Governor Sisolak expects to call a special legislative session this month and is still evaluating whether to move phase 3 and what to do with the eviction moratorium. [TNI]
With nursing homes still locked down, the ombudsman’s office has to deal with complaints from afar. [TNI]
Many businesses are asking customer and employees to waive legal rights with regard to COVID-19. [Las Vegas Sun]
Brownstein Hyatt’s Greg Browser and Kristina Kleist explain the basics of Nevada campaign finance law. [Vegas Inc.]
I hate the coronavirus. This shit is getting old. 2020 is getting old. I was not alive in 1968, but people that were alive tell me this isn't as bad… yet. No assassinations or anything that bad so far and I pray 2020 never goes there. Still, this year has been a bitch. Hopefully, many good permanent changes come out of all of this. I think America eventually gets all this right, but it's gonna be a rough ride getting ther.
Literally every person I've discussed this train wreck of a year with that is over the age of 60 (prob 7 or 8 people) tells me this is the worst case of national nightmare they've ever seen.
10:25. I remember 1968:the assassinations, the Tet Offensive, discovery that American soldiers had murdered villagers in Viet Nam(Lt. Wm. Calley situation, etc.),our cities in turmoil, the bedlam at the Chicago convention, etc.
And 9-11 was awful as well.
But these isolated instances of unrest, or even terror, although quite dramatic, did not affect the day-to-day lives of most Americans in the extended, invasive and disruptive fashion that this has.
Those occurrences(1968, 9-11, and others) as dreadful as they were, did not affect for months and months how people can interact, where they can go, which few of them can still work and generate income, etc.
So, in a sense, Corona has a more extended and unsettling day-to-day impairment on how most Americans lead their lives.
And the current protests(concerning life enforcement incidents, etc.), occurring during the pandemic, makes matters even worse, and unlike the protests of the 60's(where most of the larger protests were limited to larger cities, and some universities) these current protests have been brought squarely into suburbia.
When did quarantine, silly masks, and allowing felons to run free committing felonies become the new normal? Did we vote on that?
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2020 5:28 pm
I waive no rights with the coronavirus.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2020 5:54 pm
I hereby propose excluding the following words and phrases from all filings going forward: hubris, never in my # years of practice, egregious… any more?
Any time I run across these my impression of the lawyer goes way down.
Well now I feel like an ass, because you're right. But I recently said something along the lines of "never in my 20 years of practice" ….because it was true, I was pissed and this opposing counsel was a straight up dick that caused some unnecessary problems. In my defense, I have less patience the last several months
In what context? I only used that in one case in 17 years of practice, and it is warranted
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2020 6:41 pm
Employment lawyer here – my thought is that an employee who contacts covid in the course and scope of the employment has a worker's comp case, not a lawsuit. And you can't waive WC as a condition of employment. So at least in Nevada, any employment waiver re: covid is probably not valid. Any thoughts?
Yeah, I agree this seems to be more of a worker's comp issue… But it might be pretty tough to prove one contracted it "in the course and scope of their employment" either way, no?
What employers are requiring this? Seems overly cautious and not necessary – but I wouldn't blame the employer for trying to get a waiver based on the litigious nature of this city. But COVID isn't anymore a work comp. issue than the common flu, cold…etc. it's closer to work comp than EEOC. I see Trump's team is requiring a release at his rallies, but I'd say that is a wiser waiver because the suits would be private claims, less hurdles than work comp/EEOC.
My firm made everybody sign a similar type of waiver.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2020 7:45 pm
10:54–I am reminded of an attorney who pounded the table in court and in full fury and indignation declared that opposing counsel's conduct is "by far the most outrageous I have seen in nearly a quarter-century of practice!"
But no more than one week later I was in court when said attorney appeared before a different judge, on a different case, pounded the table and(you guessed it) loudly bellowed that opposing counsel's conduct is "by far the most outrageous…"
Now, although most of us don't behave in those extremes, there are lessons here for all of us. If we are ever subject to over-dramatizing and hyperbole, we must always catch ourselves and dial back on our approach.
