Holbrook v. Dept. of Corrections

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 16, 2014
• Docket: 58466
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

rel. Dep't of Prisons, 111 Nev. 420, 424, 892 P.2d 575, 577 (1995). This court, like the district court, reviews an administrative agency decision for an abuse of discretion or clear error. See Taylor v. State Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 129 Nev. , , 314 P.3d 949, 951 (2013). While an agency's conclusions of law are generally reviewed de novo, its findings of fact will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Id.; see also NRS 233B.135(3). NAC 284.646(2)(d) allows for the immediate termination of an employee who has not appeared for work for three consecutive days without prior approval. Here, it is undisputed that appellant did not appear for work as directed despite being cleared to do so. And even if, as appellant alleges, he informed the warden that he would not work at Lovelock before his start date, that does not shield appellant from termination because he failed to receive approval for these absences. NAC 284.646(2)(d). Under these circumstances, and having concluded that appellant's remaining arguments are without merit, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's conclusion that appellant's termination would serve the good of the public service. NRS 284.385(1)(a); Taylor, 129 Nev. at , 314 P.3d at 951 (providing that factual findings will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence); NAC 284.646(2)(d). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision. It is so ORDERED.

/ Iv% pecLA Hardesty

, J. Otit , J. Douglas Cherry SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 194Th cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge David Wasick, Settlement Judge Jeffrey A Dickerson Richard Holbrook Attorney General/Carson City Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A