 284, the confidential public records Mr. Robben seeks to his own investigation, shall be release by a court per NRS 239.

NAC 284.718 Confidential records. (NRS 284.065, 284.155, 284.407)
1. The following types of information, which are maintained by the Department of
Personnel or the personnel office of an agency, are confidential:
5. Any notes, records, recordings or findings of an investigation conducted by the
Department of Personnel relating to sexual harassment or discrimination, or both, and any
findings of such an investigation that are provided to an appointing authority are confidential.

NAC 284.726 Access to confidential records. (NRS 284.065, 284.155, 284.335, 284.407)
6. The Director or the appointing authority, or his designated representative, shall authorize the release of any confidential records under his control which are requested by the Committee, a hearings officer, the Commission, the Committee on Catastrophic Leave created pursuant to NRS 284.3627, the Nevada Equal Rights Commission or a court. If the Director or his designated representative determines that the release of any confidential record is not necessary for those purposes, the decision may be appealed.

By NVtaxpayer: 6/12/09 at 9:48 a.m.; Suggest removal

In the article above, it states that Robben is gathering information to support his law suit of being a victim of a hostile work environment. It sounds like he is pretty hostile himself and taking it out on an innocent victim in the Department of Personnel.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 9:53 a.m.; Suggest removal

Mr. Robben stated one the first line of the complaint this is not about money, it's about transparency and accountability.

The State of Nevada has refused mediation multiple times and Mr. Robben offer to pay for outside professional mediation by Mark Keppler. The DOP Director refused and told Mr. Robben to sue the state and subpoena the State. Mr. Robben complied.

The court records are public, I encourage you to do some research.

Ultimately, Mr. Robben will demonstrate why the State wants to keep the investigation confidential, because it confirms Mr. Robben's allegations.

"It's deja all over again" -- Mr. Robben had the same problem in 2005 and prevailed in court. Since then, NRS 239 has really opened up transparency and accountability in State Government, including the Personnel department.

In 2005, that DOP investigation was the "smoking gun" and confirmed what Mr. Robben said. The State hade "covered-up" the facts of the investigation and that's why that State paid Mr. Robben's legal fees, the State's maximum tort claim in 2005. The Directors involved retired "early" and the problem employee continued to cause problems until her termination a few years later.

If the State shows Mr. Robben the investigation, the lawsuit can be dismissed.

If Mr. Robben prevails in court, a precedent will be set and State employees would be able to "review" "inspect" or have "released" to them all future confidential Personnel investigations.

Mahalo,

-Ty Robben

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 9:56 a.m.; Suggest removal

BARRY SMITH (Nevada Press Association):

Before you are prepared remarks (Exhibit H) with comments and quotes. I am in
support of S.B. 123. The Nevada Public Recods Act

It strengthens and clarifies the Open Records Act.

Two quotes by James Madison and George W. Bush in Exhibit H are examples
of the importance of open records. Over the past 200 years, the standard has
not changed. The public's right to know should not be replaced by a
government-knows-best policy of the need to know. It has to be a right to know
for citizens to inform themselves in a democracy. George Bush had it right when
he called for a "citizen-centered and results-oriented approach." That is what
S.B. 123 can accomplish.

Requests for information are handled regularly and routinely by state and local
government which tells me they are fully capable. Section 2 of the bill makes an
affirmative statement about the importance of open records similar to the
statement made in NRS 241, as shown in Exhibit H. The biggest deficiency in
the law is lack of accountability, and S.B. 123 sets out that time line and
consequences if there is no response. Members of the Nevada Press Association
tell me too often their requests go unanswered. The only recourse is to go to
court which does not change under S.B. 123, but it does lay out procedure for
the governmental entity to handle requests properly and promptly.
Another important aspect of the bill is justification for withholding a record.
I propose the language be amended in section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (d),
subparagraph (2) from "legal authority" to "statute." I suggested another
amendment to take out the section dealing with personal privacy rights because
that is covered elsewhere in the sections.
The Press Association supports S.B. 123. It substantially enhances the state's
open records statute and has a significant benefit in ensuring open and
transparent government in Nevada through a citizen-centered, results-oriented
approach.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:03 a.m.; Suggest removal

From www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/SB/SB123....

NRS 239 - Nevada Public Records Act minutes:

CHAIR HARDY:
The processes of government have to be transparent, and I have been privileged
to co-sponsor legislation each session I have been here with Senator Care. I look
forward to a good-faith effort on this bill.

SENATOR LEE:
By the end of the second business day, the requestor would like an answer, but
the presumption is there is a reason why somebody cannot get to it. In your
eyes, the presumption is wrong and they should comply much sooner. How do
you expect to force, other than the threat of lawsuit, this bill?

MR. SMITH:
This bill does an excellent job of setting parameters, but the only recourse is
district court.

SENATOR LEE:
If you think something should take two days to get to you, and the government
entity says they cannot give it to you for seven days, does that start a process
of legal action? If so, have we really accomplished anything with this bill?

MR. SMITH:
We have accomplished quite a bit. These are generally extraordinary
circumstances. To get a response and set a time frame is an accomplishment.
This bill says a response within two days and if not the record, a response that
says when we will get that document within ten days.

SENATOR LEE:
After ten days, you have the right to threaten a lawsuit?

MR. SMITH:
The court has to decide if this is a public record or not.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:05 a.m.; Suggest removal

SENATOR CARE:
What recourse is there when an entity knows it is supposed to turn over
documents and says "let them sue us, they will never do it?" If it is not a
waiver of confidentiality, there must be some other mechanism.
In Exhibit F, section 4, subsection 2, paragraph (b), lines 20 through 22, I struck
the provision regarding personal privacy to avoid giving a clerk the unbridled
discretion to say we are not turning this information over because it is a private
matter. That is usually the reason an entity does not want to relinquish it; it is
embarrassing. If a document is already confidential pursuant to statute, it is
because of a policy, security or confidentiality concern. The language "personal
privacy rights" does not have to be there. It is assumed in current law.
Section 4, subsection 3, lines 26 through 29 have language stricken. That
addresses where the government entity will not turn over the document, and
the aggrieved party would not have to seek an administrative hearing; they
could go straight to court. That language does not belong there. There is a
presumption of bias when the hearing officer is under the same department that
denied the request.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:06 a.m.; Suggest removal

In Exhibit F, section 4, subsection 2, paragraph (b), lines 20 through 22, I struck
the provision regarding personal privacy to avoid giving a clerk the unbridled
discretion to say we are not turning this information over because it is a private
matter. That is usually the reason an entity does not want to relinquish it; it is
embarrassing. If a document is already confidential pursuant to statute, it is
because of a policy, security or confidentiality concern. The language "personal
privacy rights" does not have to be there. It is assumed in current law.
Section 4, subsection 3, lines 26 through 29 have language stricken. That
addresses where the government entity will not turn over the document, and
the aggrieved party would not have to seek an administrative hearing; they
could go straight to court. That language does not belong there. There is a
presumption of bias when the hearing officer is under the same department that
denied the request.

Section 4, subsection 4 addresses what happens when confidentiality is waived
and damages result to the third party. The bill is drafted to say the government
is liable for damages in the event the third party sues and can demonstrate
damages.
Section 5 codifies burden is on the government to demonstrate that
confidentiality exists. Section 6 says if the document is confidential today,
ten years from now, the presumption is it is no longer confidential. However, if
the governmental entity can demonstrate it ought to remain confidential, it shall
remain confidential. When I drafted this section, I had in mind the State Gaming
Control Board. I would love to see the Howard Hughes file. My understanding is
that it is confidential in perpetuity. There might have been a reason to keep a
document confidential, but deaths, time and events lead to reasons why a
document should not remain confidential after a certain point. In my research,
I discovered some states had a provision like this.

Section 8 of the bill is new to Nevada. It is the redaction provision. I do not
want the government to say, "We have a document that is confidential because
on one page, there is a sentence that has confidential information so we will not
turn it over." Section 8 says redact it, but turn over the part of the document
that does not contain confidential information. The Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) has a similar provision.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:07 a.m.; Suggest removal

Originally, section 10 meant to say ten years after passage of the bill,
presumably October 1, the clock starts ticking on the ten years. The revision in
Exhibit F says if the bill becomes law on October 1--assuming section 6 with
the ten-year provision is still there--those documents held confidential prior to
October 1, 1997, would not be confidential unless the courts agreed.
I followed this discussion for years. By and large, the governmental entities
perform and honor those requests without incident, but on occasion, they do
not. That is the basis for S.B. 123. You are going to hear legitimate objections.
There is an example (Exhibit G). I could not have contemplated all the scenarios
you are going to hear. I am willing to work with anybody on this bill, but I would
like my basic points to survive in some form.

...SENATOR CARE:
I mentioned the case of an entity that knows it has to turn over documents,
refuses and takes the let-them-sue-us approach. If they lose, they have to pay
reasonable costs and attorney fees. My understanding is there are jurisdictions
that impose misdemeanors on public officials who, in spite of knowing better,
violate public record law. That language is not in this bill but is a subject I would
like to explore during subcommittee.

CHAIR HARDY:
My concern is the example where the requestor wanted all public documents.
You and I would say it would be impossible to do that in two days. However, if
we put the entire staff on it, the project would not be impossible. We need to
be careful about using the word impossible. My intent is to send this to
subcommittee with Senator Care as chair and Senators Beers and Townsend.

JOSEPH A. TURCO (American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada):
This bill is an important bill, and people are interested. We favor it because it
addresses weaknesses the American Civil Liberties Union has to deal with
regularly. Without a time limit, we are faced with dilatory behavior on the side
of those who maintain the records. They vacillate and ignore our requests
because they can under the present law. Section 8 is important. As the law
stands, if a portion of a book or document to be obtained contains confidential
material, the entire document is deemed confidential. Allowing the maintainer of
the book or record to redact what is confidential serves the legitimate purpose
of the state to protect confidential information as defined. Section 8 is
well-crafted because it strikes that balance between public and government.
This bill will be tweaked, but the ultimate principle is important for democracy
and is nonpartisan.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:08 a.m.; Suggest removal

"The people of Nevada deserve a Government that works for them, not against them." -Gibbons

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:12 a.m.; Suggest removal

STEPHEN DAHL (Nevada Judges Association):
Part of our concern is the preamble and the noble purposes the bill intends, but
we deal with things not so noble. I have had requests from the Judge Judy
show and other judge-type television shows to look at all our open, small claims
cases to find someone for their shows. We get record and background check
requests, sometimes up to 100 per day. We cannot respond to those requests
within 48 hours. We have followed the policy of many state courts throughout
the country and adopted policies that require specific requests in writing. We let
them know in advance how many of their requests we will process. We respond
within a day or two with how long the process will take.
One size fits all will not work with the courts. There are large courts in
Las Vegas and Washoe, medium courts in North Las Vegas and small rural
courts. They need to adopt policies that let them continue as courts and without
being swamped with requests. The liability section also concerns me. If you
deemed to have waived the time period, you could be held liable for releasing
documents.
56
Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs
April 4, 2007
Page 5
CHAIR CARE:
The liability section is out of the bill.
MR. DAHL:
That is good. I suggest you let individual agencies adopt reasonable policies and
procedures that are responsive but let them conduct business. Our choice is to
let people line up in the lobby for an hour or take care of all these requests
within a day. We need a balance.
CHAIR CARE:
What do you tell the people from Judge Judy?
MR. DAHL:
I tell them the same as I tell everyone else. We need a case number and name,
and you can look at the case. We post our calendars on the Website, and they
can find the names and case numbers. If they bring those in, we tell them we
will give them five a day. With legislation passed last session about Social
Security numbers, we have to go through every page of every file and make
sure no Social Security numbers appear on any of the files requested.
CHAIR CARE:
We heard testimony from former State Senator Alan Glover who said he got a
request from an organization in Kansas wanting a copy of every public
document in the Carson City Clerk/Recorder's office.
MR. DAHL:
We do not have anything that big, but some requests would entail pulling
thousands of cases and tossing them to somebody if we did not have to comply
with any policy and procedure.
CHAIR CARE:
Do you see a problem with a two- or three-day period where a clerk says to the
requestor "we have your request, this is what we are going to do with it"?
MR. DAHL:
I should let the bigger agencies respond to that because my turnaround on
responses is one or two days, but we are a smaller court. We do not get the
volume of requests the bigger agencies get.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:18 a.m.; Suggest removal

"SHOW ME THE INVESTIGAION!" is **NOT** "Show me the Money" -Ty Robben

Got something to hide?