Other counsel talk, and perhaps more importantly, so do judges. No one wants this kind of reputation. When attorneys over react to relatively minor matters, and do so as a habit, it is difficult for them to be persuasive when they finally do have a critical issue that should perhaps be resolved in their favor.
So, lesson is there can only be one example of the "most outrageous thing I've seen in 23 years." And if it really is that outrageous, and the stakes are really high, then fine.
When I was a rookie lawyer, I recognize that I was way too aggressive at times, and it proved to be ineffective. I became a lot more effective when I learned a proportional approach and was very respectful to most opposing counsel.
But some attorneys are hyper-aggressive, and disrespectful, their whole career. An attorney can only succeed at such approach if they are brilliant, flawlessly prepared, almost always clearly in the right, and never need or expect a professional courtesy from opposing counsel. Very few obnoxious lawyers satisfy all those categories.
I notice that when older attorneys die who spent their whole life being obnoxious, difficult, and obstructive, it is very difficult for colleagues to weigh in by posting positive sympathy notes. What an unfortunate legacy to leave after a lengthy legal career.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2020 7:56 pm
12:45, I am reminded a few years back when some attorney in his late 80's passed on and very few attorneys could find anything nice to say.
For years he ran a decent size firm by Las Vegas standards, and the firm only had his name(no other partner names were ever added in).
It seems that all associates were trained never to extend any professional courtesies or accommodation, even something as innocuous as a very short continuance or extension when it posed no rational prejudice to their client.
But when you pointed out that the request does not prejudice their client, they seemed programmed to respond that it indeed was prejudicial to their client(but they could never clarify or elaborate how such was the case).
C'mon we can name JPL by name. He has a street named after him.
Guest
anonymous
June 16, 2020 8:20 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
Guest
Wayne Mansfield
June 16, 2020 8:47 pm
Let me see if I have this right;
I have a small office of ten people whom I employ.
I hire a guy named Brian. A week later Brian decides he’d prefer to be called Betty, and shows up to work in makeup, women’s clothes and starts talking and acting in an effeminate manner.
My employees are all shocked, and it’s obvious Brian is mentally ill. Some of my employees do their best to call him Betty, but some are outraged that Brian expects them to suspend their own reality and pretend that he is a woman.
Moral quickly spirals, and everyone is on edge.
Fearing a mutiny, and the loss of irreplaceable employees I decide to fire Brain.
Can he really sue me under the new Supreme Court ruling?
Title VII only applies to business with 15 or more employees.
If you change your scenario and have 20 employees, my advice is don't fire Betty, fire Brian. (see what I did there, little joke). And when you do, offer him/her a severance (and include Betty as a party to the terms and all will be well).
Well Bostock analyzed the protections of Title VII, and Title VII applies to employers with at least 15 employees, so no. Off the bat, it does not seem like you have this right.
Between Covid, newly discovered rights of the mentally ill, and BLM, I really do not want to be an employer. Really. No upside. Just downside. Spend the PPP and then close shop.
1:47. Morale should not spiral out of control simply because someone declares their true gender identity.
Also, how do these actions establish that Brian is obviously mentally ill?
It could be that he was quite abrupt in exhibiting this transition, and that he could have handled things differently if he was concerned with the acceptance and the respect of co-workers, particularly older and more conservative co-workers. And for him to expect everyone to immediately call him by the new name may not be realistic.
But as to your question, no, he should not be fired if he is doing his job. And the current rules and evolution of society is that it is our problem, not his, if we have trouble accepting or processing the situation.
And that's the lesson here. Society is changing, and the rules change. Youth and the future are to be served, and the young demographic, the leaders of tomorrow, are changing the rules.
And that is okay by me even if I don't personally agree with a lot of these new rules and approaches. Each generation can decide what's appropriate and what kind of society they want. And as long as nothing is being advocated which seems really harmful or cruel to the rights of others, we can live with it.
