Recognized since 1995
Las Vegas, Nevada
Employment Law - Management
Labor Law - Management
Litigation - Labor and Employment
Carol Davis Zucker has over twenty years’ experience representing Nevada companies in labor and employment law matters, counseling clients that have included public agencies as well as companies in virtually every Nevada industry, and representing them before trial and appellate courts as well as most federal and state regulatory agencies. In 2001, before the United States Supreme Court, she was lead victorious counsel in the sexual harassment-retaliation case of Clark County School District vs. Breeden, 121 S. Ct. 1508 (2001).
As part of her philosophy that businesses are better served by avoiding litigation, Ms. Zucker has long focused upon advising companies on the implementation of sound human resources policies and practices and training in sexual harassment prevention, employment law, and union avoidance.
Ms. Zucker was recently recognized as a Leading Lawyer in Labor and Employment Law by Chambers USA client guide, a "Super-Lawyer" for Mountain States Super-Lawyers, and has been listed in Best Lawyers in America since 1994. She presently serves as a member of the Nevada Board of Bar Examiners; Chair of the Nevada State Bar's Labor and Employment Law section; a Master of the Howard E. McKibben Nevada Inn of Court; a member of the Labor and Employment Law and Litigation Sections of the American Bar Association; a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation; and a member of the International Association of Defense Counsel. She also serves as an arbitrator.
Contact & Links
- Lawyer Page: https://kzalaw.com/our-attorneys/carol-davis-zucker/
- 3000 West Charleston Boulevard, Suite Three
Las Vegas, NV 89102
- University of California, Berkeley School of Law, J.D., graduated 1983
- University of Texas at San Antonio, B.A., graduated 1980
Named "Lawyer of the Year" by Best Lawyers® for:
- Labor Law - Management, Las Vegas (2015)
- Litigation - Labor and Employment, Las Vegas (2014)
- Labor Law - Management, Las Vegas (2012)
- Labor and Employment Law, Las Vegas (2011)
Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2023 for work in:
- Employment Law - Management
- Labor Law - Management
- Litigation - Labor and Employment
- Arbitration and Mediation
- Civil Rights
- State and Federal
- Title VII Litigation
Marcoz v. Summa Corporation, 106 Nev. 737, 801 Pl2d 1346 (1990)Carol Davis Zucker was counsel for the successful employer in a case of first impression in Nevada on the tort claim for bad faith discharge from employment. While the Nevada Supreme Court had previous found to exist a narrowly-delineated claim for tortious bad faith discharge where an employee was terminated in order to deprive him of retirement benefits, the Supreme Court in Marcoz significantly limited that tort. The Court held that, where the retirement plan was covered by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (as are most such plans), the tortious discharge claim is preempted by ERISA. The importance of that case is shown by the fact the court has not expaneded the bad faith discharge claim since Marcoz.
Dahl v. MGMMIRAGE, A512447, District Court, Clark County, Nevada.Carol Davis Zucker was co-counsel for the successful employer in obtaining summary judgment in a case involving construction of an executive-level employment contract. The court''''s ruling involved construction and standards of proof of a "just cause" for termination provision. Approximately $1 million was at issue. This is an important precedent for informal citation to district courts.
Breeden v. Clark County School District, 532 U.S. 268 (2001)Carol Davis Zucker was lead counsel for the successful employer before the United States Supreme Court. Winning the case at the Writ of Certiorari stage, the case established imporant precedents for Title VII workplace retaliation cases, including proof standards, as well as sexual harassment cases. The case has become an important precedent (cited frequently in decisions and briefs) defining the role in proof of retaliation of the "timing" element in retaliation cases, holding that where an employer action is contemplated before the employee engages in protected activity, the resulting action is not retaliatory as a matter of law. The Court also held that the plaintiff''s report of alleged sexual harassment was not reasonable as a matter of law, stating that conduct must be "extremely serious" to be considered "sexual harassment."
Your browser is not fully compatible with our automatic printer friendly formatting.
Please use the print button to print this profile page.