The accuser, a long-time employee in the university’s football recruiting program, sued the university’s Board of Supervisors for retaliation under both Title VII and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Her claims stemmed from reports of misconduct within the football program, including allegations that former coaches, players, and staff sexually harassed female employees and students, and that a former assistant coach similarly harassed and assaulted the accuser. This led the accuser to file complaints against the university’s athletic department and the individuals involved in the alleged misconduct. As a result, the accuser alleged that the former head football coach engaged in retaliatory measures against her, such as restructuring her position, excluding her from emails and meetings, increasing her responsibilities without a pay increase, and accusing her of NCAA violations. The accuser filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in April 2021. The university hired a new head football coach in December of that same year. In January 2022, the new head coach proceeded to fire much of the former staff in the football program, which included the accuser, and he did so unaware of the accuser’s pending case. The accuser alleged that her termination was in retaliation for her prior complaints. After the jury returned a verdict for the university, the accuser appealed the denial of her post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial on her Title VII and Title IX retaliation claims.
In Lewis v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ., 134 F.4th 286 (5th Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of the accuser’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial on her Title VII and Title IX termination-retaliation claims. To prevail under either statute, a plaintiff must show engagement in a protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two. See Willis v. Cleco Corp, 749 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2014). Regarding the Title IX claim, the court found that the university had presented sufficient evidence to show that the head coach was unaware of the accuser's complaints against the university. The court concluded that the head coach had been unaware of the accuser’s complaints and had terminated her during a sweeping program overhaul. Therefore, the accuser failed to establish that her protected activity caused her termination. The accuser attempted to point to evidence of the university’s alleged “capture-and-kill” approach to Title IX complaints and its decision to rehire a coach, but the court held she had failed to connect that evidence to the termination decision. The court emphasized that credibility disputes and conflicting testimony were for the jury. See OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. T. Wade Welch & Assocs., 841 F.3d 669, 675-76 (5th Cir. 2016). Regarding the Title VII retaliation claim, the court similarly held that the accuser failed to establish causation based on her April 2021 EEOC charge. Although an administrator was aware of the complaint, the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the head coach eliminated her position as part of a broader restructuring, and the court declined to reweigh the jury’s credibility determinations or inferences.
By Conor Doris [email protected]
Edited By Jace Brown [email protected]
Edited By Callighan Ard [email protected]
Edited By Hayden Mariott [email protected]