Nevada senators hear bill to align H‑2A herder pay rules with state law after long lawsuit

Senator John Ellison (R., Senate District 19) opened a hearing on Senate Bill 204 on March 17, proposing a change to how H‑2A range workers’ hours and pay are calculated so ranchers and workers can agree to salary-style terms that exclude agreed periods of sleep, meals and complete personal time from required hourly pay calculations.

The bill’s sponsors and ranchers said SB204 is intended to resolve a conflict between federal H‑2A program regulations and Nevada wage law that came into public view during the Castillo v. Western Range litigation. Pete Gokachia, a regent on the Nevada Board of Regents (District 8) and longtime rancher, told the committee federal rules require herders to be on the open range and sign contracts setting a salary, while Nevada Revised Statutes and wage rules create hourly overtime obligations that are difficult to track for mobile range work.

Proponents said the mismatch has exposed ranchers to large back‑wage claims. Bonnie Little, who represented Little Para Sheep Company with her husband David Little, described the Castillo litigation: the suit was filed in 2016, federal Judge Jones wrote in a 2022 order that Nevada law lacked clarity on whether herders must be paid 24 hours a day, the Nevada Supreme Court accepted a certified question, and the case was dismissed in 2024 after the plaintiff died. “After 8 years of litigation, we are back to square 1,” Bonnie Little said, summarizing the litigation history and why new statutory language is needed.

Provisions and context SB204 would allow employers and H‑2A range workers to negotiate compensation as a salaried arrangement patterned on Nevada’s existing statute for live‑in domestic care workers (NRS chapter 608 language was cited as the model). David Little, president of the Nevada Wool Growers, said the Department of Labor (DOL) regulates H‑2A range work under 20 C.F.R. part 655 (range‑worker rules), requires that range workers spend a majority of time on the open range, and requires employers to provide room and board and a communication device. Little told the committee DOL contracts also make herders “on call 24/7,” which the DOL and the board have interpreted to mean the workers must be available even when not actively working.

Witnesses described practical challenges tracking hours for mobile herders who live in tents or mobile camps and may move frequently. Pete Gokachia said camps can move “every 2 or 3 days or once a week,” and employers often see workers only when they come to camp day; that makes hourly recordkeeping impractical. He and the Littles said the bill would permit parties to negotiate and document agreed hours of sleep, meals and free time to be excluded from compensable hours, while preserving pay for hours worked and existing DOL protections. “These men are getting paid for that time,” David Little said of compensated on‑duty periods. “Senate Bill 204 is saying 8 hours of sleep we’re going to talk to and pull out.”

Committee questions and clarifications Committee members pressed sponsors on several points: whether domestic (U.S.) herders exist in Nevada and how wages compare; how DOL sets base wages (witnesses said DOL uses a monthly base‑wage formula for range workers and has estimated an average of roughly 48 hours per week for wage‑setting purposes); what contract terms ranchers currently use; and whether a negotiated standard would leave H‑2A workers with less bargaining power. Proponents said ranchers must advertise for U.S. workers before hiring H‑2A workers and that many ranches have not had domestic applicants in decades. They also said DOL inspects camps and contracts, and that H‑2A workers may be returned home at the employer’s expense if they choose to leave.

Support and neutral testimony Witnesses in support included the Nevada Farm Bureau, the Nevada Republican Party representative who described the bill as supporting negotiated contracts for unique jobs, and local ranching stakeholders who said the measure would reduce legal exposure for employers. The Nevada Department of Agriculture testified neutral and emphasized the long history of range herding and the difficulty of finding skilled domestic herders.

What the bill does not decide The committee record contains no formal vote on SB204 at the hearing. Sponsors described SB204 as a first step to reconcile state law with federal H‑2A rules for range livestock production; they said it is not intended to resolve all larger questions about domestic labor or federal policy. The presenters asked the committee to advance the bill for further work.

Outlook No committee action was recorded at the hearing. Sponsors and ranching groups asked the committee to move SB204 forward so the Legislature can address the statutory gap identified by Judge Jones and the dismissed Castillo litigation.