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:19 a.m.; Suggest removal

Did you read: The State of Nevada has refused mediation multiple times and Mr. Robben offer to pay for outside professional mediation by Mark Keppler.

The DOP Director refused and told Mr. Robben to sue the state and subpoena the State. Mr. Robben complied.

The court records are public, I encourage you to do some research.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:26 a.m.; Suggest removal

C o n v e r s a t i o n s o n D i s c o v e r y

By Wesley M. Ayres, Discovery & Arbitration Commissioner, October 2008

The right to conduct discovery proceedings in most civil litigation is broadly construed in both state and federal courts. Attorneys are sometimes surprised to learn that discovery rights in administrative proceedings typically are not co-extensive with those provided by the rules of civil procedure. In some cases, an agency may lack the power to adopt rules or regulations authorizing pre-hearing discovery. The cost and delay associated with discovery proceedings might also be a disincentive for agencies to adopt provisions allowing for broad discovery rights. In any event, discovery does not play as important a role in agency proceedings as it does in federal and state courts. Bear in mind that many, if not most, agency adjudications are preceded by a staff investigation. In Nevada, persons usually may obtain access to much of this material under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (2006), Nevadas Public Records Act, NRS 239.010 (2007), and Nevadas Open Meeting Law, id. 241.020. Nevertheless, agency regulations regarding discovery during administrative proceedings are inconsistent within the state and federal systems. A few agencies have adopted provisions allowing broad discovery, see, e.g., FTC Discovery Rules, 16 C.F.R. 3.31-.39 (2008); other agencies permit only narrow opportunities to obtain prehearing discovery, or decline to recognize discovery rights, see, e.g., Commn on Ethics Rule on General Practice and Procedure, NAC 281.106 (2008).

Most Nevada state agencies are subject to the provisions of the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act (NAPA), NRS 233B.010-.150 (2007). Significantly, NAPA does not contain any provision addressing pre-hearing discovery or subpoenas. Thus, parties involved in proceedings with a Nevada state agency must look to the particular regulations adopted by that agency, and the underlying enabling statute, to determine the extent to which pre-hearing discovery might be available.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:27 a.m.; Suggest removal

If a party believes that an agency improperly refused to permit discovery in accordance with an agency rule or regulation permitting discovery, judicial review might be used to challenge the
agency's decision in that regard. In Clark county Liquor and Gaming Licensing Bd.
v. Clark, 102 Nev. 654, 730 P.2d 443 (986), the Clark County Liquor and gaming Licensing Board revoked a bar owner's licenses, in part based upon its findings that her club was the scene of a large number of problems occupying an inordinate amount of police time. The owner's pre-hearing attempts to obtain information and documents relevant to the allegations against her were rebuffed, even though a county ordinance provided that "the board shall issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum at the request of a party." The bar owner then petitioned for judicial review, and the district court remanded the case to allow discovery. The agency challenged that ruling, but the Nevada Supreme Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus, in part because
it ordinarily refuses to review discovery orders by extraordinary writ. But it also offered the following analysis:

The Administrative Procedure Act expressly authorizes remand to state agencies for the taking of further evidence. The district court has very broad supervisory powers to insure that all relevant evidence is examined and considered. We recognize the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to review of county board actions . . . However, absence of specific statutory authority to remand does not deprive the court of its traditional equitable powers. The federal courts have long recognized equitable power to remand cases for further administrative proceedings "where justice demands that course in order that some defect in the record be supplied" . . . [These]
equitable powers were not displaced by enactment of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. Likewise, we do not discern that the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act was intended to deny the district courts traditional equitable power to remand a case to a local board for taking of further evidence, when information that may be vital to the board's decision was withheld despite the existence of an ordinance affording discovery. It is clear that the district court had discretion to remand the matter for the purpose of receiving further evidence. Clark County Liquor, 102 Nev. at
658-59, 730 P.2d at 446-47 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 364, 373 (1939)) (citations omitted).

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:28 a.m.; Suggest removal

Under NAPA, any party of record in an administrative proceeding who is aggrieved by a final decision of that agency in a contested case is entitled to judicial review of the agency's final decision. See NRS 233B.130(1)(b) (2007). Ordinarily, judicial review of a final agency decision is confined to the record of the proceeding under review. See id. 233B.135(1)(b). Since parties generally are precluded from presenting extrinsic evidence in connection with judicial review, they usually have no need to conduct discovery proceedings. But as noted above, even after a petition for judicial review is filed, a party may seek leave of court to present additional evidence to the agency. See id. 233B.131(2). If the district court is satisfied that "the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the proceeding before the agency," the district court may remand the matter and order that additional evidence be taken before the agency upon such conditions as the court determines. See id.In addition, "[i]n cases concerning alleged irregularities in procedure before an agency that are not shown in the record, the court may receive evidence concerning the irregularities." See id. 233B.135(1); Minton v. Board of Med. Exam'rs, 110 Nev. 1060, 1081, 881 P.2d 1339, 1354 (1994). Although "irregularities" are not defined in NAPA, an agency's decision may be set aside in whole or in part if substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the final decision of the agency is: (a) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c) Made upon unlawful procedure; (d) Affected by other error of law; (e) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (f ) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:28 a.m.; Suggest removal

NRS 233B.135(3) (2007). Arguably, if an agency's decision suffers from one or more of these defects, and that defect is not otherwise shown in the record, discovery proceedings regarding the alleged irregularities may be permitted in the district court in connection with the petition for judicial review. For example, alleged bias of the agency's hearing officer falls within the category of irregularities which may be proved by extrinsic evidence on a petition for judicial review (at least if that bias is not shown in the record). See Transportation Gen., Inc. v. Insurance Dep't, 652 A.2d 1033, 1036-38 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). In Hummel v. Heckler, 736 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1984), plaintiff sought judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services ("Secretary") denying her request for disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. In the district court, plaintiff filed motions to compel discovery concerning possible bias of the administrative law judge, or ALJ, who presided at her hearing. However, prior to deciding those motions, the district court granted a motion for summary judgment by defendant. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in that regard. The appellate court considered the interrelationship between the federal civil discovery rules and the applicable statute governing judicial review of the Secretary's administrative decision.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:29 a.m.; Suggest removal

Based upon statutory limitations on judicial review of factual determinations by the Secretary, as well as an absence of discovery authorization in either the Social Security Act or the federal Administrative Procedure Act, the court rejected any suggestion that discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be "imported" into the Social Security Act's administrative scheme. But it is also recognized that discovery might be needed in exceptional circumstances, such as when a claimant discovers evidence to support a claim that the hearing officer was biased: Nevertheless, the absence of a discovery mechanism during the agency proceeding may in some instances mean that facts with respect to the fairness of that proceeding can be developed only in the district court. This case is illustrative, because the claim which Hummel seeks to litigate bears on the possible bias of the administrative law judge, of which she became aware only after the administrative proceeding had concluded. Hummel, 736 F.2d at 93. Plaintiff in Hummel sought specific discovery regarding a lawsuit concerning a program designed to create a bias in ALJs against the award of benefits to claimants. The district court found that the desired materials were irrelevant because "[t]he
objective medical evidence . . . more than amply supports the Secretary's conclusion that the Plaintiff is not disabled." Id. at 95. But the ALJ in a Social Security disability claim hearing has an affirmative obligation to assist the claimant in developing the facts, and "[i]t is difficult to conceive of how a judge biased against disability claims or claimants could conscientiously perform that

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:29 a.m.; Suggest removal

duty." Id. Under these circumstances, the district court's decision to disregard plaintiff's discovery motions and grant defendant's motion for summary judgment was erroneous: [W]e hold that at least in cases such as this, where information relating to a contention bearing on the fundamental fairness of the agency hearing is in the possession of the government, discovery is available
to the . . . plaintiff so that she can attempt to convince the district court that a remand to the Secretary for the taking of new evidence is appropriate. Id.; accord Ross v. University of S.C.,
453 S.E.2d 880, 882-83 (S.C. 1994) (lower court was empowered "to order discovery and admit extrinsic evidence in APA cases upon alleged irregularity in the agency proceeding"). Although Hummel is a federal case, its reasoning transcends jurisdiction. In some situations, a party might legitimately need discovery on a petition for judicial review because irregularities in the proceeding below are not reflected in the record. As noted in Clark County Liquor, the Nevada Administrative Procedure Act was not intended to deny the district courts traditional equitable powers, which include the power to permit discovery in appropriate circumstances. See Landis v.
North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); Maheu v. District Court, 89 Nev.214, 217, 510 P.2d 627, 629 (1973). But practitioners should keep in mind that the decision to permit such discovery rests with the district court; a party may not conduct discovery proceedings after filing a petition for judicial review unless that party first obtains leave of court to do so.

By NVtaxpayer: 6/12/09 at 11:41 a.m.; Suggest removal

You talk yourself in a third party and then sign your name. I'm not sure how many personalities you have, but your employer might have a case for "Fitness for Duty". And the Mahalo thing? are you telecommuting from Hawaii? With Nevada's serious budget problems I doubt they can afford an employee like you. It's a sad state of affairs when people are forced to sue for a supplemental income.

By The_people_of_Nevada_deserve: 6/12/09 at 11:47 a.m.; Suggest removal

I am OUTRAGED the DOP Directors and The Great State of Nevada would not take up Mr. Robben's offer for outside professional mediation by Mark Keppler.

Mr. Keppler founded the US EEOC Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program. Since Mr. Keppler and the EEOC stated mediation and ADR, about 90% of the EEOC and state (NERC) cases are resolved in less than 90 days and virtually no cost to the employer or employees. In this case the Taxpayers of The Great State of Nevada.

