Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee hears SB406 to limit money damages over spring 2020 instructional changes

Senators on the Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee on April 1 heard testimony on Senate Bill 406, a measure that would shield Nevada institutions of higher education from money-damage claims tied to tuition and fees for the spring 2020 academic term if the challenged acts or omissions were reasonably related to public health directives and performed in good faith.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Rochelle Wynne, representing Senate District 3, introduced SB406 and turned the presentation to James Martinez, vice chancellor and chief general counsel for the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE). Martinez described the national context and the bill’s limits. “Now, the basis for those lawsuits are contractual,” Martinez said, and he told the committee the measure “provides immunity to institutions for money damages” only for claims arising from tuition and fees for the spring 2020 semester.

The bill, as described to the committee, would not bar equitable relief, would apply only to monetary damages, would be limited to acts or omissions reasonably related to public health and safety, would require that the acts be performed in good faith to comply with emergency directives, and would sunset within 10 years. An amendment before the committee includes a legislative declaration identifying three state interests: protecting the state treasury, ensuring stability and sustainability of educational institutions, and encouraging future compliance with governmental directives during public-health emergencies.

Why it matters: proponents said the measure addresses the risk of large damage awards tied to decisions made during the early COVID-19 emergency, while opponents said it could deny students and other claimants the ability to seek redress. Senator Rochelle Wynne and legal testifiers argued the bill is narrowly targeted; others on the committee and callers disagreed about whether the stated state interests justify immunity.

What the bill would do and would not do SB406, as presented in committee, would: - Limit immunity to money damages for claims that arise from tuition and fees paid for the spring 2020 semester. - Apply only to acts or omissions that were reasonably related to public health and safety and performed in good faith to comply with emergency directives. - Allow equitable remedies to proceed (the testifiers emphasized that the bill would not block non-monetary relief). - Define “educational services” broadly (instruction, academic support services and student services), but testifiers said that definition functions inside the bill’s other temporal and causation limits.

James Martinez explained the interaction of the terms and limits: the definition of educational services is not a standalone expansion, he said, because any claim must meet all the bill’s other restrictions. He told the committee that the definition was included so that the statute could account for the range of fees NSHE institutions collect (for example, campus facilities or program fees) and to avoid ambiguity about what fees might be implicated.

Committee questions and legal framing Committee counsel and legal staff explained that the bill’s legislative declaration of a “compelling state interest” is intended to help if the statute is challenged in court. Committee counsel described how courts use standards of review and said courts will consider a legislature’s stated interests and declarations when reviewing statutes. James Martinez cited recent case law, telling the committee that “in Dutra v. [Trustees of] Boston University” the First Circuit in 2024 recognized a legitimate governmental interest in encouraging future compliance with public-health orders.

Several senators probed the constitutionality and scope. Senator Krasner said he is generally opposed to immunity from civil liability and asked the sponsors to justify the three state interests listed in the amendment. Senator Krasner said, “I am opposed to giving anybody immunity from civil liability because I think the people need to have the ability to redress their grievances.” Senators asked whether the language could be used more broadly than intended; sponsors and counsel repeatedly said the text is narrowly tailored to the spring 2020 window and to monetary claims tied to tuition and fees.

Public testimony: supporters and opponents In-person and phone testimony reflected divided views. - Doug Unger, chapter president of the Nevada Faculty Alliance at UNLV, testified in support and said faculty “made heroic efforts to shift to remote technology on short notice” and called lawsuits “opportunistic.” - Callers in opposition argued that students and other claimants should retain the right to seek damages. Tammy Romo, calling in opposition, suggested that mandated public-health policies and vaccine requirements had harmed students and said those harmed should be compensated. Dora Martinez of the Nevada Disability Action Coalition said disability resource centers and services were inadequate during remote operations and urged the committee not to pass the bill. - Jim DeGraffenreid, a member of the Nevada Republican National Committee, said that if the measure is narrowly limited it undercuts the argument that protecting the treasury is a “compelling interest,” and he warned against setting a precedent for government immunity.

Questions raised by witnesses and senators included whether the definition of educational services could cover clinical and practicum requirements that cannot be delivered remotely, how disability services were affected, and whether the bill would preclude claims related to vaccine mandates (sponsors said it would not — the bill is limited to claims that arise from tuition and fees for spring 2020).

Timing, scope and additional details Committee exchange noted that over 200 similar class-action suits were filed nationwide, and one senator referenced a reported $45,000,000 settlement offer in an ongoing case. Sponsors repeatedly emphasized the bill’s temporal limit — spring 2020 only — and the bill’s limitation to monetary damages tied to tuition and fees, with equitable relief left intact.

Outcome and other committee business The committee closed the hearing on SB406 after testimony and did not take a final vote on the bill during the session. Later in the meeting the committee paused regular business for a lighthearted April Fools’ announcement from Vice Chair Edgar Flores and approved a motion to thank staff for their work; the committee took that motion by voice vote.

Next steps: The committee record contains the hearing and public testimony; no final committee action on SB406 was recorded in the transcript provided.