Lyons Law Firm represents individuals who have been wrongfully terminated.  However, simply because a termination is “wrongful” it does not mean that the termination was “unlawful.” There is a presumption in the state of Nevada that all employees are at-will.  This presumption can be rebutted by proof of the existence of an express or implied contract that the employee can only be terminated for “just” or “good” cause.  In Southwest Gas Corp. v. Vargas, 111 Nev. 1064, 1078, 901 P.2d 693 (1995), the Nevada Supreme Court stated:

We hold that a discharge for “just” or “good” cause is one which is not for any arbitrary, capricious, or illegal reason and which is one based on facts (1) supported by substantial evidence, and (2) reasonably believed by the employer to be true.”

An express contract is a contract in writing or an oral contract that the employee can only be terminated for “just” or “good” cause.  An implied contract is one which is implied from the circumstances and must be supported by substantial evidence.  In Yeager v. Harrah’s Club, Inc., 111 Nev. 830, 837, 897 P.2d 1093 (1995) the Nevada Supreme Court stated that an employee who alleges the existence of a long-term employment contract must supply some corroboration that a contract has been formed specifically with that employee.  This is usually done by a mixture of oral representations and company policies.  In D’Angelo v. Gardner, 107 Nev. 704, 708 n.4, 819 P.2d 206, 209 n.4 (1991) the Nevada Supreme Court acknowledged:

Of course, the employer can easily prevent this inference from arising by including in its handbook an express disclaimer of implied contractual liability of the type found in Perry v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 508 So.2d 1086, 1088 (Miss.1987). In Perry, the pension plan manual at issue stated in bold type, "Employment rights not implied," and further stated that "Participation in the plan does not ... interfere in any way with the right of the company to discharge or terminate you at any time." In light of these statements, the court correctly found that no inference of implied contractual liability was present; thus, the court held that summary judgment was proper.

In addition, a wrongful termination claim may arise when an employee alleges that he or she was terminated in violation of the public policy of the State of Nevada.  Finally, in conjunction with a wrongful termination claim, or when all else fails, employees in Nevada who believe that they have been wrongfully terminated will resort to various tort claims in an attempt to correct the wrongs they have suffered.