MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, LABOR AND ENERGY

Seventy-ninth Session

March 27, 2017 The Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy was called to order by Chair Kelvin Atkinson at 8:33 a.m. on Monday, March 27, 2017, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to Room 4412E of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file in the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Kelvin Atkinson, Chair Senator Pat Spearman, Vice Chair Senator Nicole J. Cannizzaro Senator Yvanna D. Cancela Senator Joseph P. Hardy Senator James A. Settelmeyer Senator Heidi S. Gansert GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Ben Kieckhefer, Senatorial District No. 16 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Marji Paslov Thomas, Policy Analyst Daniel Putney, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Caroline Mello Roberson, Nevada State Director, NARAL Pro-Choice America Tacy Geesaman, NARAL Pro-Choice America Leslie Marlow, NARAL Pro-Choice America Connie Munk Deb Lomando Fran Almaraz, Teamsters Local Nos. 14, 631 and 986, International

Brotherhood of Teamsters

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 2 Marlene Lockard, Nevada Women’s Lobby Danny Thompson, Laborers’ Union Local No. 872, Laborers’ International Union

of North America James P. Kemp, Nevada Justice Association Ron Dreher, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada; Washoe School

Principals’ Association Chris Daly, Nevada State Education Association Ryan Beaman, Clark County Firefighters Local No. 1908, International

Association of Firefighters Elisa Cafferata, Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates, Inc.; Chair,

Commission for Women, Department of Administration Alanna Bondy, ACLU of Nevada Jared Busker, Children’s Advocacy Alliance Alicia Blevins, NARAL Pro-Choice America Tray Abney, The Chamber of Commerce of Reno-Sparks-Northern Nevada Lea Tauchen, Retail Association of Nevada Paul Moradkhan, Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce Misty Grimmer, Nevada Resort Association Lorne Malkiewich, American Resort Development Association Bruce Breslow, Director, Department of Business and Industry Brian Reeder, Nevada Dental Association Susan L. Fisher, State Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors Rusty McAllister, Nevada State AFL-CIO Lori D. Johnson, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las

Vegas CHAIR ATKINSON: I will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 253. SENATE BILL 253: Establishes the Nevada Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act to

provide protections to employees who are affected by any condition relating to pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition. (BDR 53-773)

SENATOR NICOLE J. CANNIZZARO (Senatorial District No. 6): Senate Bill 253 strengthens the economy and promotes healthy pregnancies and economic security for pregnant women and their families. This bill is important because pregnancy discrimination occurs throughout the U.S. Despite existing legal protections, the National Partnership for Women and Families reports that

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 3 nearly 31,000 charges of pregnancy discrimination were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and various state-level fair employment practice agencies between October 2010 and September 2015. The number of charges filed remains relatively unchanged from year to year. The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 was the first law to explicitly protect pregnant workers. The PDA amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make clear that employers cannot deny women job opportunities simply because they are or might become pregnant. Employers must treat pregnant workers the same as non-pregnant workers who have a similar ability to work. The PDA has helped to combat pregnancy discrimination in significant ways; however, it does have its limitations. For instance, some courts have ruled that the PDA does not require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers who need to modify their job duties, conditions or schedules as a result of physical limitations related to their pregnancies. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Young v. United Parcel Service that employers are likely violating the PDA if they accommodate most other injured or non-pregnant workers with disabilities while at the same time refusing to accommodate most pregnant workers with similar needs. This decision clarified some of the rights for pregnant women, but there is still some uncertainty. The reason for this uncertainty is that the Supreme Court based its decision on a disparate treatment analysis. For a reasonable accommodation to become something an employer would either have to offer or have an obligation to at least explore, an employee would have to prove there are other non-pregnant, similarly situated employees who are currently receiving some sort of accommodation pregnant workers are not receiving. The PDA has limitations in that it does not require employers to provide any sort of reasonable accommodation if they are not providing the same reasonable accommodation to most other non-pregnant workers. That is why S.B. 253 is particularly important and why other states are enacting similar legislation. There is overwhelming bipartisan support in the states that have passed similar pieces of legislation. Eighteen states, the District of Columbia and four cities have passed laws requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers. From West Virginia to Utah to California, lawmakers have concluded that accommodating pregnant workers who need accommodations is a measured approach grounded in family values and basic fairness.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 4 Senate Bill 253 provides protections to employees in Nevada similar to the protections in the PDA. This bill ensures workers with limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth or other related medical conditions are not forced out of their jobs or denied reasonable workplace accommodations. The Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act promotes nondiscrimination by specifying that employers with 15 or more employees must abide by certain terms. This measure also applies to local and state governments. Section 5 requires such employers to provide reasonable accommodations upon request to employees and job applicants affected by a known limitation related to pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition unless the accommodations would impose an undue hardship on the business of the employer. Additionally, employers may not take an adverse employment action against an employee for requesting or using an accommodation, deny an employment opportunity to a qualified employee or job applicant based on a need for a reasonable accommodation, or require an employee to take leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided. Section 6 describes the requirements and manner in which to provide reasonable accommodations. The manner in which to determine whether an undue hardship exists is set forth in section 7. Section 11 extends the existing law, which requires leave policies to be the same for pregnant employees as other employees, so that it applies to an employee who is pregnant or has a condition related to childbirth or a related medical condition. A person injured by an unlawful employment practice within the scope of this measure may file a complaint with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission as described in section 15 and may file an action in district court if the Commission does not conclude that unfair employment practice has occurred, which is contained in section 16. Section 17 requires the Commission to develop and carry out programs to educate employers and others about their rights and responsibilities under this bill. I have had conversations with interested individuals and groups to work on ways we can make this bill something people can support and to support

