Recent sexual harassment scandals have emerged in nearly every level of Nevada governance, and have left many wondering just what, if any, policies are in place to prevent abusive behavior.

In the wake of the Clark County Commission moving to possibly update its policy in March, The Nevada Independent requested copies of anti-discrimination and sexual harassment policies by six of the state’s largest local governments — Clark County, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Henderson, Washoe County and Reno.

We also decided to look at sexual harassment policies in the wake of multiple high-profile public officials in Nevada alone leaving office or facing investigations after the emergence of sexual harassment accusations.

When grouped together, it’s easy to see common elements among the sexual harassment prevention policies, but each individual municipality handles its approach toward preventing harassment slightly differently.

Most notably, Democratic Rep. Ruben Kihuen said he would not run for re-election in December 2017, following multiple accounts of women who accused him of inappropriate behavior during his congressional run and as a state senator. Multiple accusations of inappropriate behavior and conduct by Democratic state Sen. Mark Manendo, as well as an internal investigation by an outside law firm, led the longtime legislator to resign from office in 2017.

But local governments aren’t immune to publicized incidents of harassment. Accusations of sexual harassment led to the ouster of Reno city manager Andrew Clinger in 2016 (an independent investigation found no evidence of sexual harassment, but said Clinger had other issues as a manager), and more recently, Clark County hired an outside attorney in March to investigate claims that county Public Defender Phil Kohn acted inappropriately towards female employees. The Las Vegas Review-Journal also reported in January that a sexual harassment probe had forced out former Henderson police chief Patrick Moers.

Below, we’ve identified several common aspects of the anti-sexual harassment policies of the six municipalities, as well as areas where they don’t converge.

Policy age

Reno has the oldest policy of the six municipalities, last updated in February 2011. The rest, outside of North Las Vegas have all been updated within the last three years.

• Reno: February 2011
• North Las Vegas: February 2013
• Clark County: April 2015
• Washoe County: May 2015
• Las Vegas: June 2017
• Henderson: August 2017

Confronting harassers

North Las Vegas is one of just two sampled jurisdictions that explicitly tells the targets of harassment or discrimination to first ask the offender “politely, yet firmly” to stop. Victims should then proceed to tell the offender that the behavior caused them to feel “offended, uncomfortable or intimidated.” Employees also have the option of telling an immediate supervisor or department manager if they do not feel comfortable confronting the offender.

The city of Reno, which last updated its policy in 2011, contains a similar provision, recommending that any employee who “feels he or she may have been a victim of discrimination or harassment is encouraged to put the offending person on notice that his or her activities are unwelcome, undesirable, and/or offensive.”

Barrett Morris, UNLV’s Office of Compliance director, said making the employee confront the offender is typically not recommended.

“I would never start with telling the person to go back and tell the person to go knock it off,” Morris said. “If someone came to my office and said 'Hey, I'm being sexually harassed.' and I looked at that person and said 'Did you tell the person who was sexually harassing you to stop?' I would have failed at my job. I am sending the person who is being subjected to inappropriate behavior — by the standards of my policy and procedure — I'm sending them back to confront the individual that they probably are not comfortable confronting.”

Prohibited behavior

While all municipalities prohibit discrimination, they differ in identifying which factors or individual characteristics are not allowed.

North Las Vegas, for example, prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, race, color, religion, national origin, age, physical or mental disability or legally protected activities.

Other municipalities have gone beyond that list to include other protected statuses or characteristics. Clark County’s proposed new policy would include all of the above factors, but would also include pregnancy, gender identity or expression or genetic information.

Henderson’s list of protected classes includes all of those included by North Las Vegas, adding gender identity and expression, veteran status or status as HIV positive. Las Vegas has a similar list, and also mentions political affiliation and marital status as protected characteristics.

Reno employs a broad mix of protected characteristics — race, ancestry, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age (40 years old and above), disability, veteran status, citizenship, political affiliation or any other status protected by law.

Overall, four of the municipalities specifically mention gender identity as a characteristic that cannot be used as the basis for discrimination, while two — Reno and North Las Vegas — don’t mention it. It’s likely that protections for gender identity and expression also apply at those municipalities, as state lawmakers in 2013 approved a law adding gender identity and expression to the list of unlawful employment discrimination.

Investigative process

All of the sampled local governments have a relatively similar multistep investigative process into complaints of discrimination or harassment, though some differ in which offices get involved. All of the municipalities note the violation of the policy could result in discipline, up to and including termination of employment.

Reno’s policy lays out a 16-step process where complaints are filed with the city’s Human Resources Director, who is ordered to work with the city attorney in investigating complaints and interviewing the victim and target of any complaint.

North Las Vegas requires supervisors who receive harassment complaints to file reports in writing, confer the alleged harasser and then to contact the human resources department if further harassment continues. Henderson requires victims to submit complaints to their supervisor, human resources department or city manager, and states that an investigation will occur.

Clark County also has a similarly layered process, where complaints are filed with the county’s Office of Diversity, with investigations being conducted by either the office or an outside firm. The policy requires the county manager to appoint an “Equal Opportunity Committee” to determine if any violations of policy occur and what actions should be taken.

Washoe County notes that any investigation may be conducted internally or by outside counsel, requiring creation of a confidential written summary and allowing the department head to make a “final determination” on any necessary corrective action or discipline.

The city of Las Vegas requires complaints to be sent to supervisors, managers or the city Human Resources department, and promises that investigations will occur “promptly and confidentiality.” The city requires any decision on discipline to include input from Human Resources, the department head, the city attorney’s office and city manager’s office, with the city manager given power to make a final decision.

Most of the municipalities don’t mention a timeframe for completing an investigation, but those that do include Reno (two weeks) and Washoe County (30 business days).