u         Discharge in violation of public policy:

v         In Ponsock v. K-Mart, 103 Nev. 39, 47, 732 P.2d 1364, 1369 (1987), the Nevada Supreme Court stated that an employer can dismiss an at-will employee with or without cause, so long as the dismissal does not offend the public policy of the state of Nevada.

u         Defamation:

v         There are two types of Defamation, slander and libel.  Both types of Defamation involve defamatory statements.  The essential difference between the two is that slander is an oral defamation, while libel is written.

u         Intentional infliction of emotional distress:

v         In Shoen v. Amerco, Inc., 111 Nev. 735, 747, 896 P.2d 469, 476 (1995), the Nevada Supreme Court recognized the tort of the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in the employment context.  The Court stated:

The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are:  "(1) extreme and outrageous conduct with either the intention of, or reckless disregard for, causing emotional distress, (2) the plaintiff's having suffered severe or extreme emotional distress and (3) actual or proximate causation."

Id., 896 P.2d at 476 (quoting Star v. Rabello, 97 Nev. 124, 125, 625 P.2d 90, 91-92 (1981)).

u         Invasions of privacy:

v         In PETA v. Berosini, 110 Nev. 78, 92-93, 867 P.2d 1121, 1130 (1994), the Nevada Supreme Court recognized the four torts of privacy set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652A as follows: The four species of privacy tort are: 1) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another; 2) appropriation of the name or likeness of another; 3) unreasonable publicity given to private facts; and 4) publicity unreasonably placing another in a false light before the public.  The primary tort that applies in the employment field is the third privacy tort, unreasonable publicity given to private facts.

In State v. Eighth Judicial District Court ex rel. County of Clark, 42 P.3d 233, 240 (Nev. 2002), the Nevada Supreme Court stated:

"To maintain a cause of action for public disclosure of private facts one must prove that a public disclosure of private facts has occurred which would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities."  The Restatement (Second) of Torts provides that rules of conditional privilege that apply to a defamation claim are applicable in an invasion of privacy claim.

u         Fraud:

v         Under Nevada law, in order to establish a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit, the plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that:  (1) a false representation made by the defendant; (2) defendant’s knowledge or belief that its representation was false or that defendant has an insufficient basis of information for making the representation; (3) defendant intended to induce plaintiff to act or refrain from acting upon the misrepresentation; and (4) damage to the plaintiff as a result of relying on the misrepresentation.  Epperson v. Roloff, 102 Nev. 206, 210 - 211, 719 P.2d 799 (1986); Barmettler v. Reno Air Inc., 114 Nev. 441, 446 - 447, 956 P.2d 138 (1998); Lubbe v. Barba, 91 Nev. 596, 599, 540 P.2d 115 (1995).

In order to show justifiable reliance, the Plaintiff is required to show the following:

The causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the resulting damage, essential throughout the law of torts, takes in cases of misrepresentation the form of inducement of the plaintiff to act, or to refrain from acting, to his detriment.  The false representation must have played a material and substantial part in leading the plaintiff to adopt his particular course; and when he was unaware of it at the time that he acted, or it is clear that he was not in any way influenced by it, and would have done the same thing without it for other reasons, his loss is not attributed to the defendant.

Lubbe v. Barba, 91 Nev. 596, 600, 540 P.2d 115, 118 (1975).

u         Tortious interference:

v         In Leavitt v. Leisure Sports. Inc., 103 Nev. 81, 734 P.2d 1221 (1987) the Nevada Supreme Court stated to establish tortious interference with prospective economic advantage the plaintiff must prove:

(1) A prospective contractual relationship between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the prospective relationship; (3) the intent to harm the plaintiff by preventing the relationship; (4) the absence of privilege or justification by the defendant; and, (5) actual harm to plaintiff as a result of defendant's conduct.