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 5 women in our workplaces. I am reaching an age where family members and friends are considering having families and children. A lot of the women I went to school with are now in professional workplaces and are trying to decide whether to pursue and continue to pursue their professional careers or to have a family. Senate Bill 253 can make such a decision easier for women by requiring that employers do not discriminate against them because they want to have families. Senate Bill 253 is not changing a business practice to the point where it is unfeasible for an owner of a business to continue to operate. This bill relates to things like providing a stool so that a pregnant employee who works at a front desk can sit for brief periods of time, providing a pregnant employee a parking space closer to the door, allowing a pregnant employee to take bathroom breaks when she needs to do so or allowing a pregnant employee to carry a water bottle with her so that she can stay hydrated during the course of her pregnancy. These are all little things not currently happening that the PDA does not specifically cover. The Supreme Court decision in Young v. United Parcel Service indicates that unless we are enacting policies that specifically require employers to provide these accommodations, the PDA may not cover them unless employers are providing similar accommodations for injured or disabled workers. This bill is a supplement to the PDA and is important for our working families. It is important for women to be able to say that they want to or have to provide for their families but also that they want to have families to begin with. These two decisions should not be mutually exclusive. It is shameful women are still being fired, forced out of their jobs or denied employment opportunities simply because they become pregnant. This Session, we have the opportunity to make a real difference for Nevada’s women and families. The sooner we take the steps to stop discrimination against pregnant workers, the better off our families and businesses will be. I have two potential conceptual amendments that are being discussed. One of these amendments relates to section 8. Given that there are employers who provide electronic notice or video notice, we would look to amend this section so that notice could be provided in a written format or electronic format. There were also some discussions about section 7 and the burden on the employer to prove an accommodation was an undue hardship. We are discussing the potential to require an employee to make a prima facie showing that she did request an accommodation and that she was not given it. The burden would then shift to the employer to prove the accommodation poses an undue

