Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—5th Cir.: Coach, transferred after snubbing school board, failed to state constitutional claims, (Oct 26, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The events in the case began when a female student at Brownsville Veterans Memorial High School accused the coach’s son of filming and circulating an inappropriate video of her.

A Texas coach and teacher, transferred to a position at another school in the Brownsville Independent School District after he refused to shake hands with several school board members and employees during a meeting to celebrate the successes of a team he coached, failed to state claims of violations of his and his family’s First and Fifth Amendment rights as well as rights secured by the Texas Constitution, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Assuming without deciding that his refusal to shake hands qualified as protected speech, the coach failed to adequately allege that he was speaking as a private citizen rather than in his capacity as a public employee, the appeals court found. A Fifth Amendment claim, regarding a prior school interrogation of the coach’s son, was also properly dismissed. Judge Ho dissented (Lucio v. Brownsville Independent School District, No. 25-40746 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2026)).

Incident with son. The first event in the case began, according to the court, on May 12, 2022, when a female student at Brownsville Veterans Memorial High School accused the coach’s con of filming and circulating an inappropriate video of her to other students at school. The coach and his family alleged that, later that day, the coach was accused of “telling [the female student] not to report [his son’s] action or he would []‘tell her parents.’”

Alleged unlawful interrogation of son. As a result of the incident, the school board and named personnel then seized a phone belonging to the coach, and used by his son, “without a warrant or probable cause.” The principal allegedly ordered a “perp walk” by a police officer, security guards, and other administrators in view of students and teachers, and the board and other named defendants allegedly ordered the coach not to return to work. The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of this incident, the coach’s son “was subjected to detention and illegal interrogation” from 12:45 pm to 4:00 p.m. on May 12.

“[L]etter of sanction.” The coach and his family further allege that, on August 4, 2022, the school district sent a “letter of sanction” to the coach, accusing him of violating school policy when he allegedly threatened the female student. The coach appealed the sanction and filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain evidence relating to the incident, but he alleged that he “was rejected at each step of the process,” and that the incident “put a permanent mark on his records” and “adversely impact[ed] his career as a teacher.”

Family’s concerns. His wife further alleged the incident harmed her reputation and future prospects for a career in law enforcement. The son, for his part, alleged that the “detention and illegal interrogation... labeled him as [a] sex offender,” and that the district “forced him to move schools” on the pretext that he did not reside in the district, negatively affecting his college prospects and athletic career.

Fast-forward to law enforcement coaching accolades. A second event took place over a year later when the coach’s Texas Public Safety Association (TPSA) team attended a state-wide competition to compete in various events relating to law enforcement, such as report writing, building search, anthropology, foot pursuit, and forensics. The coach had founded the school’s club and personally coached one of the teams at the competition. After the students successfully placed in several events, the school district invited the students, along with “several sponsors, including [the coach],” to a board meeting on May 15, 2023, to congratulate them on their achievements. The complaint characterized this “regularly scheduled” board meeting as a “purely political event.”

Hand-shaking omissions. The complaint alleged that, at the meeting, the students went down a line “and shook the hands of a row of school board members” and district employees. The coach, however, proceeded through the line, and he chose to not shake the hands of several individuals: a school district attorney, three board members, the board president, and the former district superintendent.

“Thank you. God bless you.” Instead of shaking hands, but “wish[ing] to show he was acting courteously” and not wanting to be photographed “in a way that falsely represented his beliefs,” according to the plaintiffs, the coach told each individual with whom he did not shake hands, “Thank you. God bless you.” He did shake the hands of three other board members and the other employees in the line.

Dual motives. The complaint alleged that the coach had dual motives in refusing to shake certain individuals’ hands. He chose not to shake the attorney’s hand because “he felt [the attorney] had been rude.” As to the board members, he felt they had acted “in an arbitrary manner” during the 2022 incident involving [his son] by refusing to review and produce evidence related to the event. The plaintiffs also alleged that the coach refused to shake the hands of several individuals for “political reasons.” It averred that the coach believed the individuals were “not fit for [their] job[s],” that he intended to vote against them, and that he did not want “a false image of an endorsement.”

“Notice of Warning” and forced transfer. The coach received a “Notice of Warning” for his refusal to shake the board members’ hands. The notice cited him for violation of school policy requiring every employee to relate “to colleagues and supervisors with respect, courtesy, and in a professional manner.” The coach and his family alleged that his actions at the meeting were “used as a teaching tool to discuss unruly employees using a thinly veiled reference to his case.” The plaintiffs also claimed that the district retaliated against the coach and forced him to transfer schools, thereby interrupting his development of sports and law enforcement programs at the school, and hindering his career.