For example, let's say I believe(as almost everyone presumably does) that people have the right not to be randomly physically attacked, and another core belief is that I disapprove with the new rules of how we have to react toward transgender people. I would mind very much if a new rule or change in society is that people may now be randomly physically attacked without consequence, as that is something that is clearly immoral, on its face, from any rational perspective, regardless of society or time period.
But this issue about trans genders is far more nuanced, and any opposition is by person to person as to their particular family values and how traditional they are, etc. It is not something, unlike the assault example, which is immoral on its face.
But it's also hard to know how I would react as I don't know how good Brian (now Betty) looks when he/she appears for work in makeup, fishnet stockings, high heels, etc. You left that part out.
I had the same reaction as 3:27,until that apparent attempt of levity at the very end.
If Betty is doing her job, leave it be. At most, perhaps her supervisor can speak to her about being a little more understanding and tolerant about employees who are having a little trouble adjusting and calling her by the right name.
And then speak to the employees, and make certain it is just limited to a sincere difficultly with learning to call someone by the new name and refer to them by the new personal pronoun. And these things happen as, by way of example, often a newly married woman adopts her husband's name, and co-workers may still for a while, with no ill will, forget and still refer to her by her pre-marital last name.
But one must sure that that is all that is involved here, and that the co-workers are not being insensitive or discriminatory in any sense.
So, I agree with the poster that the rules make it clear it is "our" problem, not "theirs", so we better adjust. We can have an opinion abut how fair or unfair such developments in the law are, but we must be the ones to adjust or face the music.
Practical solution: Wear a MAGA hat. Most likely, Brian wouldn't even apply because he'd assume Betty would be happier elsewhere. There are plenty firms that would be happy to have her, which firms will make that known in order to attract the talented young lawyers who want to work in a welcoming environment.
Larry David tried the MAGA hat solution in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. He was able to avoid all kinds of social interactions.
If you have driven Brian to become Betty in the first week of work, then you are an asshole boss. On the other hand, if you made Brian feel comfortable that he can voluntarily be Betty, then you have created an accepting environment of tolerance. So the moral of the story is: don't be such an asshole that you drive you employees insane.
I'm encouraged that so many responsible commentators took the time to respond maturely and civilly to this post, considering it seemed to be an adolescent and poorly reasoned rant. Cheap sensationalist binary reasoning is not the sign of a true judicial scholar. False dichotomies that attempt to portray the world without multiple interlocking and yes, sometimes conflicting choices is academically lazy. The world isn't filled with many genuine black and white choices; more like endless shades of grey and countless three dimensional Venn diagrams.
I hope the original poster delivers a better intellectual product to their clients.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2020 10:08 pm
2:47,
Probably a good idea. Sounds like the world has moved beyond your narrow range of adaptability. And the market is Darwinian.
Don't listen to 3:08. Please don't go. There won't be enough lawyers if you leave.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2020 11:30 pm
Everybody needs to calm down and stop discriminating against poor 1:47 and 2:47.
Let me see if I have this right;
Someone came on the blog with a narrow-minded hypothetical and a misinformed understanding of the law.
Fellow bloggers and commenters are shocked, and it’s obvious 1:47 is intolerant and misguided. 2:47 tries their best to support 1:47, but only doubles down on the bigotry and prejudice.
Moral[e] quickly spirals, and everyone is on edge.
Fearing continued intolerance and the loss of irreplaceable common decency, commenters decide to call out 1:47 and 2:47 for being part of the problem.
Can they really play victim and pretend that everyone else is at fault?
Lombardo says Legal Observers "antagonized" LVMPD by videotaping officers. This might play as red meat to the masses but legally its dead on arrival and frankly constitutionally frightening from the top cop.
"I hope that Metro, with videotape […]" If you're old enough to use the term 'videotape' in a sentence without flinching or doing air quotes, you didn't fit in at the riots.
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2020 2:00 am
Was it a talkie, filmed in Technicolor?
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2020 2:40 am
N0, it was a Mickey John Bohn campaign commercial telling you what to do at Home Depot.