According to the petition for a writ of mandamus, filed in Carson City District Court, it sounds like the former Director Todd Rich told Mr./ Robben "sue us" and Mr. Robben, in fact did. Mr. Rich also violated Mr. Robben's First Amendment Rights, and compounded the problem(s).

I find it unfathomable and unconscionable the Personnel Director would, at this time of financial difficulty, spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer's money when they could have likely settled the issue(s) in mediation at literally zero cost to the taxpayers and maintained confidentiality.

Unfortunately, Governor Gibbons vetoed AB396, a bill that if not vetoed would have taken a situation like Mr. Robben's case and offered a neutral mediation venue where the problems would have been worked out, in private, remain confidential, and of course, no cost to the Nevada Taxpayer. Now the Great State of Nevada and it Taxpayers stand to spend over $500,000.00 in legal fess (see the recent UNR cases and ask the NV AG how much Nevada spend on employee lawsuits) I understand over $500K on that pesky Terri Patraw UNR case alone.

Who can forget the Charles Stricker case at UNR a few years ago. Jeff Dickerson represented Mr. Sticker in that one.

I sure hope The State does the right thing because that slick new slogan by the Governor really make sense.

"The people of Nevada deserve a Government that works for them, not against them." -Governor Jim Gibbons

By The_people_of_Nevada_deserve: 6/12/09 at 11:47 a.m.; Suggest removal

CIVIL RIGHTS - FIRST AMENDMENT
Nevada District - Reno
A university locksmith alleged he suffered retaliation when
he complained of pornography that was placed on the wall in
a campus workshop
Caption: Stricker v. Nevada University, 03-239
Plaintiff: Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Reno, NV
Defense: Mark Ghan, University General Counsel, Reno, NV
Verdict: $209,315 for plaintiff
Judge: Robert A. McQuaid, Jr.
Date: June 15, 2005
Facts: Charles Stricker, a locksmith for the University of Nevada-Reno (UNR), complained that pornography was present on the walls in a campus workshop. From Stricker's perspective, this wasn't just nude pictures, but hardcore pornography. Besides being posted, the pornography was also on the computers. After Stricker complained, he alleged his boss, Rick Favre, not only didn't remove the pornography, he also engaged in a pattern of retaliatory conduct. Stricker also alleged Favre's boss, Charles Leone, acted with deliberate indifference to Favre's retaliation. This conduct formed the basis of a federal retaliation lawsuit, UNR having moved against Stricker when he spoke out against pornography in the workplace. UNR defended the case and raised fact disputes, including, (1) it was a swimsuit calendar and not pornography, (2) the locksmith shop stopped surfing pornographic websites (Stricker said they continued), and (3) Stricker was a hothead or as Stricker countered, he was a candidate for employee-of-the-year. Thus from UNR's spin on the facts, this case was little more than a venue for petty workplace grievances, retaliation having nothing to do with it. Jury Instructions/Verdict: Stricker prevailed in his retaliation claim against Favre -- Leone, held to a deliberate indifference
standard as Favre's supervisor, was exonerated. To damages and against Favre only, Stricker took a general award of $209,315. Interestingly, following the verdict, the jury alsoasked the court to read a public message. It read that the case showed a "gross disregard for university policy, taxpayers'money, the court's time and the First Amendment."

Post-Trial Motions: UNR moved for a new trial and called theverdict excessive. The motion was denied.

By The_people_of_Nevada_deserve: 6/12/09 at 11:49 a.m.; Suggest removal

Oh, and this one too:

FORMER UNR EMPLOYEE SUES UNIVERSITY SYSTEM -- Tribune reporter Geoffrey Altrocchi reported Tuesday on a filing by an ex-UNR geology professor who won a sexual harassment settlement against the UCCSN last year. The aggrieved professor, Mary Lahren, is also putting Dean James Taranik and geology department chair Robert Karlin between a rock and a hard place, accusing them of breaking settlement agreements not to retaliate against her. Lahren's attorney, Jeff Dickerson, told the Tribune that more names will be added to the suit and it will be expanded in the next two days.

By jaesun: 6/12/09 at 11:57 a.m.; Suggest removal

TL:DR

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 12:03 p.m.; Suggest removal

Thank you, The people of Nevada deserve better.

The EEOC investigation has started as of yesterday. Incidentally, the EEOC investigator made note that the respondents had acknowledge the use of Title VII discrimination when the State admitted management used the words "Jewed" and "God Damn" in front several other employees and of course the other words that I can't type. The EEOC will obtain the confidential DOP investigation during the investigation and release it thereafter, in addition to a Right-to-sue letter.

Once the EEOC investigation is complete, I'll post the information on a blog site somewhere to show NVtaxpayer where his or her money goes and perhaps NVtaxpayer will join me in supporting things like AB395 in the future to save the Sate of Nevada money.

By NVtaxpayer: 6/12/09 at 3:07 p.m.; Suggest removal

Yawwwnnnn....

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:40 p.m.; Suggest removal

NVtaxpayer, er, Ms. Thienhaus or whomever you are"

I see User profile: NVtaxpayer Joined: June 12, 2009 -- The day your name showed up in the news.

Incidentally, NVtaxpayer, er, Ms. Thienhaus a component of my complaint did in fact, state that several of the women in my Department felt they were in fact, being discriminated against. Isn't ironic that you're a woman and I stuck my neck out to abate the situation? If my wife told me she was being treated unfairly and being discriminated against, I would investigate and if required, I would abate the situation.

The AG's office should take note I stood up for gay rights too.

A zero tolerance policy, means zero tolerance.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 10:55 p.m.; Suggest removal

NVtaxpayer, er, Ms. Thienhaus - by the way, I have plenty of money and you earlier statement is chicken$hit.

I told you I wasn't into this for the money... I was in it for a "conviction".

"SHOW ME THE INVESTIGATION" is a far cry from "Show me the money".

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 11:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

NVtaxpayer, er, Ms. Thienhaus

What happens if I'm right?

Like the Jerry Maguire movie, I'll have you yelling "SHOW ME THE INVESTIGATION" by the time we're done ;)

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 11:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

NVtaxpayer, er, Ms. Thienhaus

The additional 500+ pages of exhibits will be in a box delivered to your office Monday morning.

Have a nice weekend.

By Tahoety: 6/12/09 at 11:12 p.m.; Suggest removal

More affidavits for that EEOC investigation too.

Oh, you can't see them... You'll see 'em later :O

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 9:28 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hmm, interesting.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYLVIA DOMINGUEZ-CURRY, u No. 03-16959 Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. D.C. No. y CV-01-00630-
NEVADA TRANSPORTATION DWH/RAM
DEPARTMENT; ROC STACEY, OPINION Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
David W. Hagen, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
February 17, 2005San Francisco, California
Filed September 14, 2005

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 9:30 a.m.; Suggest removal

COUNSEL

Kenneth J. McKenna, Reno, Nevada, for the plaintiff appellant.

Brian Sandoval, Attorney General, Teresa J. Thienhaus, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Las Vegas, Nevada, for the defendants-appellees.

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 9:31 a.m.; Suggest removal

OPINION
PAEZ, Circuit Judge:
Sylvia Dominguez-Curry ("Dominguez") sued her
employer, the Nevada Department of Transportation ("Department"), and her supervisor, Roc Stacey ("Stacey"),
alleging that they subjected her to a hostile work environment and failed to promote her on the basis of her gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dominguez
appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department and Stacey. We hold that Dominguez presented ample evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that she was subjected to a hostile work
environment and that the decision not to promote her was motivated at least in part by her gender. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's judgment and remand for a trial on
both of Dominguez's Title VII claims.

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 9:33 a.m.; Suggest removal

Conclusion = REVERSED AND REMANDED.

In sum, we conclude that genuine factual disputes exist as to whether Stacey's conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive
to create a hostile work environment, and whether discriminatory animus played a role in appellees' decision not to promote Dominguez. We therefore reverse the grant of summary
judgment on both claims and remand for a trial on the merits.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 9:36 a.m.; Suggest removal

TORT CLAIM
A. Sylvia Dominguez-Curry -- TC #12858
Amount of Claim - $130,000.00

LOCATION: Capitol Building
Annex, Second Floor
101 N. Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada
DATE AND TIME: August 8, 2006, 10:00 a.m.

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 12:49 p.m.; Suggest removal

"The people of Nevada deserve a Government that works for them, not against them." -Governor Jim Gibbons

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 12:58 p.m.; Suggest removal

Checkmate.

may optimus vir lucror -Tahoe Ty

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 7:46 p.m.; Suggest removal

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: FOIA REQUESTS FOR CHARGE FILES

What is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?

The FOIA is the statute that requires federal agencies to disclose agency records to the public, except to the extent that either the record or a portion of the record is protected from disclosure by one of FOIA's nine exemptions.
Charging Party FAQs Regarding File Disclosure

Q: I filed a charge alleging discrimination against my employer. How do I make a FOIA request to obtain a copy of my charge file?

A: After the Commission has completed its investigation, but before the 90 day Notice of Right to Sue (NRTS) period expires, you can request a copy of your charge file by:

Sending a written request; Identifying it as a "FOIA request"; Including the charge number; Reasonably identifying the information being sought; and Directing it to the appropriate EEOC Regional Attorney.

Requests for charge files should be directed to the Regional Attorney responsible for the district, field, area or local office that investigated your charge. If you are not certain regarding the correct address, a complete list is available at http://www.eeoc.gov/foia/index.html.

http://www.eeoc.gov/foia/qanda_foiacharg...

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 10:05 p.m.; Suggest removal

Employers Should Beware of EEOC Information Requests
Mark Blondman and Brooke Iley
The Corporate Counselor
December 6, 2006

Understandably, companies have become more sensitive about protecting confidential, proprietary business information from disclosure to competitors and others outside the company.

A recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Venetian Casino Report v. EEOC, 2006 WL 2806568 (D.D. Cir. 2006), demonstrates that such disclosures may occur in the most unexpected ways. The court's holding in Venetian makes it clear that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can release sensitive, confidential or proprietary company documents submitted in response to a Charge of Discrimination without first providing notice to the employer that submitted the information. Further, the EEOC is empowered to release these documents not only to the charging party but also to third parties. Employers should be aware of this potential source of disclosure and consider steps to limit inadvertent misuse of company information.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

In the spring of 1999, the Venetian Casino Resort conducted a mass hiring process to staff a new casino and resort in Las Vegas. In its wake, at least 11 people filed employment discrimination complaints with the EEOC against Venetian, alleging discrimination based on age, race and color in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC opened files and began investigating these charges pursuant to customary administrative procedures. As part of routine information requests, the EEOC requested employee data and statistics from Venetian. Venetian failed to produce the requested documents. The EEOC then issued an administrative subpoena for the information. Venetian filed objections to the subpoena, using the EEOC's administrative process. The EEOC denied those objections, and Venetian was forced to file the instant action against the EEOC for declaratory and injunctive relief in December 2000.