Lawsuit. The coach and his family filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendants in their individual capacity as well as the district under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). First, they claimed that the district and its personnel violated their rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and Article I, § 9 of the Texas Constitution when they “detain[ed], interrogat[ed], and search[ed] [the coach and his son]” pursuant to school policy in violation of Texas law. Second, they alleged that the defendants violated the coach’s First Amendment rights and rights under Article I, § 8 of the Texas Constitution “by retaliating against [him] for [his] refusal to shake certain politician[s’] hands.”

Decision below and appeal. The district court determined that the coach and his family failed to allege any Fifth Amendment violation arising out of the 2022 incident because they failed to plead that the son was forced to serve as a witness against himself in a criminal case. The district court also dismissed the First Amendment claim, reasoning that the coach acted “during his official duties in the course and scope of his employment,” not as a private citizen, when he refused to shake hands with the school board members and other personnel. Furthermore, the court found that the coach’s actions, at best, “involved matters of public concern only insubstantially or in a weak and attenuated sense,” but primarily “concerned a purely personal matter,” the handling of the incident involving his son. Finally, the district court dismissed the claim under Article I, § 8 of the Texas Constitution because the coach and his family failed to adequately plead that Section 8 provided greater protections than the First Amendment, and the claim failed for the same reasons as the First Amendment claim.

The family timely appealed to the Fifth Circuit, challenging only the district court’s dismissal of their First and Fifth Amendment claims as well as their claim under Article 1, § 8 of the Texas Constitution.

Fifth Amendment claim. Affirming, the appeals court first found that the family failed to allege a plausible violation of the Fifth Amendment based on the episode in which the school district interrogated the coach’s son. According to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the son “was subject to detention in the office from 12:45 [p.m.] to 4 [p.m.] that labeled him as [a] sex offender” to other students and caused him to move schools, the school policy for police interrogation was inadequate and ignored provisions of the Texas Family Code, and in its treatment of the son, the school acted in a lawless manner. As to the coach, a district HR official allegedly “insisted that he admit to false statements that would have incriminated him and his son [], which he refused.”

Here, concluded the Fifth Circuit, “As the district court recognized, these allegations fall short of alleging that Defendants elicited a confession or statement and used it against either [the son or the coach] in a criminal case. Because Chavez requires a criminal case to allege a Fifth Amendment violation via § 1983.” The Fifth Amendment claim was accordingly properly dismissed.

First Amendment claim. The First Amendment retaliation claim fared similarly. Here, assuming without deciding that the coach’s refusal to shake hands qualified as protected speech, the appeals court concluded that the coach failed to adequately allege that he was speaking as a private citizen rather than in his capacity as a public employee. The coach alleged that he, acting in his capacity as a coach and performing a coach’s duties, accompanied his team to the “regularly scheduled” meeting after the school board formally invited the team and coaches to congratulate their success at the state competition. The team was “escorted to the chambers where school board meetings are held” and proceeded down the line of school board members and staff to shake hands in congratulations. Though he alleged that he spoke “as a citizen” and that the board meeting was a “political event,” observed the Fifth Circuit, “these conclusory allegations do not demonstrate that [the coach] spoke outside the scope of his duties as a coach, in the presence of his students, at the board meeting he was invited to attend in his official capacity….” Indeed, noted the court, his conduct “was directed internally and ‘up the chain of command’ at each BISD employee or board member rather than externally to the public at large.”

These allegations, concluded the Fifth Circuit, “reveal that his actions ‘ow[ed their] existence’ to his responsibility as a coach, accepting congratulations on behalf of his team.” Accordingly, his speech “was directly governed by school policy, which puts a duty on every employee to relate ‘to colleagues and supervisors with respect, courtesy, and in a professional manner.’”

Dismissal of the First Amendment retaliation claim was accordingly affirmed.

Dissent. Dissenting, Judge Ho, a Trump appointee who assumed his position on the Fifth Circuit in January 2018, agreed that the plaintiffs failed to allege a Fifth Amendment claim, but he disagreed as to the coach’s First Amendment retaliation claim. “This case presents two competing narratives,” observed Ho. “One is that school board officials are trying to punish a political detractor for his personal decision not to shake hands with them, in violation of the First Amendment. The other is that [the coach] is facing legitimate discipline for refusing to do his job by participating respectfully in a sports celebration event for his students.” Which “narrative” is correct, Ho urged, is a question of fact.

The case is No. 25-40746.

Judge: Higginson, S.

Attorneys: Edward A. Stapleton, III (Stapleton & Stapleton) for Lizette Lucio and Marc Anthony Lucio. Edward Smith (O'Hanlon, Demerath & Castillo) for Brownsville Independent School District, Norma Linda Gallegos, and Jesus H. Chavez.

Companies: Brownsville Independent School District

MainStory: TopStory IndividualRights Discharge Retaliation PublicEmployees StateLawClaims LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews GCNNews