I hate the coronavirus. This shit is getting old. 2020 is getting old. I was not alive in 1968, but people that were alive tell me this isn't as bad… yet. No assassinations or anything that bad so far and I pray 2020 never goes there. Still, this year has been a bitch. Hopefully, many good permanent changes come out of all of this. I think America eventually gets all this right, but it's gonna be a rough ride getting ther.
Literally every person I've discussed this train wreck of a year with that is over the age of 60 (prob 7 or 8 people) tells me this is the worst case of national nightmare they've ever seen.
10:25. I remember 1968:the assassinations, the Tet Offensive, discovery that American soldiers had murdered villagers in Viet Nam(Lt. Wm. Calley situation, etc.),our cities in turmoil, the bedlam at the Chicago convention, etc.
And 9-11 was awful as well.
But these isolated instances of unrest, or even terror, although quite dramatic, did not affect the day-to-day lives of most Americans in the extended, invasive and disruptive fashion that this has.
Those occurrences(1968, 9-11, and others) as dreadful as they were, did not affect for months and months how people can interact, where they can go, which few of them can still work and generate income, etc.
So, in a sense, Corona has a more extended and unsettling day-to-day impairment on how most Americans lead their lives.
And the current protests(concerning life enforcement incidents, etc.), occurring during the pandemic, makes matters even worse, and unlike the protests of the 60's(where most of the larger protests were limited to larger cities, and some universities) these current protests have been brought squarely into suburbia.
So, we live in difficult times. No doubt.
We shall overcome!
When did quarantine, silly masks, and allowing felons to run free committing felonies become the new normal? Did we vote on that?
I waive no rights with the coronavirus.
I hereby propose excluding the following words and phrases from all filings going forward: hubris, never in my # years of practice, egregious… any more?
Any time I run across these my impression of the lawyer goes way down.
Never in my 5+ years of reading this blog have I heard such an egregious request.
Heretofore, herewith, aforementioned.
COMES NOW…
Well now I feel like an ass, because you're right. But I recently said something along the lines of "never in my 20 years of practice" ….because it was true, I was pissed and this opposing counsel was a straight up dick that caused some unnecessary problems. In my defense, I have less patience the last several months
"Plaintiff hereby incorporates all prior allegations as though fully set forth herein…"
Jackie Childs would be heartbroken.
In what context? I only used that in one case in 17 years of practice, and it is warranted
Employment lawyer here – my thought is that an employee who contacts covid in the course and scope of the employment has a worker's comp case, not a lawsuit. And you can't waive WC as a condition of employment. So at least in Nevada, any employment waiver re: covid is probably not valid. Any thoughts?
Yeah, I agree this seems to be more of a worker's comp issue… But it might be pretty tough to prove one contracted it "in the course and scope of their employment" either way, no?
What employers are requiring this? Seems overly cautious and not necessary – but I wouldn't blame the employer for trying to get a waiver based on the litigious nature of this city. But COVID isn't anymore a work comp. issue than the common flu, cold…etc. it's closer to work comp than EEOC. I see Trump's team is requiring a release at his rallies, but I'd say that is a wiser waiver because the suits would be private claims, less hurdles than work comp/EEOC.
My firm made everybody sign a similar type of waiver.
10:54–I am reminded of an attorney who pounded the table in court and in full fury and indignation declared that opposing counsel's conduct is "by far the most outrageous I have seen in nearly a quarter-century of practice!"
But no more than one week later I was in court when said attorney appeared before a different judge, on a different case, pounded the table and(you guessed it) loudly bellowed that opposing counsel's conduct is "by far the most outrageous…"
Now, although most of us don't behave in those extremes, there are lessons here for all of us. If we are ever subject to over-dramatizing and hyperbole, we must always catch ourselves and dial back on our approach.
Other counsel talk, and perhaps more importantly, so do judges. No one wants this kind of reputation. When attorneys over react to relatively minor matters, and do so as a habit, it is difficult for them to be persuasive when they finally do have a critical issue that should perhaps be resolved in their favor.
So, lesson is there can only be one example of the "most outrageous thing I've seen in 23 years." And if it really is that outrageous, and the stakes are really high, then fine.