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 6 hardship pursuant to the parameters in section 7. I am trying to make this bill workable for employers and employees. SENATOR HARDY: Is one of your conceptual amendments to put my name on this bill? SENATOR CANNIZZARO: I would love to have your support. SENATOR GANSERT: Could you go over section 7 a little more? You said you were thinking about amending it. SENATOR CANNIZZARO: Section 7 details that the employer has the burden to prove a reasonable accommodation would pose an undue hardship. Section 7 delineates several things that would be considered, such as the cost and nature of the accommodation, the overall financial resources of the employer, the overall size of the business, and the effect of such accommodation on the expenses and resources of the employer. Section 7 says the employer has the initial burden. After having some discussions and reading the Young v. United Parcel Service case, it might be a better policy to align this section more with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which shifts the burden. The employee would have to advise her employer she is pregnant, and within ten days, the employer would have to provide her with a notice that a reasonable accommodation would be allowed. The employee has to request the accommodation. The conceptual amendment we have been discussing would require the employee to advise the employer she is pregnant and to request a reasonable accommodation. If the employer fails to provide or attempt to provide the accommodation, the burden would shift to the employer to demonstrate the accommodation could not be made because it is an undue hardship. SENATOR SETTELMEYER: There probably would not be a fiscal note because this bill basically complies with federal law. What is the federal law for the number of employees? Is it higher or lower than 15? Why was 15 used? SENATOR CANNIZZARO: The federal law is also 15 employees.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 7 CAROLINE MELLO ROBERSON (Nevada State Director, NARAL Pro-Choice America): I will read from my prepared testimony in support of S.B. 253 (Exhibit C). It is important for us to remember all of these bills affect real people. TACY GEESAMAN (NARAL Pro-Choice America): I am the mother of a three-year-old and a six-year-old. I worked full-time during both of my pregnancies. I work in field sales, so I am on my feet all day. In field sales, our managers ride along with us. One time, my manager was fighting with me, and I opened my car door because I had to throw up. When I look at this bill, I think about how it might have allowed me to feel safe to say I needed a ride-along on another day. Senator Cannizzaro spoke about pregnant employees needing to relieve themselves. There are babies dancing on these women’s bladders. These are things that cannot be controlled. Although all of you may not have had the experience of being pregnant, your mothers did. Your mothers went through this while carrying all of you. As a mother who wants an even playing ground, I ask you to support S.B. 253. LESLIE MARLOW (NARAL Pro-Choice America): When I learned I was pregnant with my daughter, I was working part-time for a painting company that had less-than-appetizing ethical practices. I was paid under the table. I decided I needed to get health insurance and a full-time job. Unfortunately, the women from my spouse’s family were not supportive. They said I was pregnant and could not get a job. That did not stop me. When I was five months pregnant, I made it to a second-round, in-person interview with a fundraising firm. I tried to calm myself down by reading about pregnancy discrimination laws, but that did not help. On my limited income from the painting company, I did not have pregnancy clothes. I wore the loosest dress pants I owned—which would not button—to the interview. My fly was half down. I hoped the interviewer simply thought I was a fat chick. I got the job, but I still hid my pregnancy. The job was wonderful to me, but it was not until I was seven and a half months pregnant that I decided to go to human resources. The meeting was actually wonderful. I asked about maternity leave, and the human resources staff asked, “You’re pregnant?” I felt a little pleased with myself that I hid my pregnancy, but I was further pleased when the firm was kind and offered me maternity leave benefits. I had a good experience. Once I let the firm know I was pregnant, my desk was moved closer to the bathroom. When I came back from maternity leave, I was given a room to express my own milk. Even though I had plans in my mind that I would be sitting in a bathroom stall expressing milk, the firm initiated the conversation with me and asked what

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 8 I needed for my pregnancy. However, there was still the fear in my head that if I asked for anything, I would be denied or I would not be considered for promotion or any extra duties that would give me opportunities in my career. Although I had a great experience, I know there have been few great experiences in my company, or at least fewer than there should have been. There are so many different statistics. According to the EEOC, women made up 47 percent of the workforce in 2010. That is huge. Twenty-five thousand cases of pregnancy discrimination were reported between 2010 and 2016. We can guess that at least 100,000 cases were never reported. However, of the 25,000 reported cases, fewer than 5 percent were found to have reasonable cause for the actions of the employers. Excluding cases that were litigated, there was over $100 million in settlements. This is not a small problem, and there are so many examples. During interviews, women are asked if they plan to have more children and are told to come back when they are done having their kids. An employee may tell her boss she is pregnant, and after the boss learns the news, she is prevented from working for the next few months. Pregnant workers at fast food restaurants ask to not lift big boxes and are denied, even though other employees are allowed to not lift big boxes while recovering from surgery. Pregnant women are not given the accommodations they should be given while other employees are. The U.S. is the only developed country with a war on women. There are so many attempts to take away a woman’s ability and resources to control her pregnancy and to take away a woman’s right to work after her pregnancy. These are the most blatant attempts to keep women barefoot and pregnant. CONNIE MUNK: I will read from my prepared testimony in support of S.B. 253 (Exhibit D). DEB LOMANDO: I am gobsmacked we are still talking about these issues. In 1972, when I was pregnant with my first child, I was teaching at a school. In spite of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was understood that at the school district where I was working, the day a woman said she was pregnant was her last day. I tried to hide my pregnancy that fall because I needed my job. When it came to the point I could not hide my pregnancy anymore, I told the principal I was pregnant. He said he was sorry to hear that and it was going to be my last day. However, he said he was going to let me stay until the end of the week so that I would have time to tell my students I was leaving and to have a party if I

