Legal Question in Employment Law in Nevada

Nevada law states, No person shall "TAKE" all or any part of the tips bestowed upon his employees.

As it stands, case laws concerning this particular statute have ruled that the law does not act to prohibit an employer from requiring that all employees collect, or pool, their tips, so that the proceeds can be equally divided among all those whom the employer has decided should share in such tips.

Alford v. Harolds club ruled that NRS 608.160 does not act to prohibit an employer from unilaterally impossing tip pooling as a condition of employment as long as the employer does not directly benefit from the pool.

While the words "directly benefit" is not used in the statute, the courts declared that the proper interpretation of the statute is that it was passed to prevent employers from directly benefiting themselves to the tips their employees received from customers. Please note that the author and sponsor of this bill recently submitted a sworn statement to the Nevada Sepreme Court stating that Alford was incorrent and should be overturned when it suggested it's version of the intent of the law.

Is there any case law to support Nevada's insistance that the word "take" means to "directly benefit" oneself to.

Employees in Nevada are being required to collect and pool their tips among all those whom their employer wants tips distributed to. Is this not a taking that NRS 608.160 prohibits?

Doesn't 608.160 prohibit employers from exerting dominion over the tips bestowed upon their employees when it states that no employer shall take all or any part of the tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees.

1 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More Labor and Employment Law questions and answers in Nevada

Looking for something else?