When I was a rookie lawyer, I recognize that I was way too aggressive at times, and it proved to be ineffective. I became a lot more effective when I learned a proportional approach and was very respectful to most opposing counsel.
But some attorneys are hyper-aggressive, and disrespectful, their whole career. An attorney can only succeed at such approach if they are brilliant, flawlessly prepared, almost always clearly in the right, and never need or expect a professional courtesy from opposing counsel. Very few obnoxious lawyers satisfy all those categories.
I notice that when older attorneys die who spent their whole life being obnoxious, difficult, and obstructive, it is very difficult for colleagues to weigh in by posting positive sympathy notes. What an unfortunate legacy to leave after a lengthy legal career.
12:45, I am reminded a few years back when some attorney in his late 80's passed on and very few attorneys could find anything nice to say.
For years he ran a decent size firm by Las Vegas standards, and the firm only had his name(no other partner names were ever added in).
It seems that all associates were trained never to extend any professional courtesies or accommodation, even something as innocuous as a very short continuance or extension when it posed no rational prejudice to their client.
But when you pointed out that the request does not prejudice their client, they seemed programmed to respond that it indeed was prejudicial to their client(but they could never clarify or elaborate how such was the case).
Yes, I recall this individual and the fact that nothing good was said about him after he shuffled off this mortal coil.
C'mon we can name JPL by name. He has a street named after him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Let me see if I have this right;
I have a small office of ten people whom I employ.
I hire a guy named Brian. A week later Brian decides he’d prefer to be called Betty, and shows up to work in makeup, women’s clothes and starts talking and acting in an effeminate manner.
My employees are all shocked, and it’s obvious Brian is mentally ill. Some of my employees do their best to call him Betty, but some are outraged that Brian expects them to suspend their own reality and pretend that he is a woman.
Moral quickly spirals, and everyone is on edge.
Fearing a mutiny, and the loss of irreplaceable employees I decide to fire Brain.
Can he really sue me under the new Supreme Court ruling?
Title VII only applies to business with 15 or more employees.
If you change your scenario and have 20 employees, my advice is don't fire Betty, fire Brian. (see what I did there, little joke). And when you do, offer him/her a severance (and include Betty as a party to the terms and all will be well).
Well Bostock analyzed the protections of Title VII, and Title VII applies to employers with at least 15 employees, so no. Off the bat, it does not seem like you have this right.
Yep. Sounds like you got the rule of thumb down.
Is that remote contingency about a new hire combined with emotionally fragile co-employees causing you to lose sleep?
Tell your employees to pull the sticks out of their asses and don't be such a bigot. Problem solved.
Between Covid, newly discovered rights of the mentally ill, and BLM, I really do not want to be an employer. Really. No upside. Just downside. Spend the PPP and then close shop.
1:47. Morale should not spiral out of control simply because someone declares their true gender identity.
Also, how do these actions establish that Brian is obviously mentally ill?
It could be that he was quite abrupt in exhibiting this transition, and that he could have handled things differently if he was concerned with the acceptance and the respect of co-workers, particularly older and more conservative co-workers. And for him to expect everyone to immediately call him by the new name may not be realistic.
But as to your question, no, he should not be fired if he is doing his job. And the current rules and evolution of society is that it is our problem, not his, if we have trouble accepting or processing the situation.
And that's the lesson here. Society is changing, and the rules change. Youth and the future are to be served, and the young demographic, the leaders of tomorrow, are changing the rules.
And that is okay by me even if I don't personally agree with a lot of these new rules and approaches. Each generation can decide what's appropriate and what kind of society they want. And as long as nothing is being advocated which seems really harmful or cruel to the rights of others, we can live with it.
For example, let's say I believe(as almost everyone presumably does) that people have the right not to be randomly physically attacked, and another core belief is that I disapprove with the new rules of how we have to react toward transgender people. I would mind very much if a new rule or change in society is that people may now be randomly physically attacked without consequence, as that is something that is clearly immoral, on its face, from any rational perspective, regardless of society or time period.
But this issue about trans genders is far more nuanced, and any opposition is by person to person as to their particular family values and how traditional they are, etc. It is not something, unlike the assault example, which is immoral on its face.
But it's also hard to know how I would react as I don't know how good Brian (now Betty) looks when he/she appears for work in makeup, fishnet stockings, high heels, etc. You left that part out.
I had the same reaction as 3:27,until that apparent attempt of levity at the very end.
If Betty is doing her job, leave it be. At most, perhaps her supervisor can speak to her about being a little more understanding and tolerant about employees who are having a little trouble adjusting and calling her by the right name.
And then speak to the employees, and make certain it is just limited to a sincere difficultly with learning to call someone by the new name and refer to them by the new personal pronoun. And these things happen as, by way of example, often a newly married woman adopts her husband's name, and co-workers may still for a while, with no ill will, forget and still refer to her by her pre-marital last name.
But one must sure that that is all that is involved here, and that the co-workers are not being insensitive or discriminatory in any sense.
So, I agree with the poster that the rules make it clear it is "our" problem, not "theirs", so we better adjust. We can have an opinion abut how fair or unfair such developments in the law are, but we must be the ones to adjust or face the music.
Practical solution: Wear a MAGA hat. Most likely, Brian wouldn't even apply because he'd assume Betty would be happier elsewhere. There are plenty firms that would be happy to have her, which firms will make that known in order to attract the talented young lawyers who want to work in a welcoming environment.
Larry David tried the MAGA hat solution in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. He was able to avoid all kinds of social interactions.
If you have driven Brian to become Betty in the first week of work, then you are an asshole boss. On the other hand, if you made Brian feel comfortable that he can voluntarily be Betty, then you have created an accepting environment of tolerance. So the moral of the story is: don't be such an asshole that you drive you employees insane.
I'm encouraged that so many responsible commentators took the time to respond maturely and civilly to this post, considering it seemed to be an adolescent and poorly reasoned rant. Cheap sensationalist binary reasoning is not the sign of a true judicial scholar. False dichotomies that attempt to portray the world without multiple interlocking and yes, sometimes conflicting choices is academically lazy. The world isn't filled with many genuine black and white choices; more like endless shades of grey and countless three dimensional Venn diagrams.
I hope the original poster delivers a better intellectual product to their clients.
2:47,
Probably a good idea. Sounds like the world has moved beyond your narrow range of adaptability. And the market is Darwinian.
Enjoy your retirement!
So much for tolerance….there can only be one correct view.
Yeah, enjoy your retirement and wish the rest of us well!
2:47,
Don't listen to 3:08. Please don't go. There won't be enough lawyers if you leave.
Everybody needs to calm down and stop discriminating against poor 1:47 and 2:47.
Let me see if I have this right;
Someone came on the blog with a narrow-minded hypothetical and a misinformed understanding of the law.
Fellow bloggers and commenters are shocked, and it’s obvious 1:47 is intolerant and misguided. 2:47 tries their best to support 1:47, but only doubles down on the bigotry and prejudice.
Moral[e] quickly spirals, and everyone is on edge.
Fearing continued intolerance and the loss of irreplaceable common decency, commenters decide to call out 1:47 and 2:47 for being part of the problem.
Can they really play victim and pretend that everyone else is at fault?
Addendum: blog is dead
Blog is alive, humor is dead. Lighten up, Francis.
Stripes reference – that's a good one
Lombardo says Legal Observers "antagonized" LVMPD by videotaping officers. This might play as red meat to the masses but legally its dead on arrival and frankly constitutionally frightening from the top cop.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/lombardo-says-legal-observers-were-antagonizing-officers-at-protest-2054287/
Thank you, John Piro.
"I hope that Metro, with videotape […]" If you're old enough to use the term 'videotape' in a sentence without flinching or doing air quotes, you didn't fit in at the riots.
Was it a talkie, filmed in Technicolor?
N0, it was a Mickey John Bohn campaign commercial telling you what to do at Home Depot.