finding that there was no public policy in play with respect to the conduct of my clients that led to their discharge we need to know that there's a genuine issue of material fact in that regard first it's a legal issue however and that is whether or not we are seeking to enforce the statute if you will under a wide like this particular matter and the question there is are these people in the same boat as in the  not the way they interpret it your honor well ok so you think that's a disputed issue of fact i think it is if they did not take the contrary to company policy well they took the steps the question is whether that was contrary to  for that ground perhaps also in retaliation or sanctioning for trying to enforce the policy does know that i have a mixed motive rules so that is long as there is a legitimate ground for factors to whether or not those other motives were in play legitimately or exclusively the motive of retaliation was in place so you'd have to prove that there was no what would be your burden of proof to prove to get around analysis we have temple proximity to supply the private face if you will cause a ship and i think your honour's are familiar with how close in time all of these events went down in relationship to the termination three years ago in three days but we've also put forward issues of fact with respect to the rationale that the employee put forward for instance they say the whole basis was this policy and my clients are discussing it with management said if you please provide us with the policy we like to see this policy that you're telling us about in writing where is this corporate policy every time this company has a policy that deals with personalities it's you know they get a copy of it and they never got a copy of it so there's a question just there as to whether or not this policy even existed i'm not asking you to concede any factual whatever i'm trying to figure out from nevada law if it turns out that the employer was partly motivated by what it really as the violation of company policy as to withholding tips and violation of company policy by not telling the truth as to whether they were holding cancer or withholding tips if that was part players motivation do you lose determining whether or not all around the summary judgment was an appropriate i understand that that's your call your question i submit that there are issues of fact as to whether causation is met here but on the facts of the legal issue i mean this is not a situation western metals which is cited in our brief and in that case if you remember the employee had just had surgery and his doctors told him not to go near the cyanide he pleads pits at the mine and his boss ordered him to do so and he refused to do so the court found the public policy in that because he was terminated the court found the public policy in that case to be founded upon that as osha statutes which half relatives they have administrative remedies and they even have remedies for retaliation and that employee anti retaliation so he had a retaliation claim based upon his report you could have filed a mr complaint with those and i ask the factual question i'm trying to figure out what facts are undisputed in this case i think it's undisputed but i want to make sure you have a saunemin understand the nature of that objection which they lost and what the announced this policy but prior to that time there was no talks canary that got separate compensation out of the taps for the graveyard shift into play the graveyard shift would take their cuts down and divide them equally him the byelaws they no extra pay there was no extra pay they interpret that to mean that somebody somebody on that shift gets more pay than the others based upon serving on the commitment that didn't happen before before they took all of the tips afterwards in order to engage in part of compliance with the policy they submitted some of the threats but may think the previous practice of dividing the other part equally so again nobody received extra pay out of the bylaws but the day that they withheld money that previously on the ground issue of fact as to whether management knew that's a different question i asked i asked did they tell management that they were doing this the thing that i can think of right now is in the in one of the meetings with jim stratton who's the manager  rock and said we're going to be the highest paid dealers in the vatican and trenton responded to that well you do what you've got to do and i think it's reasonable juror could infer from that that the two were communicating the two were communicating in the sense that we're going to continue doing what we were doing and we might modify it a little bit but we're going to continue doing it and we're going to go get an outside legal opinion about this and britain said do what you got to do and you saw your argument is there now that w is that kind of fish your honor because it's not a private or proprietary matter it's internal disputing with management discussion discourse with management concerning an issue that arises from right in that institution and all employees among the various properties terrorists have the evidence before you was that there wasn't just this graveyard shift this was a concern of everybody on every ship as to this new policy and there were people from the other shi i don't think you can find any forces just charge cases where the public policy isn't coincidentally personal because you're talking about a private somebody of their livelihood and pointed so necessarily any any situation that we have no matter what law we're talking about a public policy that we're talking about going to have a personal aspect to it that's not what i mean what i mean is is there a public good that's being served by their conduct and the public good being served was to ensure that this policy that affected our vibrator people was being in morning your honor and susan he held in representing herons this case it is about employees to fail to comply with a legal policy that care is implemented at the request of the i arrest track and tax actual dealer income this is not the kind of case that merits a public policy claim and your nevada law the i r s request or require that harrah's keep the interest on the terms your honor date is not and if there's actually evidence in there some objection not only to the harris people keeping the tip but there was some objection that the interest on the tips would be kept by harris and  record there is an affidavit from an harris individual named harry hack who explains that the tips were placed in a depository no on interest bearing account there has been no contrary also in the record they testified they didn't like the policy why well i think we can all agree that part of it was they were going to be taxed on their actual tip income which they weren't before and it's a less favorable deal for them so part of you know their the whole objection and what the with regard to employee tips it's not regulation of gaming regarding you know ensuring that the public is not cheated in gaming and i know that in the will to case it wasn't clear what the gaming law was there was no remedies against what they view at least for a time there's a violation of the law now if it turns out they're wrong and they're wrong but in telling all of that it seems to me that there is public policy whether strong enough has a different question well there is no case recognizing that and they just there are these comprehensive worker's comp laws these regulate you know payments to injured workers and the employer benefits from these laws as well because they don't are they are slightly toward for these accidents so it's not  not i'm not quibbling with the good faith attempt i agree that i don't watch at camp or talk to employees who make a good faith attempt to enforce the law whether that light turns out to be or do it for something whether it turns out that they were mistaken or not but that safety or the general welfare and again i go back to the cases in which this different about a supreme court has found it declined to recognize a public policy exception because i think there illustrative and they show that this case doesn't involve that there is the worker's comp cases they recognize that alan alan they recognize the exception where an employer terminated can i ask my question in a different way let's assume that there was no attempt by these graveyard employees to pay themselves as a  committee after the harris policy is announced let's assume instead that they instituted litigation and administrative complaints to challenge the new harris policy and harris fire them what's the result ok are the court the employee alleged he was determined he was terminated for racial discrimination in here alleged racial comments and conduct and the court said you know what if you didn't wonder that about a statute because that requires that an employer are to what then about a legislature said when they said employers have to have at least fifteen people to be liable for race discrimination that's what they meant and we're not going to let this employee who may very is the employees of those names situations so you know i find it a little hard to just say nevada would blink and say oh it doesn't make any difference this is just employees disputing their wages even if all the dealers complain all the dealers went to management and complained not just these graveyard dealers a number of dealers from other ships start legal counsel the letter to the labor commissioner complaining was written on behalf of all dealers and not just the great they proceed to get around this policy and when management discovered this in firing them i mean what would you have management do if that's not allowed what is this is they are they are terminating employees  basing all of my statements on their own testimony and that's what i always do in a summary judgment case i take exactly what question is not what their motivation is the question is what harris motivation in their testimony is to herald motivation is indirect  best and if i may just you know as case you know they have argued that that case is inapplicable because in that case they say that the employees were suing under the statute and you might not statute terminate them and ok i just think they're trying to do the exact same thing the employees did in new nose and a court flat out rejected that and the employee thank you i think you got over two and a half minutes but you don't get two and a half minutes rebuttal let's start with one and see what happens