Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—Nevada Supreme Court unanimously requires prevailing-wage disputes to be resolved by the Nevada Labor Commissioner, (Mar 23, 2026)

By Roger Grandgenett II, Montgomery Paek and Andrew S. Clark of Littler Mendelson

On February 26, 2026, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a long-awaited en banc decision confirming that Nevada's Prevailing Wage Statutes (NRS Chapter 338) do not allow employees to recover prevailing wages and overtime in court.[1] Instead, employees must direct those disputes to the Nevada labor commissioner for administrative resolution. By limiting enforcement of Nevada's prevailing-wage statute in this way, the court significantly reduced the class action risk associated with Nevada's prevailing-wage system and provided clarity to public-works contractors throughout the state.

Plaintiffs were former employees of various contractors and sub-contractors who performed work on prevailing-wage projects in Nevada. The employees alleged that their contractor and sub-contractor employers failed to pay them the prevailing wage and prevailing-wage overtime on work done on prevailing-wage projects and brought their claims on behalf of a putative class of non-exempt hourly employees. Notably, the employees never alleged the details of the public works projects to which they claimed to have contributed nor their duties on those projects. The employees also argued that (1) Nevada's general wage-and-hour statutes (NRS Chapter 608) provide a private right of action to recover prevailing wages and (2) they were entitled to recover prevailing wages as third-party beneficiaries to the contractor-employers' prevailing-wage contracts with the state.

The Nevada Supreme Court rejected each argument. In a 6-0 decision, the court held that NRS Chapter 338 does not include an express right of action for employees to recover prevailing wages or overtime. Nor does the statute imply that the legislature intended to create a private right of action to recover prevailing wages. Indeed, the court noted, "[h]ad the legislature meant to create a private right of action for employees … it would have said so." Thus, Nevada's prevailing wage statutory scheme does not allow employees to bring their claims in court.

The court also rejected the former employees' attempt to transplant Nevada's traditional (non-prevailing) wage statutes into NRS Chapter 338. Rather than import a private right of action from NRS Chapter 608, the court stressed the sufficiency of the administrative enforcement mechanism outlined in NRS Chapter 338, finding that workers seeking to recover underpaid prevailing wages and overtime "must do so through the administrative scheme" outlined in the prevailing-wage statutes. Thus, the separate right of action to recover traditional, non-prevailing wages, did not extend to employees seeking to recover prevailing wages in court.

Finally, the court rejected the employees' attempts to recover prevailing wages as third-party beneficiaries to their employers' public-works contracts with the state. Citing analogous federal authority, the court held that allowing employees to recover prevailing wages under a beneficiary theory would be "inconsistent with the underlying purpose" of NRS Chapter 338 and would "clearly" constitute an "impermissible end run around the prevailing-wage statutes." Thus, the employees were not third-party beneficiaries to their employers' public-works contracts.

The Nevada Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of the former employees' claims to prevailing wages through judicial action creates greater certainty for Nevada employers while reducing the risk of costly and disruptive class action litigation on wages that are exclusively reserved to the Nevada labor commissioner for enforcement.

Roger Grandgenett II, Montgomery Paek and Andrew S. Clark

Littler Mendelson

633 West Fifth Street

63rd Floor

California

90071

United States

Tel.: +1 213 443-4245

E-mail: [email protected]

URL: www.littler.com/

(c) Mondaq Ltd, 2026 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com

Footnotes

1 Stuckey v. Apex Materials, LLC, 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Nev. 2026).

Attorneys: (Littler).

ExpertInsights: ExpertInsights PracticeTip StateLawClaims WageHour AgencyNews