WRONGFUL TERMINATION DEMAND LETTER

STATE OF NEVADA

[ATTORNEY/FIRM LETTERHEAD]

[Firm Name]
[Address Line 1]
[City, Nevada ZIP]
Tel: [Phone Number]
Fax: [Fax Number]
[Attorney Email]
[Nevada State Bar Number]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [recipient_email]

[Date]

[Employer Contact Name]
[Title]
[Company Legal Name]
[Company Address]
[City, State ZIP]

Re: Wrongful Termination of [Client Full Name]
Former Position: [Job Title]
Dates of Employment: [Start Date] through [Termination Date]
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO NRS 48.105

Dear [Mr./Ms./Mx. Last Name]:

This firm represents [Client Full Name] ("our client" or "[Mr./Ms./Mx. Client Last Name]") regarding [his/her/their] wrongful termination from employment with [Company Legal Name] ("[Company Short Name]" or "the Company") on or about [Termination Date]. Please direct all further communications regarding this matter to our office and refrain from any direct contact with our client.

We write to demand immediate action to remedy the unlawful termination of our client and to resolve this matter short of litigation. As detailed below, [Company Short Name] terminated our client in violation of Nevada law and public policy, exposing the Company to substantial liability for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.

I. NEVADA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. At-Will Employment and Exceptions

Nevada follows the employment-at-will doctrine, which allows either party to terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason or no reason. D'Angelo v. Gardner, 107 Nev. 704, 819 P.2d 206 (1991).

However, Nevada recognizes several important exceptions:

1. Implied Contract Exception

Nevada recognizes that an implied-in-fact contract may modify the at-will relationship. Southwest Gas Corp. v. Ahmad, 99 Nev. 594, 668 P.2d 261 (1983). Implied contracts may arise from:
- Employee handbooks and policy manuals
- Oral representations regarding job security
- Course of dealing between the parties

2. Public Policy Exception (Tortious Discharge)

Nevada strongly recognizes the public policy exception. An employer may not terminate an employee for reasons that violate fundamental public policy. Hansen v. Harrah's, 100 Nev. 60, 675 P.2d 394 (1984).

3. Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Nevada recognizes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in employment contracts, though its application is limited. K Mart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 (1987).

B. Statute of Limitations

C. Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act (NFEPA)

The Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. Sections 613.310-613.435, prohibits employment discrimination based on:
- Race
- Color
- Religion
- Sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity/expression)
- Age (40 and over)
- Disability
- National origin
- Genetic information
- Credit information (with exceptions)
- Use of lawful products outside work

The Act applies to employers with 15 or more employees. Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 613.310(2).

D. Administrative Exhaustion Requirements

For claims under the NFEPA, a complaint must be filed with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act. Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 613.430.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Employment History and Performance

[Client Full Name] was employed by [Company Short Name] from [Start Date] through [Termination Date], a period of approximately [X years/months]. [He/She/They] most recently held the position of [Job Title] in the [Department], reporting to [Supervisor Name and Title].

Throughout [his/her/their] tenure, our client was a dedicated, high-performing employee:

• [Describe positive performance reviews, ratings, or commendations]
• [Describe any promotions, raises, or increased responsibilities]
• [Describe any awards, recognition, or special achievements]
• [Describe positive feedback from supervisors, clients, or colleagues]

At no time prior to [Date of First Adverse Action or Termination Date] did our client receive any disciplinary action, performance improvement plan, or written warning suggesting [his/her/their] employment was in jeopardy.

B. The Protected Activity / Triggering Event

On or about [Date], our client [describe the protected activity or triggering event]:

• [ ] Reported illegal activity, fraud, or regulatory violations to [management/regulatory agency/law enforcement]
• [ ] Refused to participate in illegal or unethical conduct
• [ ] Filed a workers' compensation claim
• [ ] Exercised rights under Nevada's wage and hour laws
• [ ] Exercised statutory rights (FMLA, jury duty, voting leave, military leave)
• [ ] Complained about discrimination or harassment under the NFEPA
• [ ] Used lawful products (such as cannabis) off-duty - Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 613.333
• [ ] Reported workplace safety violations under Nevada OSHA
• [ ] Exercised rights regarding credit privacy - Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 613.570
• [ ] Other protected activity: [Describe]

Specifically, our client [provide detailed narrative of the protected activity, including dates, witnesses, and documentation].

C. Adverse Employment Actions and Termination

Following our client's protected activity, [Company Short Name] engaged in a pattern of retaliatory conduct:

Timeline of Adverse Actions:

On [Termination Date], [Supervisor/HR Representative Name] informed our client that [his/her/their] employment was being terminated, purportedly for [state employer's reason, if any]. This pretext is belied by:

1. [Explain why the stated reason is false or pretextual]
2. [Describe temporal proximity between protected activity and termination]
3. [Describe disparate treatment compared to similarly situated employees]
4. [Describe any statements or evidence of retaliatory motive]
5. [Describe any deviation from standard company policies or procedures]

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Tortious Discharge in Violation of Public Policy

Under Hansen v. Harrah's, 100 Nev. 60, 675 P.2d 394 (1984), and D'Angelo v. Gardner, 107 Nev. 704, 819 P.2d 206 (1991), Nevada recognizes a cause of action for tortious discharge when an employee is terminated for reasons that violate public policy.

Public policy sufficient to support a tortious discharge claim must be "strong and compelling" and "affect the public-at-large rather than the personal or proprietary interest of the plaintiff or employer." Sands Regent v. Valgardson, 105 Nev. 436, 777 P.2d 898 (1989).

