Nevada Supreme Court Holds That NRS Chapter 338 Does Not Permit Private Prevailing-Wage Lawsuits

By: Swen Prior, Theresa Trenholm, and Kaitlyn Stout

If you are a contractor or subcontractor on public works projects in Nevada, mark this one down as a win. In Stuckey v. Apex Materials, LLC, decided February 26, 2026, the Nevada Supreme Court held — unanimously and en banc — that workers may not file private lawsuits to enforce Nevada’s prevailing-wage and overtime pay requirements under NRS Chapter 338. The bottom line: employees who believe they were shortchanged on prevailing wages must take their complaints to the Labor Commissioner — not to a courtroom.

Two construction workers filed a putative class action against a group of subcontractors and general contractors, alleging that they and similarly situated workers performed work on public works projects and were not paid overtime at the prevailing-wage rates required by NRS 338.020(3). The complaint sought the difference between the wages actually paid and the higher prevailing-wage and overtime pay the plaintiffs alleged was owed. Notably, the complaint did not identify the specific public works projects at issue, nor did it allege that the plaintiffs had pursued any administrative remedies with the Labor Commissioner or the contracting public body before filing suit.

The plaintiffs did not stop there. In addition to their direct claim under NRS 338.020(3), they advanced two additional theories: claims under NRS Chapter 608’s general wage-and-hour provisions and third-party beneficiary claims based on the public works contracts between the public bodies and the contractors. None succeeded. The Eighth Judicial District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend.

Writing for an en banc court, Justice Pickering affirmed the district court’s dismissal on every ground.

The court held that NRS Chapter 338 does not afford a private right of action to employees outside the administrative process it creates. The court emphasized that the statute’s detailed administrative scheme — which empowers the Labor Commissioner to determine whether prevailing wages are due, adjudicate violations, impose penalties, and direct disbursement of withheld funds — weighs heavily against implying a private right of action. The court’s message was direct: “[h]ad the legislature meant to create a private right of action for employees in [Plaintiff’s] position, it would have said so.” The legislature expressly provided a private right of action for bidders on public works projects under NRS 338.016 — but pointedly chose not to do the same for employees.

The court also drew on federal precedent interpreting the Davis-Bacon Act, on which NRS Chapter 338 was modeled, observing that “the great weight of authority indicates” that the Davis-Bacon Act does not confer a private right of action on aggrieved employees for back wages. The court distinguished Neville v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 133 Nev. 777 (2017), which recognized a private right of action under NRS Chapter 608, noting that the Neville analysis turned on NRS Chapter 608’s express attorney fee provision — a feature absent from NRS Chapter 338.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to reroute their claims through NRS Chapter 608, holding that those general wage-and-hour statutes do not create liability for failure to pay prevailing wages or overtime calculated under NRS 338.020(3). Importantly, the court noted that NRS 608.018’s overtime provision expressly excludes hours to which the overtime provisions of NRS 338.020(3) and (4) apply. Because the NRS Chapter 608 claims all depended on establishing a violation of NRS 338.020, and no such violation had been established through the administrative process, those claims were properly dismissed.

The court was equally unsparing on the plaintiffs’ final theory, holding that employees cannot circumvent the administrative process by asserting third-party beneficiary claims based on public works contracts that incorporate NRS Chapter 338’s prevailing-wage requirements. The court characterized such claims as impermissible attempts to indirectly enforce statutory provisions that do not afford a private right of action.

This is a landmark decision for Nevada’s construction industry, and employers should take note:

First, the class action threat just got smaller. Employees alleging underpayment of prevailing wages and overtime on public works projects must pursue their claims through the Labor Commissioner’s administrative process under NRS Chapter 338 before seeking judicial relief. This means employers will not face direct class action litigation over prevailing-wage disputes unless and until the administrative process has been exhausted.

Second, creative pleading will not circumvent the statute. Workers cannot repackage prevailing-wage claims as general wage-and-hour claims under NRS Chapter 608 or as third-party beneficiary claims to avoid the administrative process. The court firmly closed these alternative litigation avenues.

Third, and this is the critical caveat, this decision is not a free pass. It does not eliminate the obligation to pay prevailing wages and overtime on public works projects. The administrative enforcement mechanism remains fully intact, and the Labor Commissioner retains broad authority to investigate violations, assess underpayments, impose penalties, and debar violating contractors from future public works contracts. The courtroom door may be closed to private plaintiffs, but the Labor Commissioner’s office is very much open for business. Employers engaged in public works should continue to ensure strict compliance with NRS Chapter 338’s prevailing-wage requirements.