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 10:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

In February 2002, Venetian settled all claims that fell under Title VII, but not the claims of age discrimination. As a result, the EEOC's age discrimination files for the Venetian remained open. Venetian continued to refuse to turn over requested data. Venetian challenged the EEOC's disclosure policy set forth in 83 of the EEOC Compliance Manual that permits the agency to disclose information from closed Title VII and ADA case files without prior notice to the employer and without regard to whether the employer deemed the data to be confidential. Venetian asserted a broad-based challenge to the EEOC's policy regarding the disclosure of information deemed confidential and/or proprietary, arguing that it was violative of Title VII, the Trade Secrets Act, the Freedom of Information Act, Executive Order No. 12,600, the Copyright Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Venetian argued that because the EEOC does not require employers that submit information to be given predisclosure notice, their current policy constitutes a "back door" by which charging parties, their counsel and incidental third parties may obtain access to case files containing confidential and proprietary information, as well as trade secrets.

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 10:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

On Jan. 12, 2004, the District Court of the District of Columbia granted the EEOC's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the issue was not ripe for review. On May 27, 2005, the circuit court reversed, holding that "the question of whether [the] EEOC's disclosure policy is lawful presents a live and focused dispute emanating from Agency action that is both final and consequential to Venetian." On Nov. 10, 2005, the court issued an order requiring both parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment. The sole issue before the court was whether an EEOC disclosure policy or practice, whether written or not, that allows the agency to release documents that a submitting party has identified as containing trade secrets and/or confidential material without first notifying the submitting party, is lawful.

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 10:08 p.m.; Suggest removal

COURT'S DECISION AND ANALYSIS

In its decision, the court disagreed with Venetian's contention on each of the grounds, holding that the EEOC disclosure policy and practice does not violate federal law, even if it allows disclosure of trade secrets or other confidential information to third parties without prior notice to the employer. The court addressed each of Venetian's claims as follows:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

Title VII gives the EEOC two formal means of obtaining information when it investigates a charge. First, the EEOC may examine and copy any evidence in the possession of the employer being investigated. Second, it may subpoena evidence and documents. The Act, however, limits the ability of the EEOC to make public disclosures of information gathered during its investigations, directing that "[c]harges shall not be made public by the Commission." The decision in Venetian references a 1981 case that explicitly upheld the EEOC's practice of making limited disclosures of confidential information to charging parties in their own Title VII charge files. EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods, Corp., 449 U.S. 590 (1981).

In upholding the EEOC's disclosure policy, the Supreme Court in Associated Dry Goods concluded that the EEOC's interpretation of its founding statute is consistent with the coordinated scheme of administrative and judicial enforcement that Congress created to enforce Title VII. First, limited disclosure to the parties can speed the commission's required investigation in that the EEOC is more likely to obtain information if it can present the parties with specific facts for them to corroborate or rebut.

Second, limited disclosure enhances the commission's ability to carry out its statutory responsibility to resolve charges through informal conciliation and negotiation. A party is far more likely to settle when it has ample information to be able to assess the strengths and weaknesses of its opponent's case as well as its own.

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 10:09 p.m.; Suggest removal

Finally, the EEOC's disclosure policy supports Title VII's scheme of enforcement that includes private rights of action. As the Associated Dry Goods court noted: "Congress considered the charging party a 'private attorney general' ... [who] could hardly play that role without access to information needed to assess the feasibility of litigation." In the instant case, the court did not find the EEOC's disclosure policy to be violative of Title VII.

The Trade Secrets Act and Freedom of Information Act

The Trade Secrets Act is a criminal statute that regulates conduct of individual officers of the government. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Act does not afford a private right of action to enjoin disclosure of information in violation of the statute. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979). Accordingly, the Venetian court rejected the argument that a party submitting confidential information to the EEOC has a private right of action under the Trade Secrets Act. This omission is significant because the D.C. Circuit, in which Venetian was decided, "is considerably more reluctant to engraft numerous and significant qualifications onto an apparently clear, unambiguous text where the provision is criminal." CAN Fin. Corp. v. Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132 (D.C.Cir. 1976). Therefore, in the case at hand, the Trade Secrets Act alone does not mandate any particular EEOC procedure.

By Tahoety: 6/13/09 at 10:10 p.m.; Suggest removal

Executive Order 12,600

Executive Order 12,600 provides a requirement that federal agencies create notice procedures to parties submitting records that contain confidential information as to requests for their disclosure. The court in Venetian easily dismissed this plank of the plaintiff's argument by finding that the EEOC complied with these requirements by publishing its predisclosure notification procedures in 83 of the EEOC Compliance Manual.

The Copyright Act and Administrative Procedure Act

On this contention, the court in Venetian simply held that while the Copyright Act proscribes infringement of copyrighted material, nothing in the Act requires confidential treatment by the government of copyrighted material. Further, the Act provides an express remedy for alleged copyright violations -- a private right of action for infringement. Nothing in the Act requires the establishment of particular internal agency procedures.

The Administrative Procedure Act

In addition, Venetian challenged the EEOC's disclosure policy as arbitrary, capricious and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. In this case, the court stated that the EEOC's policy cannot be said to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law," such as to warrant judicial intervention pursuant to the Act.

PRACTICAL ADVICE

This decision represents a clear warning to employers -- documents turned over to agencies during the investigation phase of an administrative charge, even if marked as confidential, are subject to disclosure to third parties. A thoughtless response to an EEOC information request could lead to disclosure of confidential and proprietary information, trade secrets and other highly sensitive corporate data. As such, it is critical that companies responding to the EEOC do not ignore the importance of careful response and production of documents to the Commission at all stages of the administrative process. Care must be taken in analyzing the information to be provided, with consideration of whether a response can be made without producing otherwise confidential or proprietary information. Be knowledgeable and understand your rights to challenge and/or limit information requests. Talk to legal counsel about protective measures such as submitting motions to quash a subpoena or for a protective order. At the very least, take the time to carefully review documents and to redact sensitive company information.

Mark Blondman and Brooke Iley are partners in the employment, benefits and labor practice at Blank Rome LLP in Washington, D.C. Blondman may be reached at blondman@blankrome.com or (202) 772-5800, Iley can be contacted at (202) 772-5816 or iley@blankrome.com. For more information about Blank Rome, please visit www.blankrome.com.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 12:41 a.m.; Suggest removal

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Employment Litigation Section, PHB
Right to Sue Unit
Washington, D.C. 20530

Q. If I have filed a charge with the EEOC and want a notice of right to sue, which agency will issue it to me?

A. The Right-to-Sue Unit of the Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice issues notices of right to sue requested by charging parties, upon receipt of appropriate documentation from the EEOC, on charges that have been filed with the EEOC against state and local government employers under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, except in those instances in which the EEOC has dismissed the charge.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 12:42 a.m.; Suggest removal

Title 29--Labor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER XIV--EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

PART 1610--AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1610.1 Definitions.
1610.2 Statutory requirements.
1610.3 Purpose and scope.
1610.4 Public reference facilities and current index.
1610.5 Request for records.
1610.6 Records of other agencies.
1610.7 Where to make request; form.
1610.8 Authority to determine.
1610.9 Responses: timing.
1610.10 Responses: form and content.
1610.11 Appeals to the Legal Counsel from initial denials.
1610.13 Maintenance of files.
1610.14 Waiver of user charges.
1610.15 Schedule of fees and method of payment for services rendered.
1610.16 Payment of fees.
1610.17 Exemptions.
1610.18 Information to be disclosed.
1610.19 Predisclosure notification procedures for confidential commercial information.
1610.20 Deletion of exempted matters.
1610.21 Annual report.
1610.30 Purpose and scope.
1610.32 Production prohibited unless approved by the Legal Counsel.
1610.34 Procedure in the event of a demand for production or disclosure.
1610.36 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 12:45 a.m.; Suggest removal

Complaint Adjudication Office
The Complaint Adjudication Office reviews cases provided to it by departmental components or the EEOC alleging employment discrimination by employees of the Department of Justice and renders a final decision for the Department.

Mailing Address
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Complaint Adjudication Office, NALC
Washington, D.C. 20530

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complaint Adjudication Officer

Mark Gross
(202) 514-2195

Supervisory General Attorney

Robert K. Abraham
(202) 305-0079

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 12:47 a.m.; Suggest removal

Freedom of Information Act
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Section 552, is a statute that provides a process by which every person may request access to federal agency records or information. Federal agencies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, are required to disclose records upon receiving a written request for them unless those records are protected from disclosure by any of the nine exemptions and three exclusions of the FOIA. The FOIA applies only to federal agencies and the records in their custody. The FOIA does not create an access to records held by Congress, the courts or by state and local governments. Any requests for state or local government records should be directed to the appropriate state or local government agency.

EEOC FOIA Contacts:
FOIA Service Center
(202) 663-4500 (phone)
(202) 663-7026 (TTY)
(202) 663-4639 (fax)
FOIA@EEOC.gov

EEOC FOIA Officers
FOIA Public Liaison

Stephanie D. Garner
Assistant Legal Counsel
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street, N.E.
Suite 5NW02E
Washington, D.C. 20507
(202) 663-4634 (phone)
(202) 663-7026 (TTY)
(202) 663-4639 (fax)

Chief FOIA Officer

Peggy Mastroianni
Associate Legal Counsel
(202) 663-4638 (phone)
(202) 663-7026 (TTY)

Agency FOIA Officers

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 12:48 a.m.; Suggest removal

Additional FOIA Information
Text of the Freedom of Information Act
EEOC's FOIA Reference Guide You may find the Reference guide to be of particular interest because it provides such basic information as:
where and how to make a FOIA request
the time for response
fees and fee waivers
responses to initial requests and
how and where to file an appeal of a determination made on a FOIA request.
Questions and Answers: FOIA Requests
Questions and Answers: FOIA Requests for Charge Files
Report and Plan of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Required by Executive order 13392: Improving Agency Disclosure of Information June 7, 2006
Backlog Reduction Goals for Fiscal Years 2008, 2009, and 2010
EEOC's FOIA Regulations codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 1610
Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule (revises 1610.15) October 3, 2005
EEOC Order Number 150.001: Disclosure of Information Under the Freedom of Information Act
EEOC's Reading Room
Annual Report
2008 FOIA Annual Report
2007 FOIA Annual Report
2006 FOIA Annual Report
2005 FOIA Annual Report
2004 FOIA Annual Report
2003 FOIA Annual Report
2002 FOIA Annual Report
2001 FOIA Annual Report
2000 FOIA Annual Report
1999 FOIA Annual Report
1998 FOIA Annual Report
1997 FOIA Annual Report
Privacy Act Information
The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a, passed by Congress in 1974, establishes certain controls over what personal information is collected by the federal government and how it is used. The act guarantees three primary rights: (1) the right to see records about oneself, subject to the Privacy Act's exemptions; (2) the right to amend that record if it is inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely or incomplete; and (3) the right to sue the government for violations of the statute, including permitting others to see your records, unless specifically permitted by the act.

Text of the Privacy Act
EEOC's Privacy Act Regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 1611)
EEOC's Privacy Act Systems of Records Notices, including EEOC/GOVT-1:
Publication of Notices of Systems of Records and Proposed New Systems of Records, July 30, 2002: HTML | PDF
Publication of Notice of Proposed New Systems of Records and Amendment of Systems To Add New System Managers, April 26, 2006: HTML | PDF
Privacy Impact Assessments
EEO-1 Survey System
Integrated Mission System (IMS)
EEOC Assessment System (EAS)
EEOC Document Management System (DMS)
EEOC Training and Outreach Online Registration System
Your Right to Federal Records
This pamphlet is a joint publication of DOJ and the General Services Administration concerning both the FOIA and the Privacy Act.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 7:40 a.m.; Suggest removal

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

PREAMBLE.