Nevada courts have recognized public policy claims where an employee is terminated for:

• [ ] Refusing to engage in illegal conduct - Hansen v. Harrah's, 100 Nev. 60 (1984)
• [ ] Filing a workers' compensation claim - Hansen, 100 Nev. at 64
• [ ] Performing a public obligation (jury duty, responding to a subpoena)
• [ ] Exercising a statutory right protected by Nevada law
• [ ] Reporting illegal activity (whistleblowing)

Here, our client was terminated in direct retaliation for [describe protected activity], which Nevada law and public policy clearly protect.

B. Implied Contract Theory

[If applicable:] Under Southwest Gas Corp. v. Ahmad, 99 Nev. 594, 668 P.2d 261 (1983), an implied contract may arise from employer policies and practices.

The following evidence establishes an implied contract:

• Employee Handbook provisions: [Quote relevant handbook language]
• Oral assurances: [Describe any statements by management regarding job security]
• Course of dealing: [Describe Company's historical practices regarding termination]

[Company Short Name] breached this implied contract by terminating our client without following the stated procedures.

C. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Under K Mart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 (1987), Nevada recognizes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in employment relationships.

[Company Short Name] breached this covenant by:

• Terminating our client in bad faith to avoid paying earned [bonuses/commissions/benefits]
• Manufacturing pretextual reasons for termination
• Acting with malice or ill will toward our client

D. Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act Violations

[If applicable:] Our client's termination also violates the Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. Sections 613.310-613.435.

The NFEPA prohibits employers from discharging an employee because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, or national origin. Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 613.330.

Our client was subjected to unlawful [discrimination/retaliation] based on [his/her/their] [protected characteristic or protected activity].

A charge of discrimination [has been filed / will be filed] with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission.

E. Nevada Statutory Protections

Nevada provides numerous statutory protections against retaliation:

1. Whistleblower Protection - Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 281.611 (state employees); Section 613.340 (private employees reporting safety/health violations)

2. Workers' Compensation Retaliation - Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 616D.010 prohibits termination for filing a workers' compensation claim

3. Wage Claim Protection - Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 608.140 prohibits retaliation for asserting wage rights

4. Lawful Off-Duty Conduct - Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 613.333 prohibits adverse action based on lawful use of any product outside employment (including cannabis in some circumstances)

5. Credit Information - Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 613.570 restricts use of credit information in employment decisions

[Describe which statutory protections apply to our client's situation]

IV. DAMAGES

A. Economic Damages

1. Lost Wages (Back Pay)

2. Lost Benefits

3. Front Pay / Future Lost Earnings

B. Non-Economic Damages

Our client has suffered severe emotional distress including:

• [Describe emotional distress symptoms]
• [Describe impact on physical health]
• [Describe impact on personal relationships]

Estimated non-economic damages: $[Amount]

C. Punitive Damages

Under Nevada law, punitive damages may be awarded where the defendant's conduct demonstrates "oppression, fraud, or malice, express or implied." Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 42.005.

[Company Short Name]'s conduct was willful and malicious, warranting punitive damages.

Note: Nevada caps punitive damages at three times compensatory damages when compensatory damages equal or exceed $100,000, or $300,000 when compensatory damages are less than $100,000. Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 42.005(1).

D. Attorney's Fees and Costs

Under the NFEPA, a prevailing plaintiff may recover reasonable attorney's fees. Additionally, Nevada courts may award attorney's fees in tort actions under appropriate circumstances.

E. Summary of Damages

V. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based on the foregoing, we hereby demand that [Company Short Name] pay our client the sum of $[Settlement Demand Amount] in full and final settlement of all claims.

In addition to monetary compensation, we require:

• [ ] A neutral employment reference
• [ ] Expungement of negative information from personnel file
• [ ] Agreement not to contest unemployment benefits
• [ ] Non-disparagement provisions (mutual)
• [ ] Confidentiality provisions

VI. RESPONSE DEADLINE

Please respond in writing within twenty-one (21) calendar days, no later than [Response Deadline Date].

If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we are prepared to file suit in the appropriate Nevada District Court, including claims for:

1. Tortious Discharge in Violation of Public Policy
2. Breach of Implied Contract
3. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
4. Violation of Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act
5. Statutory Retaliation Claims

VII. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE

This letter serves as formal notice to implement a litigation hold to preserve all relevant documents and electronically stored information.

VIII. CONFIDENTIALITY

This letter constitutes a confidential settlement communication protected under Nevada Revised Statutes Section 48.105.

Sincerely,

[Attorney Name]
[Title]
[Firm Name]

Enclosures:
- [ ] Authorization to Represent
- [ ] [Relevant documents]

cc: [Client Name] (via email)
File

NEVADA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES (Do Not Include in Final Letter)

Key Nevada Cases

• Hansen v. Harrah's, 100 Nev. 60, 675 P.2d 394 (1984) - Public policy exception
• D'Angelo v. Gardner, 107 Nev. 704, 819 P.2d 206 (1991) - Comprehensive at-will analysis
• Southwest Gas Corp. v. Ahmad, 99 Nev. 594, 668 P.2d 261 (1983) - Implied contract
• K Mart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 (1987) - Good faith covenant
• Sands Regent v. Valgardson, 105 Nev. 436, 777 P.2d 898 (1989) - Public policy standards

Nevada-Specific Considerations

• [ ] Short tort SOL: Only 2 years for tortious discharge - calendar carefully
• [ ] Punitive damage caps: 3x compensatory or $300,000 maximum
• [ ] Cannabis: Nevada has some of the strongest protections for off-duty cannabis use
• [ ] Credit reports: Nevada restricts use of credit information in employment
• [ ] NERC filing: 300 days for discrimination claims
• [ ] Gaming industry: Special considerations may apply for gaming employees