Assembly committee hears bill to codify 45‑day service requirement for unemployment judicial review (AB12)

Carson City — The Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor heard testimony Feb. 20 on Assembly Bill 12, a measure from the Employment Security Division that seeks to clarify the statutory service requirement for petitions for judicial review in unemployment insurance cases.

Deputy Director Troy Jordan, who previously served as senior legal counsel for ESD, told the committee the bill is aimed at reducing procedural dismissals and making the rules accessible to claimants, many of whom are self‑represented. Jordan described a series of Nevada Supreme Court decisions and legislative actions that, in his view, made the 45‑day service rule mandatory; he said the bill “conforms it to the Supreme Court language” and would reduce the number of cases dismissed on technical service grounds.

Why it matters: failure to meet service deadlines has been a frequent reason for dismissal of petitions for judicial review, Jordan said, and many petitioners at that stage have exhausted agency appeals and are representing themselves.

Jordan reviewed the legal background he said prompted the bill, including Washoe County v. Otto (2012), later decisions including Spar and Chopra, the legislature’s special‑session amendment to the statute and recent rulings that Jordan characterized as confirming the 45‑day deadline’s jurisdictional effect. He told the committee the bill “puts it in black and white as we could based on the case law.”

Support testimony came from labor and business representatives. Misty Grimmer, representing the Nevada Resort Association, said employers favor clarity in deadlines; Nick Schneider of the Vegas Chamber thanked DETR for outreach and called the clarification helpful.

Opposition testimony was led by Jamie Cogburn on behalf of the Nevada Justice Association, who urged extending the 45‑day window to protect pro se filers who often request fee waivers or other accommodations when filing petitions with the court. Cogburn said the Nokley case involved a pro se filer and argued that petitions should be decided on their merits rather than dismissed for a technical service error.

Committee members and the bill sponsor emphasized that the measure is intended to codify and clarify existing case law rather than to change substantive rights. No committee vote was recorded at the hearing; the committee closed the hearing and moved to the next bill.

The committee received no public callers in opposition or neutral on the bill during the broadcasted hearing portion recorded in the transcript.