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 9 wanted. I told each class of incoming students Friday would be my last day. A little later in the day, the principal called me on the school intercom and said he needed me to come downstairs right away. I was a history teacher, and we were learning about labor movements and how they developed in the U.S. My students had a sit-in in the principal’s office. He said he did not know what to do about this and that he had to get back to me. As the story turned out, I was allowed to stay. I also found out there were three other women who were pregnant and afraid to tell. We should not be talking about these issues anymore. FRAN ALMARAZ (Teamsters Local Nos. 14, 631 and 986, International

Brotherhood of Teamsters): Discrimination by employers because of pregnancy has been a long-standing issue. I urge your support of this bill to make working while pregnant a nonissue. MARLENE LOCKARD (Nevada Women’s Lobby): We work hard to bridge the gaps between men and women, so we support this bill. DANNY THOMPSON (Laborers’ Union Local No. 872, Laborers’ International Union

of North America): I am not a mother. However, some people have referred to me as a mother in a different context. Navigating a successful pregnancy is difficult. I know women who have had pregnancy troubles and have spent untold amounts of money to make their pregnancies happen. Having to worry about one’s job on top of that complicates the matter more. This is common sense legislation and is well overdue. JAMES P. KEMP (Nevada Justice Association): In my practice, I often see pregnant women who have experienced discrimination in the workplace. It is particularly important to make sure accommodations permit pregnant employees to continue working. Sometimes we see employers who think a leave of absence is a reasonable accommodation, but that does not necessarily help the pregnant employee who needs to continue to work to support herself and her family. Section 5, subsection 1, paragraph (e) indicates the accommodation should first and foremost seek to have the pregnant employee continue to work to support herself and her family. Section 6 provides excellent examples of

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 10 accommodations that would be helpful to pregnant employees. Senate Bill 253 will help pregnant women in Nevada. RON DREHER (Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada; Washoe School

Principals’ Association): We support S.B. 253. I have four children, and my wife experienced pregnancy discrimination many years ago. Back then, sick leave was not provided for pregnant women. When my wife and I went to buy a house, we signed a document saying she was not pregnant because we would not have been able to buy a house if she were. We have moved forward, and we have sick leave, but we do not have accommodations in the workplace for pregnant women. Section 5 makes a difference and provides security for the women who need accommodations during their pregnancies. CHRIS DALY (Nevada State Education Association): We represent 40,000 educators across the State. Almost 3/4 of our members are women. We absolutely support requiring reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers. We see this not as a women’s rights issue, worker’s rights issue or social justice issue but as a human issue. This bill is the right thing to do. RYAN BEAMAN (Clark County Firefighters Local No. 1908, International