We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic tranquility, and form a more perfect Government, do establish this Constitution.

ARTICLE. 1. - Declaration of Rights.

Section. 1. Inalienable rights. All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness[.]

Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

Sec: 3. Trial by jury; waiver in civil cases. The right of trial by Jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate forever; but a Jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law; and in civil cases, if three fourths of the Jurors agree upon a verdict it shall stand and have the same force and effect as a verdict by the whole Jury, Provided, the Legislature by a law passed by a two thirds vote of all the members elected to each branch thereof may require a unanimous verdict notwithstanding this Provision.

Sec: 4. Liberty of conscience. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed in this State, and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of his religious belief, but the liberty of consciene [conscience] hereby secured, shall not be so construed, as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace, or safety of this State.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 7:43 a.m.; Suggest removal

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ARTICLE. 1. - Declaration of Rights.

Sec: 9. Liberty of speech and the press. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the Jury; and if it shall appear to the Jury that the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated.

Sec: 10. Right to assemble and to petition. The people shall have the right freely to assemble together to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the Legislature for redress of Grievances.

Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.

1. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

2. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.

[Amended in 1982. Proposed and passed by the 1979 legislature; agreed to and passed by the 1981 legislature; and approved and ratified by the people at the 1982 general election. See: Statutes of Nevada 1979, p. 1986; Statutes of Nevada 1981, p. 2083.]

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:01 a.m.; Suggest removal

The Constitution has a total of twenty-seven amendments. The first ten, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified simultaneously. The following seventeen were ratified separately.

The Bill of Rights (1--10)
Main article: United States Bill of Rights
United States Bill of Rights currently housed in the National Archives.
Wikisource
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
United States Bill of Rights

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:01 a.m.; Suggest removal

It is commonly understood that the Bill of Rights was not originally intended to apply to the states, though except where amendments refer specifically to the Federal Government or a branch thereof (as in the First Amendment, under which some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion), there is no such delineation in the text itself. Nevertheless, a general interpretation of inapplicability to the states remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that:
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to extend most, but not all, parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. Nevertheless, the balance of state and federal power has remained a battle in the Supreme Court.

The amendments that became the Bill of Rights were actually the last ten of the twelve amendments proposed in 1789. The second of the twelve proposed amendments, regarding the compensation of members of Congress, remained unratified until 1992, when the legislatures of enough states finally approved it and, as a result, it became the Twenty-seventh Amendment despite more than two centuries of pendency. The first of the twelve--still technically pending before the state legislatures for ratification--pertains to the apportionment of the United States House of Representatives after each decennial census. The most recent state whose lawmakers are known to have ratified this proposal is Kentucky in 1792, during that commonwealth's first month of statehood.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:02 a.m.; Suggest removal

* First Amendment: addresses the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting Congressional establishment of a religion over another religion through Law and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition.
* Second Amendment: guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms. See District of Columbia v. Heller.

* Third Amendment: prohibits the government from using private homes as quarters for soldiers during peacetime without the consent of the owners. The only existing case law regarding this amendment is a lower court decision in the case of Engblom v. Carey.[16]
* Fourth Amendment: guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court.
* Fifth Amendment: forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; prohibits double jeopardy (repeated trials), except in certain very limited circumstances; forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as "Taking the Fifth" or "Pleading the Fifth"). This is regarded as the "rights of the accused" amendment, otherwise known as the Miranda rights after the Supreme Court case. It also prohibits government from taking private property for public use without "just compensation," the basis of eminent domain in the United States.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:03 a.m.; Suggest removal

* Sixth Amendment: guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury, guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. The Sixth Amendment has several court cases associated with it, including Powell v. Alabama, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Crawford v. Washington. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment prohibition on forced self-incrimination and the sixth amendment clause on right to counsel were to be made known to all persons placed under arrest, and these clauses have become known as the Miranda rights.
* Seventh Amendment: assures trial by jury in civil cases.
* Eighth Amendment: forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.
* Ninth Amendment: declares that the listing of individual rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; and that the other rights not specifically mentioned are retained by the people.
* Tenth Amendment: provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the States from exercising, are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:04 a.m.; Suggest removal

The Eleventh Amendment, the first amendment to the Constitution ratified after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, was adopted following the Supreme Court ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against states and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states. Thus, the amendment clarified Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gave diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases "between a state and citizens of another state."

Although the amendment's text does not explicitly include suits brought by a citizen against his own state, the Supreme Court ruled, in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), that the amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five Justice majority, stated in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999):
" [S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself....Nor can we conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers.[1] "

Writing for four dissenting Justices in Alden, Justice David Souter said the states surrendered their sovereign immunity when they ratified the Constitution. The dissenters read the amendment's text as reflecting only a narrow form of sovereign immunity, limiting diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts and saying that the states are not insulated from suits by individuals by either the Eleventh Amendment in particular or the Constitution in general.[2]

Although, the Eleventh Amendment immunizes non-consenting states from suit for money damages or equitable relief, federal courts may enjoin state officials from violating federal law under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Furthermore, in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress, under its enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, may abrogate state immunity from suit. Also, in Central Virginia Community College v. Katz 546 U.S. 356 (2006), the Court ruled the Congress could do the same regarding bankruptcy cases by way of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution. In Lapides v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that a state voluntarily waives the Eleventh Amendment when it invokes a federal court's removal jurisdiction.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:07 a.m.; Suggest removal

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the amendments that was enacted after the Civil War as part of the Reconstruction Amendments, along with the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. It was adopted on July 9, 1868.

The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) which had excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing Constitutional rights and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle racial segregation in the United States, as in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Its Due Process Clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states. This clause has also been used to recognize: (1) substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights; and (2) procedural due process rights requiring that certain steps, such as a hearing, be followed before a person's "life, liberty, or property" can be taken away. The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederate states and their officials.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:09 a.m.; Suggest removal

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:10 a.m.; Suggest removal

Citizenship and civil rights

Background

Section 1, arguably the most far-reaching section of the Fourteenth Amendment, formally defines citizenship and protects people's civil and political rights from infringement by any state. This represented the Congress's reversal of that portion of the Dred Scott decision which ruled that black people were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.[1] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all people born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to keep the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for want of congressional authority to pass such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a bare majority vote.

This section was also in response to the Black Codes which southern states had passed in the wake of the Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery in the United States.[2] Those laws attempted to return freed slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement and by preventing them from suing or testifying in court.

Section 1 also includes a formal definition of citizenship. During the original debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan--the author of the citizenship clause--described the clause as excluding not only "Indians", but also "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[3] Howard also stated the word "jurisdiction" meant the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[4] Such meaning precluded citizenship to any person who was beholden, in even the slightest respect, to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government.[4][5]

Finally, this section was in response to violence against African Americans within the southern states. A Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect the rights and safety of African Americans within those states.[6]

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:11 a.m.; Suggest removal

Citizenship Clause
Main article: Citizenship Clause

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[7] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan--the author of the Citizenship Clause--described the clause as excluding not only Indians but "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[8] Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[8] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[4][9][8] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[10] supported the amendment, believing citizenship ought to be extended to children of foreigners.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States.

The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.[11]

The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[12] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[13] although that has generally been assumed to be the case.[14] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)[15] and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).[16] Nevertheless, some claim the Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation.[13]

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:14 a.m.; Suggest removal

Due Process Clause
Main article: Due process

Beginning in the 1880s, the Court interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as providing substantive protection to private contracts and thus prohibiting a range of social and economic regulation.[citation needed] The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protected "freedom of contract" or the right of employees and employers to bargain for wages without great interference from the state.[citation needed] Thus, the Court struck down a law decreeing maximum hours for workers in a bakery in Lochner v. New York (1905) and struck down a minimum wage law in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923). However, the Court did uphold some economic regulation such as state prohibition laws (Mugler v. Kansas), laws declaring maximum hours for mine workers (Holden v. Hardy (1898)), laws declaring maximum hours for female workers (Muller v. Oregon (1908)), President Wilson's intervention in a railroad strike (Wilson v. New (1917)), as well as federal laws regulating narcotics (United States v. Doremus (1919)).

The Court repudiated the "freedom of contract" line of cases in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937). In the past forty years it has recognized a number of "fundamental rights" of individuals, such as privacy and some parental rights, which the states can regulate only under narrowly defined circumstances.[citation needed] The Court has also greatly expanded the reach of procedural due process, requiring some sort of hearing before the government may terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits.[19][20]

The Court has ruled that in certain circumstances, the Due Process Clause requires a judge to recuse himself on account of concern of there being a conflict of interest. For example, on June 8, 2009, in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia could not participate in a case involving a major donor to his election to that court.[21]

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:19 a.m.; Suggest removal

Power of enforcement
Main article: Congressional power of enforcement

Section 5, the last section, was construed broadly by the Warren Court in Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966), but the Rehnquist Court tended to construe it narrowly[citation needed] in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) and Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001). However.

Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003)

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:25 a.m.; Suggest removal

Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was "narrowly targeted" at "sex-based overgeneralization" and was thus a "valid exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment."[1]

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:26 a.m.; Suggest removal

State sovereign immunity

In Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits states from being sued in federal court without their consent by their own citizens, despite the Eleventh Amendment's literal language.[6] Congress, however, when acting under its Section 5 power, may abrogate state sovereign immunity and allow states to be sued for money damages. The Supreme Court has held that Congress may do this only if the private remedies it enacts under Section 5 have "congruence and proportionality" to the constitutional wrongs which it seeks to redress.[7] Without the requisite congruence and proportionality, Congress cannot constitutionally authorize private litigants to recover money damages from the states, although such litigants can sue for equitable relief.[8]

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:27 a.m.; Suggest removal

Majority opinion

The majority, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, began by reaffirming City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), which was the first case to set down the "congruence and proportionality" requirement for laws enacted under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court stated that while "Congress' power to enforce' the [Fourteenth] Amendment includes the authority both to remedy and to deter violation of rights guaranteed thereunder by prohibiting a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendment's text,"[9], the remedies which Congress enacts to enforce the Amendment must not constitute "an attempt to substantively redefine the States' legal obligations."[10] To prevent Congress from doing this, the Court said, its case law required Section 5 legislation to "exhibit 'congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.'"[11]

The Court acknowledged that Congress, by enacting the FMLA, had sought "to protect the right to be free from gender-based discrimination in the workplace."[12] The FMLA was meant to protect that right by guaranteeing to working women, who Congress found usually bear the primary responsibility for family caretaking, the right to take unpaid leave to deal with this responsibility while still retaining employment.[13] Whether the FMLA was constitutional depended on whether Congress had evidence that the states were systematically violating women's workplace rights. Citing Bradwell v. Illinois and Goesaert v. Cleary, the majority acknowledged that there was a long history of legally sanctioned discrimination against women in employment opportunities.

