Vakil v. Clark Cnty.

 Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on
appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the EMRB's
decision. See Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 129 Nev., Adv. Op.
36, 302 P.3d 1108, 1112 (2013) (providing that this court, like the district
court, gives considerable deference to the EMRB's rulings and will affirm
the EMRB's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, which is
evidence that "a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion"). While appellant argues that Clark County violated the
collective bargaining agreement's definition of "continuous service" in
calculating his seniority, he does not address the fact that Clark County
and SEIU bargained for and agreed to layoff guidelines supplementing the
collective bargaining agreement, which provided that an employee who
voluntarily transfers to another department will have his or her seniority
calculated from the date he or she began working for the new department.
Substantial evidence supports the EMRB's conclusion that Clark County
did not violate the collective bargaining agreement and supplemental
layoff guidelines when it calculated appellant's seniority from the date he
started with the Department of Development Services.
Further, substantial evidence supports the EMRB's decision
that the County rebutted appellant's prima facie case for age
discrimination because he was laid off as a result of an application of
reverse seniority. See Apeceche v. White Pine Cnty., 96 Nev. 723, 726-27,
615 P.2d 975, 977-78 (1980) (providing that once a prima facie case for
discrimination is established, the employer has the burden to demonstrate
some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action). Lastly,
substantial evidence supports the EMRB's conclusion that SEIU fairly
represented appellant even though it did not file a grievance on his behalf
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 4(eD
because SEIU made a good faith determination that the grievance lacked
merit. See Weiner v. Beatty, 121 Nev. 243, 249, 116 P.3d 829, 833 (2005)
(requiring a union representing a union member to act in good faith).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'
J.
Parraguirre
t-t-9 incA J.
Douglas
CLut , J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge
Salvatore C. Gugino, Settlement Judge
Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders
Urban Law Firm
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
"While it appears that appellant takes issue with the County's
designation of employees without engineering licenses as engineers,
whether the County violated NRS 625.520 was not properly before the
EMRB, and thus, this issue is not properly before this court.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A