Association of Firefighters): We support S.B. 253. Clark County has recognized that firefighters are exposed to all kinds of hazards and has offered accommodations to our employees due to those types of exposures. We appreciate Senator Cannizzaro bringing S.B. 253 forward to protect all female firefighters in the workplace. ELISA CAFFERATA (Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates, Inc.): I submitted testimony (Exhibit E) on behalf of Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates, Inc., in support of S.B. 253. We echo the support of previous testifiers and urge you to support this bill. ALANNA BONDY (ACLU of Nevada): I will read from my prepared testimony in support of S.B. 253 (Exhibit F). JARED BUSKER (Children’s Advocacy Alliance): I submitted testimony in support of S.B. 253 (Exhibit G). This bill helps both expectant mothers and their children.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 11 ALICIA BLEVINS (NARAL Pro-Choice America): I support this bill because I am a mother of three, and I worked through two and a half of my pregnancies. During that time, I was fortunate enough to have an office job and an understanding employer and coworkers who made it easy for me to make the accommodations on my own for what I needed during my pregnancy. I was able to express my milk in the workplace to save for my child at home. I have several friends who were not offered the same accommodations I was offered—women who work in department stores or fast food restaurants who were afraid to ask for reasonable accommodations during their pregnancies. Even though I knew my employer was accepting of my pregnancy and my life as a mother at home, I was also afraid to let him know I was pregnant because he had made jokes about not wanting his workers to be pregnant. It was a small business, so it was hard for him to let mothers work from home for certain amounts of time. It was also hard for him to make accommodations when it came to mothers expressing their milk in the workplace and saving it. It is important for pregnant employees to feel comfortable when asking for reasonable accommodations. TRAY ABNEY (The Chamber of Commerce of Reno-Sparks-Northern Nevada): This is friendly opposition to S.B. 253. Senator Cannizzaro proactively reached out to us regarding this bill. We are opposed to this bill as written and are working through the issues. We are committed to getting to something everyone can support. CHAIR ATKINSON: Could you provide an example of what you oppose in this bill? MR. ABNEY: We want to work on the issues Senator Cannizzaro brought up. CHAIR ATKINSON: Would this be a friendly amendment? MR. ABNEY: Yes. There was also an issue regarding making sure the employer knows the employee is pregnant.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 12 LEA TAUCHEN (Retail Association of Nevada): This is also friendly opposition to S.B. 253. We are opposed to the bill as written. Our members support reasonable workplace accommodations for pregnant women. However, we believe responsible employers are already providing such accommodations as part of the strategy to retain qualified workers. We share some of the same concerns as Mr. Abney, and we are open to discussions regarding amendments. We would like to continue to work with Senator Cannizzaro and then reconsider our position as the amendment language becomes available. PAUL MORADKHAN (Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce): We are not opposed to the policy. We have several concerns with S.B. 253, which we are working through with Senator Cannizzaro. Most of our members accommodate pregnant employees to the best of their abilities. We hope to find an approach that works for both employers and employees. MISTY GRIMMER (Nevada Resort Association): We are neutral to S.B. 253. We have some concerns about the practicality and operation of this bill. We support the concept, but we have a few small issues to work through. SENATOR CANNIZZARO: There are a few things I am trying to work through with all of the stakeholders to ensure this bill is workable. I looked into some of the repercussions of not retaining quality employees who are hired, trained and then become pregnant. A 2012 report from the National Women’s Law Center discussed some studies that had been done by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy. The report found that most employers already provide accommodations. I have found through my own discussions that many employers already provide these types of accommodations—my workplace certainly does. I also spoke with another law firm in Las Vegas that provides accommodations. It is important to note that most of these accommodations are temporary, and according to the 2012 report, they only cost $500 or less. This bill is not a fundamental change in how a business operates; it is about little things that can make it feasible for pregnant women to remain in the workforce without having to relinquish their positions and then try to find other jobs after their pregnancies. There are also the costs the employer has to take on to hire, train and retain new employees, especially if the pregnant woman who had to relinquish her position was not a new employee.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 13 I am excited to work with the testifiers who had concerns. They have made me aware of some of the issues that may exist in this bill. We are trying to find ways to work around these issues so that this bill can be beneficial. CHAIR ATKINSON: I will close the hearing on S.B. 253. The Committee has three bill draft requests (BDR) to introduce. The first is BDR 58-338. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 58-338: Repeals the Solar Thermal Systems

Demonstration Program. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 435.)

SENATOR HARDY MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 58-338. SENATOR CANNIZZARO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

CHAIR ATKINSON: The second BDR to introduce is BDR 57-996. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 57-996: Enacts restrictions on certain discriminatory

health benefit plan designs. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 436.)

SENATOR SPEARMAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 57-996. SENATOR SETTELMEYER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

CHAIR ATKINSON: The third BDR to introduce is BDR 54-483.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 14 BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-483: Revises provisions relating to professions. (Later

introduced as Senate Bill 437.)

SENATOR SETTELMEYER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 54-483. SENATOR CANNIZZARO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

CHAIR ATKINSON: I will open the hearing on S.B. 311. SENATE BILL 311: Makes permanent the repeal of certain provisions relating to

sellers of travel. (BDR 52-90) SENATOR JAMES A. SETTELMEYER (Senatorial District No. 17): We are repealing provisions that are supposed to go into effect in July of 2017. The Department of Business and Industry had indicated that it does not have any problems with the provisions being repealed. LORNE MALKIEWICH (American Resort Development Association): The provisions in question relate to sellers of travel. In 2009, when we repealed a good portion of our consumer affairs statutes, we put a 2011 sunset on those provisions. The provisions were extended to 2013, 2015 and then 2017. However, when those sunsets occur, the provisions that were temporarily repealed will come back. The American Resort Development Association and the Department thought the provisions had been repealed. Looking at section 2 of this bill, there is a long list of repealed Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) sections, which would lead a person to believe these sections had been repealed. Section 2, subsection 2, however, has the sunset. By moving the provisions from subsection 2 to subsection 1, the repeal would become permanent. BRUCE BRESLOW (Director, Department of Business and Industry): We have never registered travel, and I have been the Director of the Department for four years. It was a surprise to us when people called asking to register because we do not have anybody who does that in our small Consumer Affairs Unit. The Consumer Affairs Division was removed in 2015. It was a much larger

