Before the Court en banc (Chief Justice Pickering recused). Opinion by Justice Parraguirre.
In this appeal of a district court order upholding a decision by the Employee Management Relations Board (EMRB), the Court considered whether, pursuant to NRS 289.080, the appellant, Laurie Bisch, was entitled to a police protective association (PPA) representative, in addition to her private attorney, during an internal investigation interview. Secondarily, the Court considered whether Bisch’s ultimate discipline -- a formal written reprimand for violation of “conduct unbecoming an employee” -- was based on overly broad criteria, or was politically motivated because it was known that Bisch intended to run for Sheriff. The underlying investigation by LVMPD arose from a complaint filed by the mother of a 17-year-old friend of Bisch’s daughter that alleged Bisch committed insurance fraud when Bisch misrepresented the 17-year-old’s identity to a medical facility after a dog bite. LVMPD internal affairs opened an investigation, but determined that Bisch did not commit insurance fraud because she did not use her employer-provided health care insurance, instead paying for the medical care out-of-pocket. Internal affairs contacted the district attorney’s office to inquire whether Bisch violated any other laws; the district attorney indicated that Bisch may have committed identity theft. Although a LVMPD sergeant eventually recommended that the complaint against Bisch be dropped, LVMPD later decided the complaint would stand on grounds that the conduct was unbecoming an employee. On appeal, the Court noted that the interpretation of NRS 289.080 regarding any duty owed by a PPA is an issue of first impression. The Court held that NRS 289.080 does not impose an affirmative duty on a PPA to provide two representatives, only that an officer has a right to have two representatives. The Court further held that the protections of NRS 289.080 only exist between an officer and his/her employer; it does not govern a PPA’s responsibility towards its members. Next, the Court rejected Bisch’s claim that her discipline was improper because untruthfulness bore on her fitness to perform her profession, and protecting the integrity of the police department is a legitimate basis for imposing discipline. Finally, applying the burden shifting framework articulated in Reno Police Protective Ass’n v. City of Reno, 102 Nev. 98, 715 P.2d 1321 (1986), and adopting the revised framework in Director, OWCP v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267, 276-78 (1994), the Court found that EMRB’s conclusions that Bisch established a prima facie case of discrimination, LVMPD established a nondiscriminatory reason for discipline, and that Bisch was unable to overcome her burden to demonstrate that LVMPD’s stated reasons were merely pretextual, were supported by substantial evidence. Affirmed. (Kristen T. Gallagher, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
