Written by Brandon Born and Jennifer (“Jen”) Fornetti
“Shift jamming” isn’t a term you’ll find in most legal textbooks, but ignoring it can quickly lead to miscalculating employee wages in Nevada. For attorneys, this issue matters because it implicates wage-and-hour law and creates potential legal exposure.
This scheduling quirk, common in the 24/7 world of hospitality, healthcare, and security, occurs when closely stacked shifts merge, spanning more than eight hours within a 24-hour period. While the shifts appear compliant individually, Nevada’s unique daily overtime rules may turn a standard schedule into a major liability. Because these overlaps often go unnoticed in the data, they regularly escape notice until litigation. For litigators, spotting a “jammed” shift early isn’t just about compliance; it’s about accurately valuing the claim before the payroll records prove you wrong.
Daily overtime basics
Most understand that daily overtime must be paid to employees earning less than 1.5 times minimum wage ($18/hour) and working more than eight hours in a day, under NRS 608.018(b)(1). But this straightforward rule becomes more complex because a “workday” is a 24-hour period that begins when the employee starts their shift, not the calendar day. An otherwise compliant shift on the next calendar day may still trigger daily overtime if it falls within the prior shift’s 24-hour “workday” and pushes total hours over eight. Employers must track employees’ “workday” and “workweek,” as Nevada law requires paying the more employee-favorable overtime calculation between daily or weekly.
In practice
Shift jamming can be easy to miss. An employee working a 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. closing shift and returning for an opening shift at 8:00 a.m .the next morning appears compliant, but when viewed within a 24-hour “workday” period, these hours overlap to create daily overtime requirements. The issue is not how long employees work, but how their shifts are structured.
Why it matters
This distinction matters in Nevada. Under the closing-to-opening shift scenario, all hours worked after the eight-hour closing shift until 2:00 p.m. the next day count as daily overtime and must be paid at 1.5 times the regular rate, even though their shifts were compliant in isolation. Employers relying on calendar-day tracking or weekly summaries may never see the problem until it is reconstructed from payroll data in litigation.
Where it appears
These issues are most often found in industries with continuous operations. However, any workplace with hourly employees using flexible or back-to-back scheduling is exposed to the same risk under Nevada’s unique daily overtime rules.
Practical takeaways
Litigators should look beyond payroll summaries and request raw time data early, watching for overlapping shifts that may alter damages calculations and overall case valuation. Practitioners advising employers should stress the benefits of proactive auditing to ensure that scheduling practices beyond their payroll systems conform with Nevada’s daily overtime rules. Seemingly minor scheduling decisions can compound into significant liability when repeated over time.
In Nevada wage-and-hour analysis, the biggest risks do not come from employees’ longest shifts, but rather the shifts that overlap just enough to go unnoticed.
About the authors
Brandon Bornis an associate at Fisher Phillips in Las Vegas, where he represents employers in employment litigation and advises on workplace compliance.
Jennifer (“Jen”) Fornetti is a partner at Fisher Phillips in Las Vegas, representing employers in complex employment matters, including litigation, compliance, and risk management.
About the article
This article was originally published in the Communiqué (May 2026), the official publication of the Clark County Bar Association. See https://clarkcountybar.org/about/member-benefits/communique-2026/communique-may-2026/.
The articles and advertisements appearing in Communiqué magazine do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the CCBA, the CCBA Publications Committee, the editorial board, or the other authors. All legal and other issues discussed are not for the purpose of answering specific legal questions. Attorneys and others are strongly advised to independently research all issues.
© 2026 Clark County Bar Association (CCBA). All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion of this issue is allowed without written permission from the publisher. Editorial policy available upon request.