Wiltsie v. Baby Grand Corp., 19265
| Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
| Citation | 774 P.2d 432,105 Nev. 291 |
| Docket Number | No. 19265,19265 |
| Parties | , 116 Lab.Cas. P 56,402, 4 IER Cases 638 Jerry WILTSIE, Appellant, v. BABY GRAND CORPORATION d/b/a Maxim Hotel & Casino, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1989 |
Page 432
4 IER Cases 638
v.
BABY GRAND CORPORATION d/b/a Maxim Hotel & Casino, Respondent.
Page 433
Richard Segerblom, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Moran & Weinstock and Dale Hayes, Las Vegas, for respondent.
[105 Nev. 292] OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Respondent, Baby Grand Corporation d/b/a Maxim Hotel & Casino hired appellant, Jerry Wiltsie as a poker room manager. Subsequently, respondent terminated appellant. Appellant filed a complaint against respondent alleging that he had been terminated after he reported illegal conduct of his supervisor to respondent. Respondent filed its answer to the complaint denying appellant's allegation and setting forth several affirmative defenses. Subsequently, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that appellant had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Appellant maintained that he had a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and requested additional time in which to conduct discovery pursuant to NRCP 56(f). The district court granted respondent summary judgment. This appeal followed.
Appellant contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because he has a cause of action for retaliatory discharge. Appellant first contends that this court should recognize the tort of retaliatory discharge where an employee is terminated for reporting illegal conduct of his employer. Secondly, appellant contends, if such a tort is recognized, that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether he was fired in retaliation for reporting illegal conduct on the part of his supervisor.
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and no genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. NRCP 56(c); Morrow v. Barger, 103 Nev. 247, 737 P.2d 1153 (1987). In determining whether summary judgment is proper, the nonmoving party is entitled to have the evidence and all reasonable inferences accepted as true. See Johnson v. Steel, Inc., 100 Nev. 181, 678 P.2d 676 (1984).
In order to recognize the tort of retaliatory discharge, this court must find that firing an at-will employee for reporting illegal [105 Nev. 293] conduct of his employer violates an established public policy of this state. See Hanson v. Harrah's, 100 Nev. 60, 675 P.2d 394 (1984). Other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winters v. Houston Chronicle Pub. Co., C-9468
...Mont.Code Ann. §§ 39-2-901--914 (1989); Schriner v. Meginnis Ford Co., 228 Neb. 85, 421 N.W.2d 755 (1988); Wiltsie v. Baby Grand Corp., 774 P.2d 432 (Nev.1989); N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 275: E1--E7 (Supp.1989); N.J.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 34:19-1--34:19-8; Vigil v. Arzola, 102 N.M. 682, 699 P.2d 613 (......
-
Tiernan v. Charleston Area Medical Center, 24434.
...Daily Tribune v. Shuler, 544 N.E.2d 560 (Ind.Ct.App.1989); Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24 (Okla.1989); Wiltsie v. Baby Grand Corp., 105 Nev. 291, 774 P.2d 432 (1989); Berube v. Fashion Ctr. Ltd., 771 P.2d 1033 (Utah 1989); Cronk v. Intermountain Rural Elec. Ass'n, 765 P.2d 619 (Colo.Ct.A......
-
Clark v. Columbia/HCA Info. Servs., 29995.
...620, 654 A.2d 547; Brinton, 973 P.2d 956. See Dallon, supra note 10; see also Dorr, supra note 10. 12. See Wiltsie v. Baby Grand Corp., 105 Nev. 291, 293, 774 P.2d 432, 433 (1989); see also Allum v. Valley Bank of Nevada, 114 Nev. 1313, 1321-22, 970 P.2d 1062, 1066-67 (1998). 13. See Meyer ......
-
Pertgen v. State, 21141
...be linked to the murder. This issue was raised in appellant's direct appeal and rejected by this court. See Pertgen, 105 Nev. at 287, 774 P.2d at 432. Our previous holding on this issue is now the law of the case. Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 535 P.2d 797 (1975). The doctrine of the law of t......