Congress, the majority said, first responded to this inequality by passing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII's abrogation of state sovereign immunity was upheld in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, "[b]ut," the Court said, "state gender discrimination did not cease."[14] The Court noted that "the persistence of such unconstitutional discrimination by the States justifie[d]" the passage of the FMLA, which was designed to prevent further discrimination.[14]

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:27 a.m.; Suggest removal

Moreover, continued the majority, Congress had evidence that state-offered parental leave for fathers was rare, and stated that "[t]his and other differential leave policies were not attributable to any differential physical needs of men and women, but rather to the pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women's work."[15] Even in states where the laws were supposed to offer parental leave for fathers, such laws "were applied in discriminatory ways."[15] Taking these conditions into account, the majority concluded, Congress was justified in passing the FMLA.

The Court added that earlier cases which had struck down laws passed under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment -- cases such as Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents and Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett -- were distinguishable. Those cases concerned legislation which Congress had enacted in order to combat what it considered discrimination on the basis of age and disability. The Court stated that because such discrimination is not subjected to heightened scrutiny under the Constitution, and because the laws invalidated in Kimel and Garrett prohibited almost all such discrimination, the previous cases struck down laws which bore little "congruence and proportionality" to the wrongs they sought to remedy. Gender-based discrimination, by contrast, is subjected to intermediate scrutiny under the Constitution, and so in enacting the FMLA "it was easier for Congress to show a pattern of state constitutional violations."[16] In addition, the majority noted, the FMLA placed certain limitations on the right of employees to take leave and limited the amount of damages which aggrieved plaintiffs could recover for violations. For those reasons, the Court said, "we conclude that [the FMLA's private remedy] is congruent and proportional to its remedial object, and can 'be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.'"[17]

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:34 a.m.; Suggest removal

Case Reference:
Nevada Department of Human Resources, et al. v. Hibbs, Willliam, et al. (05/27/2003)
Questions presented

Whether 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C), the family medical care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, is a proper exercise of Congress's power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, thereby constituting a valid exercise of congressional power to abrogate the states' 11th Amendment immunity from suit by individuals?

BY NANCY PERLA, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

In September of 1997, William Hibbs, an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resources, requested 12 weeks off from work, unpaid, to care for his sick wife.

Hibbs asked for the time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act, (FMLA), which was passed by Congress in 1993 to alleviate sexually discriminatory hiring practices. The FMLA allowed for women and men to take three months off from work for family care without being fired.

The theory behind the FMLA was this: if both men and women are allowed to take extended amounts of time off of work, women would be less discriminated against at hiring-time, despite their potential to get pregnant and require maternity leave.

When William Hibbs' wife was in a serious car accident, he petitioned his employer for the maximum amount of FMLA time off, 12 weeks, to care for her during her surgery.

In addition, Hibbs was worried that his wifes depression, which was caused by the pain medication she was taking, required round-the-clock attention.

Hibbs was granted the time, and told to use it whenever he needed it until the upcoming holiday season that December.

The Department of Human Resources also provided him with 200 hours of paid time off, and called it "catastrophic leave."

Hibbs assumed that his catastrophic leave was time off in addition to his federally-granted 12 weeks. His employer disagreed. The Nevada Department of Human Resources fired Hibbs when he did not show up to work after that time, and claims he should have known the paid "catastrophe leave" was included within those three months.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:35 a.m.; Suggest removal

"Essentially, his employer asked him to choose between his job and his wife," said Treva Hearne, the attorney defending William Hibbs. "He chose his wife. But the FMLA was intended to alleviate choices like these."

Hibbs, who was fired on Dec. 22, 1997, filed suit in federal court in Nevada and lost on summary judgment. The Nevada Department of Human Resources, because it is a branch of the Nevada state legislature, is constitutionally sheltered from suits, the court concluded.

Paul Taggart, the attorney for the Nevada Department of Human Resources, said: "This is about the 11th Amendment to the Constitution, which protects the states from prosecution.

"This is fundamentally a state sovereign immunity case. There are very limited ways in which Congress can waive a states immunity from lawsuits.

"If people are permitted to collect money from states through litigation, it takes away important funds that are necessary to the improvement of that state and they [the funds] are used to pay out plaintiffs instead," Taggart said.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:38 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hibbs appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. There, he successfully argued that Congress can negate certain Constitutional clauses.

In December of 2001, the 9th Circuit decided in Hibbs favor, saying, "the FMLA should be treated differently, because the FMLA is aimed at remedying gender discrimination, which is subject to heightened scrutiny."

"We were very pleased with the decision made by the 9th Circuit Court. We hope that opinion will stand," Hearne said.

This year, the Nevada Department of Human Resources petitioned the Supreme Court to clarify the issue whether the 11th Amendment bars a Congressional act.

On June 24, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review in the case and allowed Hibbs to proceed in forma pauperis.

"Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor will be the sway vote," Hearne said, "But it could go either way ... The real question is whether Congress can remedy sexual discrimination."

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:38 a.m.; Suggest removal

On May 27, 2003, the Court issued its opinion, which was 6-3 for Hibbs. Contrary to Hearne's expectations, it was not Justice O'Connor who provided the swing vote; it was Chief Justice William Rehnquist who authored the lead opinion. In the opinion, Rehnquist concluded for the majority that state employees may recover damages in federal court in the event of a state's failure to comply with the FMLA's family-care provision.

In so holding, the majority determined that Congress had expressly abrogated the state's 11th Amendment immunity in enacting the FMLA because it had before it significant evidence of a long and extensive history of sex discrimination with respect to the administration of leave benefits by states. Justice O'Connor was among the majority.

The Court's opinion was cognizant of its recent rulings that immunized states from suits by employees for discrimination on the basis of both age and disability. In explaining the different result here, Rehnquist wrote that in contrast, the Family and Medical Leave Act was expressly enacted to "protect the right to be free from gender-based discrimination in the workplace" by removing "the pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women's work."

Unlike discrimination against the elderly and the disabled, which the Court had held in the past did not come with express findings by Congress that such discrimination by state employers was pervasive, here the Court took notice that there was a long history of discriminatory leave policies engaged in by states.

The dissenters -- Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- took issue with that finding, arguing that there was a "paucity of evidence" to support the conclusion that states were engaging in widespread sex discrimination of a sort that would be remedied by the family leave law. "This is an entitlement program, not a remedial statute," Kennedy wrote.

Attorneys: For NV Dept. of Human Resources, et al.:Charles Hilsabeck1325 Airmotive Way,Suite 340Reno, NV 89502775-688-1818For William Hibbs, et al.:Treva J. HearneZeh, Spoo & Hearne575 Forest Street, Suite 200Reno, NV 89509Theodore B. OlsonSolicitor General, Counsel of RecordRobert D. McCallum, Jr.Assistant Attorney GeneralMark B. SternStephanie R. Marcus

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:40 a.m.; Suggest removal

Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003)

On May 27, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion, which was 6-3 for Hibbs.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 8:45 a.m.; Suggest removal

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYLVIA DOMINGUEZ-CURRY, u No. 03-16959 Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. D.C. No. y CV-01-00630-
NEVADA TRANSPORTATION DWH/RAM
DEPARTMENT; ROC STACEY, OPINION Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
David W. Hagen, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
February 17, 2005San Francisco, California
Filed September 14, 2005

COUNSEL

Kenneth J. McKenna, Reno, Nevada, for the plaintiff appellant.

Brian Sandoval, Attorney General, Teresa J. Thienhaus, Senior Deputy Attorney General, LBrian Sandoval, Attorney Generalas Vegas, Nevada, for the defendants-appellees.

OPINION

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:
Sylvia Dominguez-Curry ("Dominguez") sued her
employer, the Nevada Department of Transportation ("Department"), and her supervisor, Roc Stacey ("Stacey"),
alleging that they subjected her to a hostile work environment and failed to promote her on the basis of her gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dominguez appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department and Stacey. We hold that Dominguez presented ample evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and that the decision not to promote her was motivated at least in part by her gender. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's judgment and remand for a trial on both of Dominguez's Title VII claims.

Suggest removal Conclusion = REVERSED AND REMANDED.

In sum, we conclude that genuine factual disputes exist as to whether Stacey's conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, and whether discriminatory animus played a role in appellees' decision not to promote Dominguez. We therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment on both claims and remand for a trial on the merits.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORT CLAIM
A. Sylvia Dominguez-Curry -- TC #12858
Amount of Claim - $130,000.00

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 11:08 a.m.; Suggest removal

+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+
|B|a|t|t|l|e| |B|o|r|n|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 11:25 a.m.; Suggest removal

|::::::::::::::============
|::::::::::::::============
|::::::::::::::============
|====================
|====================
|
|
|
|

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 3:35 p.m.; Suggest removal

The State of Nevada Constitution

We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic tranquility, and form a more perfect Government, do establish this Constitution.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 3:36 p.m.; Suggest removal

Section. 1. Inalienable rights. All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness[.]

Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 3:37 p.m.; Suggest removal

Sec: 3. Trial by jury; waiver in civil cases. The right of trial by Jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate forever; but a Jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law; and in civil cases, if three fourths of the Jurors agree upon a verdict it shall stand and have the same force and effect as a verdict by the whole Jury, Provided, the Legislature by a law passed by a two thirds vote of all the members elected to each branch thereof may require a unanimous verdict notwithstanding this Provision.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 3:39 p.m.; Suggest removal

Sec: 9. Liberty of speech and the press. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the Jury; and if it shall appear to the Jury that the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 3:41 p.m.; Suggest removal

Sec: 10. Right to assemble and to petition. The people shall have the right freely to assemble together to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the Legislature for redress of Grievances.

By The_people_of_Nevada_deserve: 6/14/09 at 3:54 p.m.; Suggest removal

"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends".

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

By The_people_of_Nevada_deserve: 6/14/09 at 3:55 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".

Martin Luther King, Jr.

By The_people_of_Nevada_deserve: 6/14/09 at 3:56 p.m.; Suggest removal

"A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus".

Martin Luther King, Jr.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 4:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

Thank you "The People of Nevada Deserve Better"

"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth".

-Gandhi

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 4:04 p.m.; Suggest removal

The public's right to know should not be replaced by a government-knows-best policy of the need to know. It has to be a right to know
for citizens to inform themselves in a democracy.

George Bush had it right when
he called for a "citizen-centered and results-oriented approach."

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 4:07 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." - President, Barack Obama

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 4:15 p.m.; Suggest removal

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."

Patrick Henry

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 4:17 p.m.; Suggest removal

http://transparentnevada.com/

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 4:20 p.m.; Suggest removal

The Nevada Project on Sunshine Review

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Neva...

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 4:27 p.m.; Suggest removal

http://nvemployees.wordpress.com/

Who are you anyway? A retired state employee always tired of state employees being scapegoated. I used to work for the Health Division and NDOT. Now, I work for myself. My name is, Jim Pierce.

Why did you start this blog? It helps me gets some things out of my head and calms me down" for a little while. I think it is a form of mental therapy but I am not sure it is working.

