) (applying an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing an award of attorney fees under the federal FCA); U.S. ex rel. Fine v. MK-Ferguson Co. , 99 F.3d 1538, 1548 (10th Cir. 1996) (same). [37] NRCP 11 (amended 2004). [38] Jordan v. State, Dep’t of Motor Vehicles , 121 Nev. ___, ___ n.16, 110 P.3d 30, 41 n.16 (2005) (internal quotations omitted) (noting that the second part of the definition of “frivolous,” “‘whether the attorney made a reasonable and competent inquiry,’ is inapplicable to nonattorney litigants proceeding in proper person” (citing Bergmann , 109 Nev. at 676, 856 P.2d at 564)). [39] Cf. Grynberg , 389 F.3d at 1058-59 (noting that sufficient justification for an award of attorney fees as a sanction does not include merely losing the case, but may include persisting with a suit in which a lack of merit has become apparent (citing Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC , 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978))). [40] NRS 281.621. [41] See also NAC 281.315. [42] NRS 281.641(2). [43] McKay v. Bd. of Supervisors , 102 Nev. 644, 649, 730 P.2d 438, 442 (1986). [44] See Hearing on S.B. 293 Before the Senate Gov’t Affairs Comm., 66th Leg. (Nev., Apr. 8, 1991) (discussing the public policy of allowing for full disclosure, including to legislative bodies and the press, of improper governmental action, abuse of authority, and waste of money, and expressing a desire to protect public employees who wish “to be candid with the legislature and other concerned persons about information, needing this protection to feel free to testify before a legislative committee”); id. at Exs. C, D (explaining that proposed amendments, which contain the current language of NRS 281.641 and replaced the bill’s original language protecting from retaliation employees who provide information on matters warranting further investigation or “given in good faith,” as determined by an ethics commission, would protect employees who bring incidents of wrongdoing to the legislature and apparently would cure problems associated with the ethics commission’s lack of enthusiasm over the original proposal). [45] Compare NRS 281.611–.671, Hearing on S.B. 293 Before the Senate Gov’t Affairs Comm., 66th Leg. Sess. (Nev., Apr. 8, 1991), and Allum v. Valley Bank of Nevada , 114 Nev. 1313, 1324, 970 P.2d 1062, 1068 (1998) (providing that a tortious discharge claim may be based on allegations that an employee was terminated for refusing to engage in conduct based on a good-faith, reasonable belief that the conduct was illegal, even if the conduct was legal), with Hale v. Touro Infirmary , 886 So. 2d 1210, 1215-16 (La. Ct. App. 2004) (determining that, despite strong policy arguments to the contrary, specific language and terms in the Louisiana whistleblower statute requires employees of private employers to prove an actual violation of law before a retaliation claim for reporting that violation will lie, and inviting the state legislature to address the matter in subsequent legislation). **************************

Vegas Law