Lopez v. Catholic Charities, 998 N.W.2d 31

Sandra Lopez, an employee of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Omaha, was subjected to a surprise active shooter drill orchestrated by the employer's leadership.
Lopez alleged she suffered both physical (back injury) and psychological (fear, depression) injuries as a result.
She filed suit in district court claiming assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking damages outside of Nebraska's workers' compensation system.
Catholic Charities moved to dismiss, arguing the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) provided the exclusive remedy for Lopez’s injuries.
The district court granted the motion, holding that the exclusivity provision of the Act barred tort claims against the employer for work-related injuries.
Lopez appealed, asserting exceptions should apply for intentional torts, constitutional rights, and public policy reasons.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity	Intentional acts by employer should allow suit outside the Act	Act bars all torts for work-related injuries, regardless of intent	Exclusivity is an affirmative defense; Act bars tort even if specific intent
Definition of "Accident" under the Act	Injuries from specific intent are not “accidents” and thus not covered by the Act	Accident should be viewed from employee’s perspective; surprise drill injury was “unexpected”	"Accident" is defined from employee’s view; injuries here are accidents under Act
Constitutional (Art. I, § 13) Challenge	Bar from tort and workers’ comp would violate open courts/adequate remedy under constitution	Did not directly address; argued procedures not followed for constitutional challenge	Court did not reach merits—plaintiff failed proper constitutional challenge process
Public Policy	Denying tort remedy for employer’s misconduct defies public policy	Statutes, not courts, define public policy; legislature has balanced policy via the Act	Policy is a legislative matter, not a basis to override Act’s exclusivity

Plock v. Crossroads Joint Venture, 239 Neb. 211 (workers' compensation exclusivity is an affirmative defense)
Abbott v. Gould, Inc., 232 Neb. 907 (prior case declining to create intentional tort exception to exclusivity)
Estate of Teague v. Crossroads Co-op Assn., 286 Neb. 1 (reaffirming exclusivity even when employer knew injury was substantially certain)
Dutcher v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs., 312 Neb. 405 (explains the workers’ compensation bargain and exclusivity)
Zach v. Nebraska State Patrol, 273 Neb. 1 (discusses compensability of mental injuries under the Act)