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 15 division that was part of the Office of the Attorney General. During the economic downturn, the Division was put on ice. We opened up a small Consumer Affairs Unit, and the rest of the Division was stripped last Session. The Division was so big with so many different parts that the provisions for sellers of travel were left out. This is the last remaining part of dead legislation, so the Department does not have a problem with repealing these provisions. CHAIR ATKINSON: I will close the hearing on S.B. 311 and open the hearing on S.B. 334. SENATE BILL 334: Revises provisions related to unprofessional conduct by

dentists. (BDR 54-1147) SENATOR JOSEPH P. HARDY (Senatorial District No. 12): Senate Bill 334 makes illegal the false advertising a dentist can use on the Internet regarding dental specialties. Lori D. Johnson, an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ William S. Boyd School of Law, was supposed to testify over videoconference, but she appears to be absent. I will summarize Ms. Johnson’s testimony. She is aware advertising in telephone books works; one can find out what a dentist’s specialty is with a telephone book. Her concern is with dental advertising in NRS 631.348 and the corresponding Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 631.670. These chapters already prohibit misleading statements, but she recognizes there are loopholes to get around the requirements outlined in these chapters. Ms. Johnson proposes language to handle the problems with URLs, domain names, keywords and any other type of computer code leading to a false appearance that suggests an unlicensed area of practice or expertise. Such a false appearance would be considered unprofessional conduct. This bill allows the Board of Dental Examiners of Nevada an opportunity to exercise its existing powers to regulate such unprofessional conduct. Ms. Johnson also notes that the American Dental Association’s Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct already includes the section “Websites and Search Engine Optimization,” which specifically states, “Dentists have an ethical obligation to ensure that their web sites, like other professional announcements, are truthful …. ” This bill allows dentists to be held accountable for their actions.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 16 BRIAN REEDER (Nevada Dental Association): Each member of the Nevada Dental Association (NDA) signs a code of ethics pledging to adhere to the highest ethical standards of conduct, but technology has changed. This bill would help deter bad actors and would help the NDA with its goal of preserving the integrity of the dental profession in Nevada and strengthening the doctor-patient relationship. The NDA fully supports S.B. 334. CHAIR ATKINSON: I will entertain a motion on S.B. 334.

SENATOR SETTELMEYER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 334. SENATOR SPEARMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

CHAIR ATKINSON: I will reopen the hearing on S.B. 311 and entertain a motion on this bill.

SENATOR SPEARMAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 311. SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

CHAIR ATKINSON: I will open the hearing on S.B. 354. SENATE BILL 354: Authorizes the issuance of a license by endorsement to

practice certain professions in this State. (BDR 54-870) SENATOR BEN KIECKHEFER (Senatorial District No. 16): Senate Bill 354 offers presumptive reciprocity to other states’ professional licenses. The strengths and weaknesses of occupational licensing have become the subjects of great debate in recent years. There has been a substantial

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 17 amount of research and review of the impacts professional licensing has as these debates have carried on. The result has been broad consensus that it is time to reform our professional licensing structures across the U.S. In July of 2015, President Obama’s administration published a document titled “Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Policymakers” (Exhibit H). This document reviews a lot of the existing literature, highlights the history of professional licensing and demonstrates the need for reform. In the 1950s, 5 percent of all jobs in the U.S. required an occupational license; that number has jumped to more than 25 percent. Despite some of the changes in the workforce that could facilitate such a change, 2/3 of the increase actually stems from an increase in the number of professions that require a license. The impact of professional licensing on the workforce is stark. Research indicates licensing reduces total employment in licensed professions while having a commensurate impact on wages. Workers in unlicensed professions earn on average 15 percent less than workers in licensed professions. Barriers to licensure coupled with increasing wages in licensed professions lead to an enhanced wage inequality for low-income workers. Aside from labor, professional licensing has a direct effect on the costs of goods and services for consumers. Research shows licensing laws lead to increased prices of between 3 percent and 16 percent without any commensurate increase in quality. Nevada is generally regarded as one of the most overly licensed states in the Nation. We are one of only three states that require more than 30 percent of our workers to have professional licenses. We require licenses for a higher percentage of our workers and expect much more of them to become licensed. Of 102 lower-skilled and middle-skilled occupations reviewed by the Institute for Justice, Nevada requires an average of 601 days of combined education and training, which ranks as the fourth highest in the Nation. Nevada requires a license for 55 different occupations, which is more than all but 5 other states in the U.S. We also have some of the highest licensing fees of any state. As an example, to become an alarm installer, Nevada requires $1,036 in fees whereas the national average for the same occupation is $230. Professional licensing is a significant barrier to people looking to start a business in Nevada and to others looking to move to Nevada while working in another state. I have heard about the licensing issue from our regional development

