by Jon Ralston Thu, 05/08/2014 - 10:06
-
This is also accurate. t.co/K3QNOmEDtF
5 hours 2 min ago.
-
Nobody tells me anything (good policy!).
Very happy for four great members of Team @TheNVIndy. t.co/qCKKPWdkJ5
6 hours 24 min ago.
-
This is fascinating.
A well-respected lawmaker and some experienced hands are running as a slate to take over the… t.co/FOrlQlJbkh
7 hours 6 min ago.
-
Scoop from our capital team… t.co/ajmY61a9JI
7 hours 32 min ago.
-
“We want to make sure that our families are protected every step of the way,” Doñate said. “Regardless of who you… t.co/FnpR8qUQqP
9 hours 24 min ago.
-
You don't say! t.co/RRsCCWUtnN
10 hours 50 sec ago.
-
We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving
There's a choic… t.co/OPDeL0JIfJ
10 hours 22 min ago.
-
Always good to have a reminder of how lucky we are to have @calvertphoto on the job.... t.co/m5ZfKmrVxw
10 hours 53 min ago.
-
The Legislature is a strange place for most NV residents (really, you have no idea!), so @KLeonardNV and… t.co/V1asoo1sm7
11 hours 18 min ago.
-
If you are not subscribed to Team @TheNVIndy's Behind the Bar newsletter about the NV Legislature, you are missing… t.co/Lpt4uavGF3
11 hours 53 min ago.
-
Good morning from The #WeMatter State.
On this date in 1920, NV ratified the 19th Amendment giving women the right… t.co/JXmqzYGW9z
12 hours 24 min ago.
Against the backdrop of a national debate on the minimum wage, a Las Vegas lawyer has sued the state alleging that employers, aided by the state’s labor commissioner, have systematically evaded a requirement of a 2006 constitutional amendment to provide low-income workers with health care.
The suit, which is posted here, could unmask a symbiosis between regulators and employers, whose lobbyists, as so often has occurred in Nevada, use the administrative process to undo legislative or voter intent. That is, once a law or a voter initiative passes, lobbyists work their necromancy with regulators to soften, change or even subvert the intent. If the allegations in this lawsuit are borne out, they also could help explain why Nevada has such a large uninsured population.
The gist of the suit filed by Bradley Schrager on behalf of two plaintiffs (and there must be many more in waiting), is this:
The 2006 constitutional amendment provided that employers could pay one dollar less than the minimum wage indexed for inflation if they provided health care coverage to their workers. The suit alleges that the state has promulgated regulations that allow employers to “offer” (maybe once and not ongoing) but not mandatorily “provide,” as the amendment stated, health insurance. So his clients – and surely many others – are without health insurance mandated in the Constitution.
For others, the suit argues, the commissioner allowed employers to perversely interpret another section of the constitutional amendment mandating “not more than 10 percent of the employee’s gross taxable income from the employer.” The commissioner also apparently offered a six-month grace period, nowhere in the constitutional amendment, that allowed employers to pay the lower minimum wage without providing health insurance.
Among the other allegations in what could be a far-reaching lawsuit are a series of startling ones that indicate the labor department keeps no database to track employers and which ones are and are not providing health insurance. Thus, there is no enforcement mechanism, either.
Talk about a Pandora’s Box that could be stuffed with millions of dollars in back pay. If the suit is successful, the next step would be for employees to sue employers for back pay. Going back seven years, imagine how much money that could be.
One irony here: An attorney general's opinion (fourth one down) that could be helpful to the plaintiffs and filed in 2005 was prepared by a fellow named Brian Sandoval.
A spokeswoman for the department of Business and Industry said the state has yet to be served and would offer no comment.
(Full disclosure: My wife has been represented by Schrager.)
Comments: