Sands Regent v. Valgardson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a legislative public policy against age discrimination was not sufficiently strong to warrant an exception to the at-will employment doctrine
• ruling that age discrimination was not against the “strong public policy” of the state, despite the fact that the Nevada Legislature had expressly announced a public policy against age discrimination
• finding that “[u]nder NRS 613.420 and NRS 23 233.170, respondents were entitled to ‘back pay for a period not to exceed two years after the date of the most recent unlawful practice.’”
• refusing to recognize a tortious discharge cause of action based on age discrimination where the employee could recover under federal and state age discrimination statutes
• refusing to recognize a tortious discharge cause of action based on age discrimination where the employee could recover under federal and state age discrimination statutes
• finding that “[t]his tort is “severely limited” 24 to “those rare and exceptional cases where the employer’s conduct violates strong and compelling 25 public policy” and declining to recognize an additional exception to the at-will doctrine for age 26 discrimination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).