Are you a Democrat or Republican? I can be both and neither. I am a "Blue Dog Democrat", conservative fiscally who believes in responsibility from all sides and at all levels. I admit I have some liberal tendencies. Horror of all horrors!

Democratic liberals and Harry Reid don't like people like me and neither do typical Republicans, especially those who have lost their way. Almost all Republicans in Congress have lost their way. The same for those in the Nevada Legislature and the Governor's office. A party of "No" means a party of "No-thing". Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave!

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 4:31 p.m.; Suggest removal

http://www.nvafscme.org/

AFSCME Local 4041 - "We Fight - We Win"

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 4:34 p.m.; Suggest removal

Welcome to the Nevada Open Government Initiative

http://open.nv.gov

Recently, I signed an Executive Order that requires transparency and accountability in government so all Nevadans will be able to see how their tax dollars are being spent. This type of transparency and accountability is especially crucial during these tough economic times.

For the first time in Nevada, citizens, via the internet, will be able to review all aspects of our state's finances, including detailed explanations of state budgets and expenditures.

Below, my entire 2010-11 proposed budget that I transmitted to the Legislature is available for your evaluation. I encourage all Nevadans to review my proposed budget and to participate in the budgetary process, which will begin when the Legislature convenes on February 2, 2009.

Governor Jim Gibbons

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 4:41 p.m.; Suggest removal

Here's a good one:

http://gov.state.nv.us/PodCast/EMPLOYEE%...

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 4:47 p.m.; Suggest removal

Terri Patraw Blog #1
http://blog.terri-patraw.com

Terri Patraw Blog #2
http://blog.terri-patraw.info

Terri Patraw Blog #3
http://blog.terri-patraw.org

Terri Patraw: Fraud In My Lawsuit
In the past year and a half I have seen manufactured evidence, perjury, subornation of perjury, phony subpoenas, phony documents, witness tampering, witness harassment, etc in my lawsuit.

I have filed criminal charges against 4 individuals for their roles in falsifying evidence in my case.

Criminal indictments will also be sought against these individuals and several others in the Grand Jury on Public Corruption at the University of Nevada, Reno.

This Grand Jury process is moving forward (more on why it has taken so long in my next blog).

Justice will prevail and the tax payers will benefit. Keep the faith!

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 4:57 p.m.; Suggest removal

http://dop.nv.gov/DirectorMsg.html

DOP Directors message:

TERESA J. THIENHAUS, DIRECTOR

Message Coming Soon.....

http://dop.nv.gov/mission.html

State of Nevada

Department of Personnel

Mission Statement
The Department of Personnel is committed to attracting highly talented individuals and inspiring employees to choose a long tenure with the State of Nevada. This will be accomplished by providing excellent service and continually striving to anticipate and respond to our customers' Human Resources needs.

Vision Statement

Vision for our Team Members

We create a healthy working environment that is ethical, supportive, progressive, and respected where staff and management is caring, approachable, and exemplifies honest leadership. Employees of the Department of Personnel look forward to coming to work because:

We care about each other both personally and professionally;
We are part of a progressive work environment that works towards implementing cutting edge compensation and classification systems, comprehensive recruitment, employee development, and workforce planning strategies and solutions;
We are part of a department that is respected due to our reputation for innovative solutions, performance consulting, and dissemination of best practices;
We inspire each other to reach our potential as individuals and make a difference everyday!

Vision for our Customers

Our customers view us as a trustworthy and valued partner in achieving their organizational goals because:

We understand their business;
We understand their human capital gaps and help fill them;
It is seamless and easy for them to interface with us because our processes are streamlined;
We communicate effectively;
We provide usable data so they can make better Human Resources decisions;
We provide internal consulting services to assist them in achieving their organizational goals;
We develop customer focused Human Resources systems and work toward regulatory changes to support their goals.

Vision for our Leadership Team

Healthy Leader, Healthy Team, Healthy Organization:

We create understanding of each others' work and priorities;
We pull each other in on problems, challenges, projects, and respect each other's boundaries;
We create a healthy conflict resolution mechanism between us;
We create a healthy team that exhibits: ethical, supportive, progressive, and respectful behaviors;
We are open to each other's ideas;
We focus on the Vision and hold each other accountable to it;
We work towards developing our team members;
We expect leaders to be positive role models.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 5:05 p.m.; Suggest removal

http://dop.nv.gov/perds/2008/PERD44-08PC...

"Discrimination" has come up in the last few PC meetings minutes repeatedly by Director Rich and is the subject matter of a current "class action" NERC (1) and
Title VII EEOC (2) charge(s) being processed right now against the State of Nevada including the DOP. Certain discriminatory employment practices are directly and indirectly related and even showcased in the appeal of Chad Davis.

During my appeal process with DOP in 2006 I experienced certain questionable discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices, I made a vigorous effort to
inform the DOP director at the time (Director Green & Shelley Blotter) of my concerns and like Chad Davis' experience ""One thing I found troubling, I tried
in numerous writings to address these concerns but was ignored by DOP".

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 5:07 p.m.; Suggest removal

http://dop.nv.gov/perds/2008/PERD44-08PC...

In light of so many other people discussing these problem(s) on the record, the
EEOC is very, very interested in the various public records, minutes and audio
recordings that reinforce certain facts and offer clear examples of certain
questionable employment practices pertaining to certain charges including
discrimination and retaliation. DOP Director Todd Rich's comments and even
acknowledgement of discriminatory practices are very valid "substances" of the
matters discussed, proposed and decided. In the spirit of Nevada Open Meeting
Law NRS 241.035 and Nevada AG Open Meeting Law Opinion 98-03 (July 7,
1998) ""NRS 241.035(1)(c) requires each public body to keep written minutes of
each of its meetings, including "The substance of all matters proposed,
discussed or decided . . . ." [Emphasis supplied.]"
As a past IT Professional III (grade 39) classification appellant (successful) and
IT Professional IV & Master IT Professional I (grade 41) classification appellant
(unsuccessful) and as an advocate for a work environment free of unlawful
discrimination and "Common Sense Communication" - I am cautiously optimistic
about DOP Director Todd Rich's comments. Director Rich seems to grasp the
rampant set of problems related to unlawful and unethical discrimination,
retaliation and perpetual problems in the classifications of IT Professionals within
the State DOP classification process(s). Based on previous PC minutes, I know
Director Rich, the Personnel Commission and even the Governor have made this
concern a top priority.
State employees look forward to an environment free of unlawful discrimination
and an appeals process that's fair, open, and honestly conducted with the utmost
integrity that State employees deserve; unlike what's been done in the recent
past. This includes DOP compliance with state and federal laws designed to
prevent discrimination and other unethical and discriminatory shenanigans by
DOP like demoting an employee (me) into a lower pay grade and outside the
classification series, changing the rules/criteria or changing the weighted value of
a job component or work performance standard in the middle of an appeal and/or
denying appeals based on phantom certification requirements (certifications that
don't exist yet or are unattainable and unavailable to state IT workers). These
examples of questionable employment practices were done to Chad Davis...

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 5:17 p.m.; Suggest removal

http://dop.nv.gov/perds/2008/PERD44-08PC...

The subject matter of this public comment is very personal to me because I've personally witnessed a series of very questionable employment practices in my 6+ years as a State of Nevada employee. Working here has been an odd
paradox as I have been very, very happy at times and at the epicenter of the worst employment experiences I could ever imagine. I've been fortunate to work with some wonderful people, pursue certifications, achieve limited advancement and work with state of the art technology. I've also been involved in train wreck scenarios with the DOP including a series of grievances in 2003, a 2004 Federal lawsuit related to an EEOC harassment complaint, a series of classification appeals in 2006 and now a new 2007/08 class action EEOC investigation into questionable employment practices including discrimination and retaliation and a
Nevada open meeting law complaint. In each case, I've had successful outcomes
by losing some of the battles with DOP - but winning the wars. "And each time
I've won because I stood up for what was right, I defended myself and I was able
to break thought the stone wall of confidentiality, the closed door meetings and
the cover-ups. Being persistent, vigorous, diligent and tireless after many hours
of research and fact finding, I've come to be an advocate for certain employment
rights. It's somewhat stressful and I would rather focus on other things in my life,
however It's hard for me to see a perpetual set of problems persist after I've already fought hard and successful, only to see it happen again and again to another unsuspecting employees like Chad Davis and others involved in the class action complaint.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 5:22 p.m.; Suggest removal

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/FOIA/hotline2.h...

Report Violations of Civil Rights
or Civil Liberties

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigates allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, and misconduct by Department of Justice employees, contractors, and grantees. The OIG is an independent entity within the Department of Justice that reports to both the Attorney General and Congress on issues that affect the Department's personnel or operations.

The OIG has jurisdiction over all complaints of misconduct against Department of Justice employees, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drug Enforcement Administration; Federal Bureau of Prisons; U.S. Marshals Service; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; United States Attorneys Offices; and employees who work in other Divisions or Offices in the Department of Justice. (The one exception is that allegations of misconduct by a Department attorney or law enforcement personnel that relate to the exercise of the attorney's authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice are the responsibility of the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility.)

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 5:33 p.m.; Suggest removal

http://www.amazon.com/Common-Sense-Commu...

Common Sense Communication : Real Life Habits for Success (Paperback)by To Rich(Author

1.0 out of 5 stars
Communication for my 5 year old!,
June 18, 2001
By John Rotten (Deleware) - See all my reviews

I was looking for real life business communication skills and some context on a subject that is important to today's global communications environment. I found "Common Sense Communication" and am sorry I bought it! A flimsy book of one liners more appropriate for children just developing social habbits in the first grade. No thoughts on cultural contexts or business cultures. Just a poor, poor example of a real book.

By Tahoety: 6/14/09 at 5:34 p.m.; Suggest removal

Make gun permits public
Supreme Court should see the fallacy in keeping weapons records confidential
Fri, Jun 5, 2009 (2:06 a.m.)

Gov. Jim Gibbons last year admitted he had surrendered his concealed weapons permit because he had not completed all of the training. To get the permit, he was supposed to have signed an application saying he had received training, so the Reno Gazette-Journal wanted to know if Gibbons' permit had been suspended.

A reporter asked the Washoe County Sheriff's Office for information and was denied. Sheriff Mike Haley said applications and permits are confidential. The newspaper sued and lost in district court. It appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case this week.

Scott Glogovac, the newspaper's attorney, argued that the law doesn't specifically deem concealed weapons permits or information about the status of a permit to be confidential. He said because of that, the documents should fall under the Nevada Public Records Act, which declares all state records to be open unless they are specifically excluded.

Beyond the strict legal question, there is an important issue of public policy. Barry Smith, executive director of the Nevada Press Association, said the case "is all about government accountability."

"This is an example of the government wanting to regulate something, expecting information from its residents and placing requirements and restrictions on them, but then not sharing that information with the public," he told the Las Vegas Sun's Cy Ryan. "There's no outside oversight to check to see if it's being handled properly."

Gibbons' involvement in the case is a perfect example of why these permits should be public records. Was the governor given special treatment? Was incorrect or falsified information provided on his permit application?

