Nigro v. Nevada State Board of Cosmetology

746 P.2d 128, 103 Nev. 496, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1535, 1987 Nev. LEXIS 1861
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 30, 1987
DocketNo. 17959
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 746 P.2d 128 (Nigro v. Nevada State Board of Cosmetology) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nigro v. Nevada State Board of Cosmetology, 746 P.2d 128, 103 Nev. 496, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1535, 1987 Nev. LEXIS 1861 (Neb. 1987).

Opinion

[497]*497OPINION

Per Curiam:

This case hinges on the question of whether an inspector hired by the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology (“the Board”) to help enforce its regulations, is a “classified” civil service employee under NRS Chapter 284.

On December 15, 1980, appellant Frank Nigro (“Nigro”) was hired by the Board pursuant to NRS 644.150.1 He was hired as an “at will” employee and was, therefore, not required to take a state examination. Several years later, at a hearing before the Board concerning alleged work-related indiscretions, Nigro was accused of unethical behavior including: having an ownership interest in a beauty salon; maximizing his travel expenses; misusing his business phone; and, being an active Board member in a cosmetologist association. The Board found the indiscretions and conflicts of interest required termination and Nigro was fired.

On September 24, 1986, Nigro filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the Board. He alleged that he was entitled to back pay and reinstatement because he was denied procedural rights to which all “classified” state employees are entitled. The Board filed a motion to quash the writ arguing that Nigro was not a “classified” state employee entitled to the protections under NRS Chapter 284 but an “at will,” “unclassified” employee. The District Court granted the motion to quash on January 29, 1987.

Nigro raises two principal arguments on appeal. First, he argues that he was a “classified” civil servant pursuant to NRS [498]*498284.150(1) and that, therefore, he was entitled to certain administrative and procedural safeguards contained in NRS Chapter 284.2 Secondly, he argues that the district court improperly granted the Board’s motion to quash appellant’s motion for a writ of mandamus. Neither claim has merit.

Nigro relies solely on his interpretation of NRS 284.150(1) in arguing that an inspector for the Board is a “classified” state employee.3 In order for one to be hired as a “classified” employee, an examination must first be taken. NRS 284.150(2) provides that:

Appointments in the classified service shall be made according to merit and fitness from eligible lists prepared upon the basis of examination, which shall be open and competitive, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

Nigro admits that he was hired as an “at will” employee; his name was not on a “classified” service list; he was not hired through the State Department of Personnel; and, he did not take a civil service examination. Further, the Director of the State Department of Personnel stated in his affidavit that the position of inspector was not a position in the classified service and the Department of Personnel made no announcement of a vacancy for the position of inspector at the State Board of Cosmetology. In sum, Nigro has not fulfilled a single requirement that employees must undertake to become qualified for the “classified” service of the state.

Finally, Nigro alleges that the district court’s order quashing appellant’s writ of mandamus was improper. In light of our findings that he was not a “classified” state employee, the motion [499]*499to quash the writ of mandamus was properly granted since other forms of redress existed. See generally County of Washoe v. City of Reno, 77 Nev. 152, 360 P.2d 602 (1961).

Appellant’s remaining contentions are meritless, therefore, we affirm the order of the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

STATE, SEC'Y OF STATE v. WENDLAND
140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 64 (Court of Appeals of Nevada, 2024)
Ham v. State of Nev.
788 F. Supp. 455 (D. Nevada, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
746 P.2d 128, 103 Nev. 496, 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1535, 1987 Nev. LEXIS 1861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nigro-v-nevada-state-board-of-cosmetology-nev-1987.