Recent Cases Summer 2019 Defense Comment ix JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE Henry v. Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline 435 P.3d 659, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 5, Nev., Feb. 28, 2019. The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline has jurisdiction over a hearing master. In this case, Jennifer Henry was a hearing master for family courts and it was alleged that she acted inappropriately during a hearing. The Commission filed a formal statement of charges for her conduct, and Henry challenged the Commission’s jurisdiction. Henry argued that the Nevada Constitution created the Commission to cover certain “judges”, and the Legislature in NRS 1.428 improperly expanded the Commission’s powers by including hearing masters under the definition of “judge.” The Court held that the Nevada Constitution gives the Legislature authority to enact laws regarding referees and hearing masters in district court. NRS 1.428 does just that. The Constitution also allows the Commission to exercise such powers as the Legislature may confer upon it. Accordingly, NRS 1.428 is constitutional and the Commission properly has jurisdiction over a hearing master. WAGE LAW BombardierTransp.USA,Inc.v.NevadaLaborCommissioner 433 P.3d 248, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 3, Nev., Jan. 17, 2019. The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether Nevada’s wage law requirements apply to a maintenance contract for an airport shuttle system. In this case, Bombardier installed an automated transportation system at an airport. Clark County later entered into a five year contract with Bombardier for maintenance work on the system. The International Union of Elevator Constructors, representing the technicians working on the system, claimed that Bombardier was not paying the technicians the prevailing wage rates. The Labor Commissioner determinedthatthecontractwasapublicworkproject and subject to NRS Chapter 338’s prevailing wage requirements as to the 20% of the work under the contract for major repairs. Bombardier filed a petition forjudicialreviewchallengingthedecision.Thedistrict court affirmed and the appeal filed. UnderNevadalaw,NRSChapter338requiresemployers to pay workers prevailing wages when the workers perform public work. “Public work” is “any project for the new construction, repair or reconstruction of ... [a] projectfinancedinwholeorinpartfrompublicmoney for [a variety of public purposes].” NRS 338.010(15). Work performed under a maintenance contract is not subject to prevailing wage requirements as it is not “public work”under NRS 338.010(15). The Labor Commissioner determined that the subject contract was a“project”since it constituted a planned piece of work for a specific purpose completed over a limited period and intended to achieve particular aim. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed that portions of the contract constituted a“project”to the extent that contract provided for repairs that exceeded normal maintenance. The Court held that individual contract portions could be severed and assessed separately to determine whether it falls under the definition of public work or is exempt. There is no indication that the Legislature intended to exempt repair work where a project involves both repair and maintenance work. Contractprovisionsthatareformajorrepairtasks,even if defined in the contract as a maintenance task, are subject to the prevailing wage requirements. Bombardier further argued that NRS 338.011(1) exempts a contract directly related to the normal this case continued on page x