Beyond Gibbons, this is an issue of public safety. For all anyone knows, sheriffs' offices could be issuing permits to people without the proper qualifications or training and letting them carry guns.

The public should be assured that is not the case, and the best way for that to happen is for the Nevada Supreme Court to reverse the lower court decision and order that the records be made public.

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 7:30 a.m.; Suggest removal

http://nvemployees.wordpress.com/2009/04...

Update:

Collective Bargaining rights for state employees will NOT become law because of a veto. The Legislaure can override it at the next sesion in 2011. It covered all workplace issues except salaries. AB 395, Provides for workplace relations discussions and agreements for certain state employees. (BDR 23-1020) To download the PDF version click here or just right click the link and, "Save ""

Anjeanette Damon, Reno Gaz Jr.: "Gibbons vetoes collective bargaining bill" - May 4, 2009

Currently state employees cannot collective bargain like county and city employees but AB 395 would change that. The bill might pass this session now that Democrats are in power but realistically, businesses and Republicans will work against this bill in every way they can and the Governor will undoubtedly veto the bill if it gets to his desk.

Despite the odds, we need to keep up the fight.

AB 395, will be heard by the Assembly's Ways and Means committee on April 29, 2009 (Wednesday) in Room 3137 starting at 8 am. You can listen/view the meeting via the Legislature's "Live Broadcasts" webpage.

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 7:32 a.m.; Suggest removal

http://www.rgj.com/section/blogs01?plckC...

Posted by Anjeanette at 6/4/2009 5:05 PM PDT on rgj.com

Gov. Jim Gibbons vetoed two more bills today and this time the Legislature doesn't get a shot at overriding them.

Most notably, Gibbons vetoed a bill described as the No. 1 priority for state employee labor unions. Assembly Bill 395 would have given state workers non-economic collective bargaining rights.

In his veto letter, Gibbons contended AB 395 would dramatically increase state spending. The bill did not give authority to state worker unions to negotiate salary. Under the language they could bargain such issues as working conditions.

From Gibbons' letter:

"I find it unfathomable and unconscionable that the Legislature would pass a bill that would result in further increases in state spending and would require even further tax increases to fund that spending," he said.

The bill carried fiscal notes of about $2.6 million.

Gibbons also vetoed Senate Bill 376, which expanded the scope of projects on which counties would be required to pay prevailing wage.

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 7:33 a.m.; Suggest removal

AB395
http://leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Reports/...

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 7:34 a.m.; Suggest removal

AB395 fiscal notes:

http://leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Reports/...

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 7:35 a.m.; Suggest removal

Personnel fiscal note on AB395

http://leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/FiscalNo...

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 7:37 a.m.; Suggest removal

http://www.nv2020.com/images/overhauling...

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 7:38 a.m.; Suggest removal

July 6, 2008
U. of Nevada at Reno, Facing Dozens of Lawsuits, Spends Big on Outside Legal Help
The University of Nevada at Reno has spent about $1.7-million on outside law firms to help staff lawyers defend against just four of dozens of lawsuits filed by current or former employees, the Reno Gazette-Journal reported. More than 70 complaints -- including civil-rights, defamation, discrimination, and wrongful-termination lawsuits -- have been filed against the university since 2000, and more than 30 are now working their way through the courts or the appeals process.

The university says most of the cases are meritless and were filed by a single lawyer. But the lawyer, Jeff Dickerson, told the newspaper that he turns away 85 percent of the prospective plaintiffs who ask him to sue the university on their behalf. "Many cases are not taken," he said, "because although the working environment is hostile, it does not rise to the level of legal liability under the law."

Two of the four cases that outside lawyers are assisting on were dismissed last month, but Mr. Dickerson said he plans to appeal. He filed those cases on behalf of Hussein S. Hussein, a former professor who says his firing in April was in retaliation for whistle-blowing about the mistreatment of animals at the university. --Charles Huckabee

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 7:40 a.m.; Suggest removal

http://gov.state.nv.us/PressReleases/200...

GOVERNOR VETOES TWO BILLS including AB395

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 7:41 a.m.; Suggest removal

http://www.krnv.com/global/story.asp?s=8...

Nevada Highway Patrol sexual harassment lawsuit settled with award of $480,000

Posted: May 13, 2008 01:14 PM PDT

Updated: May 13, 2008 04:42 PM PDT

The Nevada Highway Patrol's top female trooper has been awarded $480,000 to settle a federal civil rights case alleging sexual harassment and misconduct by former patrol officials.

The Board of Examiners, chaired by Gov. Jim Gibbons, approved the payment to Capt. Jacquelyn Sandage.

Sandage, a 13-year patrol veteran, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in late 2006 alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation and other claims.

An investigation into her claims led to the resignation of the patrol's top ranking officer, Col. David Hosmer on June 8, 2006 and the demotion of one of his top officers, Maj. Robert Wideman.

In her complaint, Sandage said Hosmer and other command officers contributed to and permitted a "sexually hostile work environment," which included name-calling and crude remarks.

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 8:50 a.m.; Suggest removal

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYLVIA DOMINGUEZ-CURRY, u No. 03-16959 Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. D.C. No. y CV-01-00630-
NEVADA TRANSPORTATION DWH/RAM
DEPARTMENT; ROC STACEY, OPINION Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
David W. Hagen, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
February 17, 2005San Francisco, California
Filed September 14, 2005

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 8:51 a.m.; Suggest removal

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...

COUNSEL

Kenneth J. McKenna, Reno, Nevada, for the plaintiff appellant.

Brian Sandoval, Attorney General, Teresa J. Thienhaus, Senior Deputy Attorney General, LBrian Sandoval, Attorney Generalas Vegas, Nevada, for the defendants-appellees.

OPINION

PAEZ, Circuit Judge:
Sylvia Dominguez-Curry ("Dominguez") sued her
employer, the Nevada Department of Transportation ("Department"), and her supervisor, Roc Stacey ("Stacey"),
alleging that they subjected her to a hostile work environment and failed to promote her on the basis of her gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dominguez appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department and Stacey. We hold that Dominguez presented ample evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and that the decision not to promote her was motivated at least in part by her gender. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's judgment and remand for a trial on both of Dominguez's Title VII claims.

Suggest removal Conclusion = REVERSED AND REMANDED.

In sum, we conclude that genuine factual disputes exist as to whether Stacey's conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment, and whether discriminatory animus played a role in appellees' decision not to promote Dominguez. We therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment on both claims and remand for a trial on the merits.

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 8:52 a.m.; Suggest removal

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Suggest removal TORT CLAIM
A. Sylvia Dominguez-Curry -- TC #12858
Amount of Claim - $130,000.00

LOCATION: Capitol Building
Annex, Second Floor
101 N. Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada
DATE AND TIME: August 8, 2006, 10:00 a.m.

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 8:58 a.m.; Suggest removal

http://www.websupp.org/data/DNV/3:01-cv-...

Read about Teresa J. Thienhaus, esq. and her loss at a cost of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars when you include legal fees and wasted time.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Suggest removal TORT CLAIM
A. Sylvia Dominguez-Curry -- TC #12858
Amount of Claim - $130,000.00

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 8:58 a.m.; Suggest removal

http://www.websupp.org/data/DNV/3:01-cv-...

Read about Teresa J. Thienhaus, esq. and her loss at a cost of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars when you include legal fees and wasted time.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 8:59 a.m.; Suggest removal

THIS IS THE CORRECT ADDRESS FOR THE CASE HISTORY:

http://www.websupp.org/data/DNV/3:01-cv-...

Read about Teresa J. Thienhaus, esq. and her loss at a cost of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars when you include legal fees and wasted time.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 9:01 a.m.; Suggest removal

more here

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appe...

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 9:03 a.m.; Suggest removal

This was the one I was looking for:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circ...

COUNSEL
Kenneth J. McKenna, Reno, Nevada, for the plaintiffappellant.

, Teresa J. Thienhaus,Senior Deputy Attorney General, Las Vegas, Nevada, for the
defendants-appellees.

Brian Sandoval, Attorney General, Nevada, for the
defendants-appellees.

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYLVIA DOMINGUEZ-CURRY, No. 03-16959 Plaintiff-Appellant,

NEVADA TRANSPORTATION DWH/RAM
DEPARTMENT; ROC STACEY, OPINION Defendants-Appellees.

Argued and Submitted
February 17, 2005--San Francisco, California
Filed September 14, 2005

By jaesun: 6/15/09 at 1:20 p.m.; Suggest removal

get a clue. no one is gonna read all that crap

By Tahoety: 6/15/09 at 6:09 p.m.; Suggest removal

Jaesun: I only need one person to read this, she'll get the point. It also acts as an online reference so I can refer people to this area for information. I don't have a blog yet,nor to I plan to. Plus I wanted to hit 100 comments just for the fun of it and see how long the story sits on the #1 spot. LOL Cheers.

By NVtaxpayer: 6/16/09 at 9:54 a.m.; Suggest removal

I hate to disappoint you but, I'm not the Director of Personnel. Although, I'm sure I wouldn't mind her paycheck. I'm sure if she has to put up with you she might feel as though she does not get paid nearly enough! I agree with jaesun...way too much crap and a total waste of time!

By Tahoety: 6/16/09 at 6:26 p.m.; Suggest removal

Looks like the DOJ is in town:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jun...

Justice Department sues on behalf of fired state worker
Associated Press

Published Mon, Jun 15, 2009 (3:24 p.m.)

Updated Mon, Jun 15, 2009 (11:50 p.m.)

The Justice Department sued Monday on behalf of a former state worker whose sexual harassment lawsuit against former Nevada Controller Kathy Augustine was dismissed on a legal technicality.

The Justice Department lawsuit, filed against the state and the controller's office on behalf of Art Ingram, contends the state violated federal law by not promptly rehiring him and then dismissing him after he returned from active military duty.

Ingram, an Army reservist colonel, was the state's chief deputy controller when he went on active military duty in mid-2003. He tried to get rehired after being discharged in early 2008.

The Justice Department complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Reno, alleges a violation of the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, known as USERRA. The legal action is separate from the sexual harassment lawsuit that Ingram had filed against Augustine in 2004.

Augustine died in 2006 after being injected with succinylcholine, a paralyzing drug used in hospital emergency rooms. Her husband, critical care nurse Chaz Higgs, was later convicted of killing her with the injection.

The Justice Department complaint claims that Ingram sought reemployment with the state but was offered a job "at considerably less pay and status." The complaint alleges that the offer was withdrawn after Ingram filed his USERRA complaint because of the terms of the job offer.

Ingram's separate harassment lawsuit against Augustine was dismissed in 2004 on a legal technicality, according to his lawyer at the time, Mark Mausert of Reno.

In the harassment case, Ingram claimed that he resisted Augustine's sexual advances and as a result was reprimanded and suffered in his job. He said restrictions were placed on him in the office, he was threatened with a letter of insubordination and his duties and responsibilities were limited. At that point, he went on active duty in the Army.

Augustine denied Ingram's allegations, telling investigators at the time that Ingram had caused problems and that if he returned he had to "demonstrate dramatic improvement" or he would be subject to demotions, suspension and termination.