Bill would permit lawsuits against public schools for child sexual assault

Lawsuits could be brought against public schools for some instances of child sexual assault under a measure discussed by the Judiciary Committee March 26.

LB156, introduced by Lincoln Sen. Danielle Conrad, would permit civil claims to be filed if a child is sexually assaulted in certain circumstances. Such claims currently are not allowed under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act or the State Tort Claims Act.

Under the bill, individuals could sue a public school if a child is sexually assaulted:
● on school grounds;
● in a school-owned vehicle;
● in a vehicle used for school purposes by a school employee; or
● at a school-sponsored activity or sporting event.

Conrad said the proposal is a narrower version of a previous measure that was passed on the final day of the 2024 session. That bill was subsequently vetoed by Gov. Jim Pillen, leaving the Legislature no opportunity to attempt an override.

In his veto letter, Pillen said the measure was too broad and would burden taxpayers. In response, Conrad said, she took “the most narrow approach possible” in drafting LB156 to help ensure survivors of child sexual assault have access to legal recourse when schools fail to protect them.

Lauren Micek Vargas, chief executive officer of Education Rights Counsel, testified in support of the bill.

Micek Vargas said she has represented several children in the past decade who were sexually trafficked at school. In such cases, she said, abusers often hold positions of power — coaches and teachers, for example — which gives them the opportunity to groom students.

“We aren’t asking for floodgates of litigation,” Micek Vargas said. “We’re asking for our most vulnerable students to be protected, and we’re asking for your assistance.”

Wesley Sime, a licensed psychologist, also supported the measure. Many survivors of sexual assault and abuse are left with lifelong trauma and expenses, he said. LB156 would provide a way for survivors to seek damages, Sime said, which could provide financial relief from costs incurred as a result of their assault, such as mental health services.

Cameron Guenzel testified in opposition to the proposal on behalf of the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys, saying the bill would not go far enough. While supportive of the intent behind LB156, Guenzel said lawmakers should not create “carveouts” that apply only to certain crimes or political subdivisions.

“Rather than focusing on the exception, we need to reevaluate the overall rule,” Guenzel said.

Representing the Nebraska Association of County Officials, the Nebraska County Attorneys Association and the Nebraska Sheriffs Association, Elaine Menzel also opposed the bill.

While LB156 does not allow lawsuits against counties, she said, counties that operate juvenile detention facilities are required to provide education for the youth in their custody. As introduced, the bill could categorize these facilities as schools, Menzel said, which could unintentionally impact Douglas, Lancaster, Madison and Sarpy counties.

Jen Huxoll, chief of the Civil Litigation Bureau of the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office, testified against the bill, saying the measure would erode sovereign immunity protections that help safeguard taxpayer dollars from being spent on claims arising from criminal activity.

Each time sovereign immunity is waived, she said, it becomes easier to undermine taxpayer protections for future claims.

“The result is potentially unlimited exposure to claims for damages against the state of Nebraska and its political subdivisions,” Huxoll said.

The committee took no immediate action on LB156.