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 18 agencies when discussing the challenges of relocating people to Nevada. The people relocating to our State to work often have a spouse or partner who is licensed to do a job in another state but then struggle to get the same license here in Nevada. Many of the studies I have referenced demonstrate the negative impacts professional licensing has on interstate migration, which ultimately contributes to an inefficient labor force. This bill is not a panacea to the problems I see in professional licensing. It would probably be wise to complete a total review of the benefits and costs of professional licensing on a case-by-case basis. However, this bill attempts to address the issues of interstate migration and the ability for entrepreneurs to start businesses in Nevada without unnecessary regulatory hurdles in terms of professional licensing. Section 1 creates a standardized process for most people who would be licensed through NRS Title 54 to apply for and receive a license by endorsement if that individual is licensed in another state, territory or the District of Columbia. To obtain a license by endorsement, an applicant must submit an application to the appropriate regulatory body, pay the fees imposed by that board for application and submit necessary fingerprints for the process of a criminal background check. This bill provides a standard timeline for boards to follow when considering an application. A board must provide written notice not later than 15 business days after receiving an application for a license by endorsement if the board needs any additional information. Unless the regulatory body establishes that good cause exists to deny the application, the board must approve the application and issue a license not later than 30 days after receiving all of the additional information required or 10 days after receiving the criminal background report, whichever is later. Additionally, at any time before making a final decision on an application, a board may request additional information from the applicant’s home state and the licensing board there. If an applicant is a member of the Armed Forces, a spouse of an active member of the Armed Forces, a veteran, or a spouse or a surviving spouse of a veteran, he or she is entitled to a 50 percent reduction in the fee for the issuance of a license by endorsement. The remainder of this bill repeals provisions currently in statute allowing either licensure by endorsement or reciprocity or certification by endorsement or

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 19 reciprocity in various chapters of Title 54, as such provisions are either duplicative or more stringent than the requirements in this bill. The arguments in favor of professional licensing often note there will be a commensurate increase in public safety and the welfare of the public. People argue that these boards are in place to offer such protection. If one reviews the literature, one would see that the anticipated increase in public safety and welfare does not materialize. When the Institute for Justice looked at states that required licensure for professions and those that did not for the same occupations, the Institute found no change in concerns relating to public safety and welfare. This bill is an effort to make our working environment more accessible to more people more quickly. As our State continues to grow, we want to encourage people to start businesses and work here. SENATOR HARDY: Are you saying our endorsement process takes longer and is more onerous than simply applying for a license in our State? SENATOR KIECKHEFER: Yes. There are differences among the various chapters in Title 54. It is important to note there are certain exclusions in this bill; the entirety of Title 54 is not included. Section 1, subsection 8 lists exemptions that relate to contractors, accountants, doctors of medicine, doctors of osteopathy, and individuals working in real estate or for collection agencies. All of these professions are excluded for a variety of reasons in terms of policy decisions I made when crafting this bill. Ultimately, S.B. 354 is designed to create a standardized process to make licensure by endorsement easier, not more difficult. SUSAN L. FISHER (State Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors): We already have in statute the ability to license by reciprocity. We support Senator Kieckhefer’s efforts to get people licensed in Nevada more quickly, easily and efficiently. We encourage passage of S.B. 354. RUSTY MCALLISTER (Nevada State AFL-CIO): We oppose S.B. 354. This bill includes many provisions that would allow for reciprocity right away with little oversight. An applicant has to submit an application and fingerprints, but this bill also allows boards to give provisional licenses to start practicing. It is important to look at which professions are not

