Case Background
Zezy R. Farfan, a Clark County, Nevada resident with an intellectual disability, sued Station Casinos, LLC and NP Red Rock, LLC, doing business as Red Rock Casino, Resort and Spa, for disability discrimination in employment. The case began in the Clark County District Court in June 2020 and was removed to federal Court in August 2020 by the Defendants, who argued the complaint raised federal questions under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Farfan participated in the Opportunity Village Pathway to Work program, a not-for-profit initiative that places adults with intellectual and related disabilities into real on-the-job training at community businesses, with the goal of competitive employment. Through that program, she worked for six months at Boulder Station — a property within the Station Casinos family — in the Internal Maintenance Department as a porter. Her duties included cleaning biohazard spills and contaminated areas, picking up and removing trash and broken glass, and maintaining the cleanliness of assigned areas. Boulder Station management recognized her for outstanding performance as early as her first month on the job.
At the conclusion of her Pathway to Work assignment, Farfan applied on or about February 1, 2018, for an open porter position at Red Rock Casino, Resort and Spa — another Station Casinos property. The position was a part-time, 24-to-30-hour-per-week seasonal role cleaning the women's restrooms in the pool area, duties that aligned directly with the work she had been performing at Boulder Station.
Cause
Farfan alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), and Nevada Revised Statute § 613.330. She brought four causes of action against the Defendants: failure to hire and failure to accommodate based on her actual disability under the ADA; failure to hire based on a perceived disability under the ADA; and two parallel claims under Nevada state law mirroring both the actual and perceived disability theories.
Injury
Farfan alleged that Red Rock Casino refused to hire her because of her intellectual disability — both as she actually had it and as the casino perceived it. She further alleged the casino never engaged in the mandatory interactive process required under the ADA to explore whether a reasonable accommodation was possible. The result, she alleged, was an adverse employment action when Red Rock withdrew her conditional job offer. She also alleged emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish, along with lost wages and economic harm flowing from the Defendants' conduct.
Damages Sought
Farfan sought money damages in excess of $15,000, including compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages; back pay and lost wages; emotional distress damages; attorneys' fees and expert witness fees; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and equitable relief including reinstatement to the position she was denied.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Zezy R. Farfan | Zezy R. Farfan, by and through her Guardian, Elizabeth V. Alva
· Counsel for Plaintiff: James P. Kemp, Esq. | Victoria L. Neal, Esq.
Defendants: Station Casinos, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; NP Red Rock, LLC, d/b/a Red Rock Casino, Resort and Spa, a Nevada Limited Liability Company
· Counsel for Defendants: Scott M. Mahoney, Esq
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Plaintiff's counsel built the case around a straightforward sequence of events. Farfan had successfully performed the same work for six months at a sister property. Red Rock extended her a conditional offer on or about February 13, 2018, gave her paperwork for a background check and fingerprinting, and told her she would be scheduled for orientation once those were complete. Then, on February 21, 2018, the casino called her back in for a third interview — this time with Human Resources — specifically to ask whether she needed any accommodations because of her disability. The very next day, February 22, 2018, Red Rock's Director of Housekeeping, Antonio Nunez, called Farfan, told her she was not qualified for the position, gave no further explanation, refused to answer her questions, and ended the call abruptly. Counsel argued this one-day turnaround between the disability accommodation interview and the withdrawal of the offer was not a coincidence.
Defense counsel denied all liability. On the conditional offer, the defense argued that if any Red Rock employee did extend one to Farfan, they did so without the required approval from the department director and Human Resources, meaning it was never a valid offer to begin with. On Station Casinos specifically, the defense argued that company had no prospective employment relationship with Farfan at all, and therefore bore no legal responsibility for what happened at Red Rock. The defense further maintained that Farfan was not qualified for the Seasonal Pool Porter position, and that even if any discriminatory conduct had occurred — which the defense denied — punitive damages could not stand because such conduct would have been contrary to the Defendants' own workplace anti-discrimination policies.
Claims
First Cause of Action — ADA: Actual Disability (Failure to Hire / Failure to Accommodate)
Farfan argued she was a person with a disability under the ADA, with an intellectual disability that substantially limited her brain functioning and communication skills. She contended she was qualified to perform the essential functions of the porter position with or without a reasonable accommodation — a point she said was proven by six months of successful work in the same role at Boulder Station. She alleged the Defendants never engaged in the good-faith interactive process the ADA requires employers to undertake before turning away a disabled applicant.
Second Cause of Action — ADA: Perceived Disability (Failure to Hire)
Farfan alleged that even setting aside the extent of her actual disability, Red Rock perceived and regarded her as disabled. The February 21, 2018 interview — held for the sole purpose of asking whether she needed disability accommodations — was the evidence she pointed to. Red Rock withdrew her offer the following day. Farfan argued there was a direct causal link between that interview and the rescission, with one occurring immediately after the other.
Third and Fourth Causes of Action — Nevada State Law
Farfan brought parallel claims under Nevada Revised Statute § 613.330, alleging that the same conduct underlying the ADA violations also violated Nevada's anti-discrimination law. The complaint noted that Nevada Courts look to federal Courts for guidance when applying the state statute.
Defense
The defense denied every allegation of wrongful conduct. Station Casinos maintained it bore no liability because Farfan had no employment relationship — prospective or otherwise — with that entity, and that only Red Rock was involved in the hiring process. Red Rock's defense was that Farfan was not qualified for the role, that the conditional offer was extended without proper internal authorization, and that the February 21, 2018 interview was a legitimate step to determine whether she could perform the job — not an act of discrimination. The defense also noted that during that interview Red Rock observed Farfan appeared intellectually challenged, and the company's position was that it regarded her as unable to perform the necessary job duties with or without a reasonable accommodation. The defense further argued that Farfan's claims were subject to the statutory damages cap under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3) and that she failed to mitigate her damages.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned its verdict on October 23, 2025. The verdict form, which named NP Red Rock, LLC d/b/a Red Rock Casino, Resort and Spa as the Defendant, put three liability questions to the jury — and the jury answered yes to all three.
The jury found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Red Rock did not hire Farfan because of her actual disability. It also found that Red Rock did not hire her because of how it perceived her disability. And it found that Red Rock failed to reasonably accommodate her disability.
On compensatory damages, the jury found Farfan was entitled to damages under each of the three theories it accepted. For the failure to hire her due to her actual disability, the jury set compensatory damages at $400,000. For the failure to hire her due to how her disability was perceived, the jury again set compensatory damages at $400,000. For the failure to reasonably accommodate her, the jury set compensatory damages at $400,000. The jury also found Farfan was entitled to punitive damages and set that figure at $2,500,000.
Judgment
Following the jury verdict, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada entered a judgment on April 20, 2026, in favor of Farfan on all claims. The judgment, which named Station Casinos, LLC et al. as Defendants, awarded Farfan $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, and $20,000 in back pay plus any accrued interest in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The judgment was signed by Clerk Debra K. Kempi.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
