rel. Dep't of Prisons, 111 Nev. 420, 424, 892 P.2d 575, 577 (1995). This
court, like the district court, reviews an administrative agency decision for
an abuse of discretion or clear error. See Taylor v. State Dep't of Health &
Human Servs., 129 Nev. , , 314 P.3d 949, 951 (2013). While an
agency's conclusions of law are generally reviewed de novo, its findings of
fact will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Id.; see also NRS
233B.135(3).
NAC 284.646(2)(d) allows for the immediate termination of an
employee who has not appeared for work for three consecutive days
without prior approval. Here, it is undisputed that appellant did not
appear for work as directed despite being cleared to do so. And even if, as
appellant alleges, he informed the warden that he would not work at
Lovelock before his start date, that does not shield appellant from
termination because he failed to receive approval for these absences. NAC
284.646(2)(d). Under these circumstances, and having concluded that
appellant's remaining arguments are without merit, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's conclusion that
appellant's termination would serve the good of the public service. NRS
284.385(1)(a); Taylor, 129 Nev. at , 314 P.3d at 951 (providing that
factual findings will not be disturbed if supported by substantial
evidence); NAC 284.646(2)(d). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's
decision.
It is so ORDERED.
/ Iv% pecLA
Hardesty
, J. Otit , J.
Douglas Cherry
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 194Th
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
David Wasick, Settlement Judge
Jeffrey A Dickerson
Richard Holbrook
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A