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 20 exempted that could get reciprocity fairly easily, such as pharmacists, opticians, audiologists, behavioral health specialists, psychologists, athletic trainers and veterinary doctors. All of these professions would be able to simply submit an application and start a provisional practice before the background check is completed. Bills like S.B. 354 have been heard in other committees and have drawn a lot of opposition because the standards in Nevada are higher than other states with regard to nursing licenses and things like that. ELISA CAFFERATA (Chair, Commission for Women, Department of Administration): As the Chair for the Commission for Women, I am neutral. We did a survey of over 500 women throughout Nevada and asked them what they needed to be successful at work and to take care of their families. Quite a few women, up to 40 percent, indicated there was a need for education and training programs as well as lowered barriers for them to get back into the workforce if they had taken some time off to raise families or to complete educational programs. There was a documented need among the women we talked to. Senate Bill 354 should be considered to address this need women have identified. SENATOR KIECKHEFER: Teachers are not included in this bill; they are not licensed under Title 54. Opticians are not licensed at all by more than 25 states. There are a number of professions our State licenses that are not licensed by the majority of states in the U.S. Such professions include interior designers—we are one of only three states that license interior designers—as well as travel guides, animal trainers, some gaming professions and certain construction professions not licensed by other states. The insinuation is that other states are not stringent enough in their licensing of some of these professions, which would put Nevada’s citizens in jeopardy, but the research shows no such thing. SENATOR GANSERT: It seems that most professions mentioned have national accrediting boards. The process outlined in this bill still requires a background check and some research, but it seems like there are national authorities or organizations that oversee these professions. Is that true? SENATOR KIECKHEFER: Often it is true. The licensing requirements for each profession vary based on the regulations in statute. Whether or not someone needs to be accredited by a national licensing body may vary. I do not want to say that to receive a license

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 21 in another state, national accreditation is required. That is probably not the case in all places. SENATOR SPEARMAN: Does this bill include nurses? SENATOR KIECKHEFER: All professions licensed under Title 54, except those exempted, are included. Nurses are listed under Title 54. SENATOR HARDY: Could nurses relocate to the State and practice without going through the State Board of Nursing? SENATOR KIECKHEFER: If a nurse is licensed in California or any other state in the U.S. and wants to move to Nevada to practice here, he or she still submits an application through the Nursing Board for a license by endorsement. The Nursing Board would then follow the process outlined in this bill and has the authority to conduct investigations to determine if the applicant should be licensed in this State. Otherwise, we are going to take other states’ licensing procedures as adequate practice for Nevada. SENATOR HARDY: Would nurses still go through the Nursing Board? SENATOR KIECKHEFER: Yes. If someone is not licensed in any state, he or she would go through the existing process. For someone who is licensed and has been practicing in another state, he or she would be able to receive a license by endorsement in Nevada. CHAIR ATKINSON: I will close the hearing on S.B. 354 and open the meeting for public comment.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 22 LORI D. JOHNSON (William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las

Vegas): I will read from my prepared testimony in support of S.B. 334 (Exhibit I). Steven A. Saxe, who has assisted me in researching this issue, submitted testimony in support of this bill (Exhibit J). CHAIR ATKINSON: Are you in favor of S.B. 334? MS. JOHNSON: Yes. Was Dr. Saxe’s testimony in support of this bill read into the record? CHAIR ATKINSON: Yes. We have it. With no further public comment, the Committee will address the rereferral of S.B. 318 to the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services. SENATE BILL 318: Revises provisions relating to the payment of wages to

certain employees. (BDR 53-1088)

SENATOR SPEARMAN MOVED TO REREFER S.B. 318 TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. SENATOR HARDY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page to follow.

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 23 CHAIR ATKINSON: I adjourn the meeting at 9:58 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Daniel Putney, Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY: Senator Kelvin Atkinson, Chair DATE:

Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy March 27, 2017 Page 24

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

Bill Exhibit / # of pages Witness / Entity Description

A 1 Agenda

B 5 Attendance Roster

S.B. 253 C 1 Caroline Mello Roberson / NARAL Pro-Choice America Written Testimony

S.B. 253 D 1 Connie Munk Written Testimony

S.B. 253 E 2 Elisa Cafferata / Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood Affiliates, Inc.

Written Testimony

S.B. 253 F 1 Alanna Bondy / ACLU of Nevada Written Testimony

S.B. 253 G 2 Jared Busker / Children’s Advocacy Alliance Written Testimony

S.B. 354 H 77 Senator Ben Kieckhefer Occupational Licensing Report

S.B. 334 I 2

Lori D. Johnson / William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Written Testimony

S.B. 334 J 4

Lori D. Johnson / William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Written Testimony of Steven A. Saxe