Background
Hannah Fischer, a nursing student at Southeast Community College (SCC) in Lincoln, Nebraska, filed suit in December 2023 challenging SCC’s COVID-19 proof-of-vaccination policy. Fischer alleged that SCC’s policy prevented her from attending certain clinical courses after she presented a physician’s recommendation against vaccination on medical grounds, and that SCC placed her in clinical rotations at facilities that would not accommodate her unvaccinated status. Ultimately, Fischer alleged she was removed from the nursing program in fall 2022 after SCC determined she had not completed a valid perioperative observation requirement.
An amended complaint filed in June 2024 added plaintiff Conan Thomas, a prospective student who had begun applying to SCC’s paramedic certificate program but declined to seek a medical or religious exemption from the vaccination requirement. The amended complaint asserted four claims — breach of implied contract, violation of due process and equal protection, negligence, and ultra vires conduct — and sought damages, injunctive relief, and changes to Fischer’s academic record.
The Lancaster County District Court dismissed the amended complaint in November 2024, finding the contract and negligence claims barred by sovereign immunity (SCC being a political subdivision of Nebraska), and concluding that the constitutional claims failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court denied further leave to amend as futile. Fischer and Thomas timely moved to alter or amend the judgment, which the district court overruled in January 2025, and they then appealed.
The Court’s Holding
As a threshold matter, the Nebraska Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction over the appeal. Although the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the November 13, 2024 dismissal judgment, the court found that the plaintiffs’ post-judgment motion — filed within 10 days of the judgment and expressly seeking substantive alteration under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1329 — qualified as a motion to alter or amend that tolled the appeal deadline. The 30-day appeal window therefore ran from January 27, 2025, when the district court overruled the motion, making the February 20, 2025 notice of appeal timely.
On the merits, the court declined to conduct a full appellate review because Fischer and Thomas’ brief contained only a single, sweeping assignment of error — that the district court “erred in granting [SCC’s] motion to dismiss” — without separately identifying the particular errors or issues for each claim. The court reaffirmed that such a generalized assignment is insufficient under Nebraska appellate rules, and that argument-section subheadings cannot substitute for properly stated assignments of error. Rather than dismiss the appeal outright, the court exercised its discretion to review the record for plain error.
Applying the plain error standard — requiring error that is plainly evident from the record and whose correction is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or damage to the fairness of the judicial process — the court found none. It affirmed the district court’s judgment of dismissal in full as to all claims.
Key Takeaways
- A blanket assignment of error that merely states the trial court “erred in granting the motion to dismiss” is too generalized to preserve any specific error for review under Nebraska appellate rules; each distinct error must be separately and concisely assigned.
- Argument-section subheadings in a brief, however detailed, cannot cure a deficient assignment of error — a rule the Nebraska Supreme Court applies consistently and without exception.
- A post-judgment motion’s substance controls whether it qualifies as a motion to alter or amend under § 25-1329, not its title or how vigorously it is argued at the hearing; a timely, substantive motion tolls the appeal deadline regardless.
- Claims against a Nebraska community college for breach of implied contract and negligence based on misrepresentation or deceit are barred by sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act absent express statutory authorization.
- Allegations that a community college enforced a COVID-19 vaccination requirement — even one with medical and religious exemptions — did not state cognizable procedural due process, substantive due process, or equal protection (“class of one”) claims on these facts.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Nebraska’s strict enforcement of appellate briefing rules, making clear that practitioners who present multi-claim appeals must assign each alleged error specifically and separately — failure to do so risks limiting review to the narrow plain error standard or forfeiting review entirely. The ruling serves as a cautionary reminder that procedural precision in appellate practice is as important as the underlying merits.
On the substantive side, the affirmance leaves intact the district court’s conclusion that a Nebraska community college’s COVID-19 vaccination policy — including its clinical placement decisions and program removal procedures — did not give rise to actionable constitutional or tort claims under the facts alleged. For institutions and students, the case underscores that sovereign immunity remains a formidable barrier to contract and negligence suits against public community colleges in Nebraska, and that allegations of unequal treatment in vaccination-related academic decisions face a high pleading bar to survive dismissal.