Assembly hearing: ‘SAFER Act’ would require schools to adopt harassment response policies, designate confidential employees

Assembly Bill 465, introduced in the Assembly Committee on Education by Assemblymember Bridal Miller, would require school districts, charter schools and Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) institutions to adopt comprehensive harassment policies, designate confidential employees to receive disclosures, provide trauma‑informed supportive measures for victims, prohibit retaliation and supply a private right of action in specified circumstances.

Riley Svenson of the Nevada Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence and Elizabeth Tang, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center, framed the bill as closing gaps that prevent survivors from getting help. Tang told the committee that current federal court standards and some state laws have high proof thresholds (for example, requiring harassment to be both "severe and pervasive") and that some courts will not require institutions to act when harassment occurs off campus or online. The SAFER Act would require schools to respond when conduct — on or off campus, in‑person or online — negatively affects a victim’s ability to participate in or benefit from the educational program.

The bill uses the term "harassment" to include power‑based violence and would make districts civilly liable when they have notice of harassment and fail to act, while also providing an affirmative defense if a district follows required policies and timelines. The text requires each district and NSHE campus to designate at least one confidential employee who receives disclosures and provides information on available supportive measures; confidential employees would receive trauma‑informed training. Supporters and several survivors testified that schools often lack consistent response protocols and that mandated, trauma‑informed supports and designated confidential staff would reduce the retraumatization survivors described.

Opponents included Washoe County School District and the Nevada System of Higher Education counsel, who said the state already has anti‑bullying statutes and federal Title IX and Title VI obligations and cautioned that AB 465’s definitions and private‑liability provisions could expand exposure for districts and institutions for off‑campus conduct and third‑party actors. Washoe County said Nevada already requires investigation and supportive measures and raised concerns about broader civil liability and litigation costs; NSHE counsel asked the Legislature to allow the ongoing Regents task force to finish its work and flagged potential conflicts with academic rules and federal financial aid protections.

Survivors and advocates gave detailed testimony describing traumatic experiences and inconsistent school responses. Multiple witnesses urged mandatory trauma‑informed training for confidential employees and clear timelines for actions. Sponsor Miller said she is willing to work with stakeholders to refine language and to address implementation concerns.

The committee held extended discussion on definitions, the scope of civil liability, how many confidential employees should be required (per campus, per zone or per district), and how the bill intersects with existing state bullying law. No committee vote was taken during the hearing; the sponsor indicated a willingness to accept amendments to clarify definitions and implementation mechanics.