Bill would give schools limited immunity if they adopt and follow trauma‑informed harassment protocols; survivors urge mandatory training

Assembly Bill 465 (listed in the hearing as AB 4 65) would create an affirmative defense to civil liability for public school districts, charter schools and institutions of higher education if they adopt, publish and follow a specified trauma‑informed protocol for responding to complaints of harassment or power‑based violence. Sponsors told the Senate Committee on Education on April 30, 2025, that the measure is intended to encourage districts to develop clear, victim‑centered procedures and to provide a legal incentive for consistent response.

Under the amended language presented to the committee, a district, charter or NSHE institution seeking the defense would need an adopted protocol that sets out specific measures, assigns responsibilities, protects complainants from retraumatization and ensures timely, trauma‑informed responses. The defense would apply even if subsequent incidents occur, provided the entity adopted the protocol and followed it. The amendment would require public reporting of adopted policies — including submission to the interim education committee by March 2026 for K–12 districts and a similar requirement for NSHE campuses.

Assemblymember Miller, the sponsor, said the proposal is aimed at creating accountability and coherent responses across districts and campuses. "This defense applies even if subsequent incidents occur as long as the district's developed protocol meets the established criteria and the protocol is followed," Miller told the committee.

Survivors and advocacy organizations gave strongly personal testimony in support of the bill and urged training and accountability. Sofia Comis described a high‑school sexual assault she said school officials failed to address promptly; she said adults in the building "did nothing" and later forced her to retell the assault in ways that increased her trauma. "When schools mishandle cases of power‑based violence, they don't fail — they actively cause more harm," Comis said.

Reagan Comas, speaking as a parent and as vice chair of a K–12 committee on response to power‑based violence, described inconsistent responses and a lack of follow‑up after district investigators told her they would report back to the family. "It's been over two years and I'm still waiting," she said, urging that adopted protocols be followed and timelines enforced.

Supporters included the Nevada State Education Association, the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, and the Nevada Faculty Alliance, which said NSHE already has similar policies in principle and that the bill would encourage data collection and transparency. Several district‑level organizations — the Nevada Association of School Boards and the Nevada Association of School Superintendents — said they were neutral on the most recent amendment while they review the revised text.

Committee members asked how the immunity would be applied and who would determine whether a district followed its protocol. Sponsor testimony said the immunity is contingent on the establishment, publication and adherence to the protocol; if the protocol was not followed, the immunity would not apply and normal liability rules could be invoked. Members also pressed for clarity about training and implementation; Miller and witnesses said districts would determine the operational details of who delivers training and how responsibilities are assigned, and that larger districts could leverage outside resources.

Supporters urged the committee to require mandatory trauma‑informed training and stronger timelines for response; neutral stakeholders asked for more time to vet the amended language. The hearing record closed with multiple survivor stories and the sponsor’s assurance that immunity is conditioned on following the adopted procedures.