Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—5th Cir.: Chief’s ‘stacking bodies’ remark supports revival of discharged university police officer’s retaliation claim, (Sep 21, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The officer encouraged a coworker to report sexual harassment by a sergeant who was perceived to be close to the police chief and he corroborated her complaints.

Finding a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether West Texas A&M University investigated and suspended a police officer—who had corroborated a female officer’s claim she was the victim of sexual misconduct by a sergeant—solely based on his recording of a phone conversation between the department chief and the assistant chief, the Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment against his Title VII retaliation claim. The court found ample evidence the chief was upset by the continued investigation of the sexual harassment complaint and, on several occasions, made statements that he “was ready to start stacking bodies.” Judge Wilson concurred in the judgment (Crawford v. West Texas A&M University, No. 25-10887 (5th Cir. Sept. 18, 2026)).

Six years after he began working for the university, the officer learned from his coworker that she had been a victim of sexual misconduct by a sergeant. Although the officer told her that he had to report it to the Title IX office, she initiated a complaint against the sergeant herself and several other female officers also filed complaints against him. As a result, the officer did not believe he had an independent reporting responsibility. He did, however, participate in the initial investigation and did corroborate his coworker’s allegations.

Should be punished. The officer was also concerned about possible retaliation because the sergeant was perceived to be close to the chief. Indeed, as the investigation continued, the chief complained about the amount of time it was taking and stated that he “was ready to start stacking bodies,” which he clarified to mean that he was ready to fire “people who need to be fired.” The chief also complained that the officer had failed to report the Title IX violations and said that all the officers who failed to initially report the violations, but who participated in the investigation, should be punished.

At some point after participating in the investigation, the officer was accused of violating quarantine procedures and sweeping changes were made to his regular routine. He also claimed that he spoke to a lieutenant about a possible promotion to sergeant but the lieutenant told him that after speaking to the chief, he “had no chance of making sergeant because [he] was ‘lumped in with the others’” from the investigation.

Dueling complaints. The chief at some point filed an internal complaint against the officer for failing to report the sexual harassment. In response, the officer filed a complaint against the chief for retaliation. The officer was disciplined for failing to report. The Title IX investigator, who took over after the initial investigator was fired, advised the officer to find another job if possible. Not long after that, the investigator was also fired.

Recording. One day while the officer was at his desk, he overheard the chief on the phone with the assistant chief discussing the officer’s failure to report. According to the officer, the chief’s office door was open and the call was on speakerphone. The officer went to the chief’s door and recorded the conversation, which he mailed to ethics and compliance.

Resignation. The assistant chief then opened an investigation into the officer’s actions and the officer initiated an investigation into whether that was retaliatory. The assistant chief retired and the chief recused himself from the investigation, assigned it to a lieutenant, and asked the university to appoint an independent panel. Two assigned investigators recommended the officer’s termination and dishonorable discharge. The officer resigned before he could be fired but still received a dishonorable discharge. The chief was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Lower court proceedings. The officer sued for retaliation and the district court, finding he failed to show he had suffered an adverse action, granted summary judgment to the university.

Adverse employment action. On appeal, the officer pointed to three timely adverse actions—his placement on paid administrative leave, the investigation into his recording of the conversation between the chief and assistant chief, and his dishonorable discharge. While the court agreed that the dishonorable discharge was an adverse action, the parties disputed whether it was properly before the court. The court assumed, without deciding, that it was.

As to the phone recording investigation and suspension, the court noted that whether being placed on leave pending investigation is adverse is ultimately a context-specific question. Here, because the officer was placed on leave for disciplinary reasons, a jury could conclude he suffered an adverse employment action.

Causal link. The court next found ample evidence of a causal connection between the officer’s protected activity and the suspension and investigation including that the chief knew about his involvement in the Title IX investigation and resented it. A jury, said the court, could conclude that the chief admitted he would try to get rid of those involved in the investigation.

While the university argued that an independent panel made the disciplinary decisions, the court pointed out that it was the chief who made the decision to suspend the officer and launch the investigation. “So this likely clears the bar for the causal link in a prima facie case as to the suspension and investigation.”

The court found, however, that the officer could not show causation for the dishonorable discharge. The recommendation was made by the independent investigative panel, those investigators claimed they did not know about the officer’s involvement in the Title IX investigation, and the officer did not offer any evidence to rebut this.

New scenario. A plaintiff, the court pointed out, can ordinarily show a causal link when the ultimate decision was made by a supervisor with no retaliatory motive if the process was tainted by an intermediate supervisor with a retaliatory motive. Conversely, the causal chain is broken when the ultimate decisionmaker was also the independent investigator. But here, the court observed, where the chief was the ultimate decisionmaker and had a retaliatory motive but relied and acted on the results of an independent investigation “presents a new scenario” and “breaks the causal chain.”

The chief made the ultimate decision but he followed the independent board’s recommendation. And even though the chief called for the investigation and the involvement of the lieutenant, the investigation only focused on the officer’s actions, not on the chief’s alleged retaliation. The court found the lieutenant’s involvement was potentially problematic because he knew about the protected activity but there was no evidence the panel members were biased against the officer. Further, said the court, “the investigation was opened into his recording of [the chief], not into [the chief] himself, so it is unreasonable to expect the panel to investigate beyond their remit.”

Regarding the investigation itself, the panel members testified that they reviewed the Internal Affairs report, watched security camera footage, and investigated the allegations, which was sufficient to show they did not merely rubber stamp the recommendation. Because the chief relied on an independent investigation, the officer failed to show a prima facie case as to the dishonorable discharge.

Suspension and investigation. The officer, however, established a prima facie case as to the suspension and phone recording investigation and the university proffered a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse actions—he potentially broke the law by secretly recording the chief’s conversation and lying about how he recorded it. The court also found a fact issue regarding whether the chief’s rationale was pretextual.

A jury could believe the chief initiated the investigation into the officer solely based on his recording the conversation but there was also evidence the chief was upset by the continued investigations into the department and made statements that seemingly indicated he would retaliate against those he perceived as continuing to perpetuate the investigations. The jury could also consider the relatively quick sequence of events from when the officer began participating in the Title IX investigation to when the chief ordered changes to his daily work and indicated that he would have no chance at promotion.

While those actions took place outside the 300-day limitations period, they could serve as relevant background, said the court, finding that on this record, the officer successfully created a genuine dispute of material fact that the chief’s rationale was pretextual and that he retaliated against the officer for participating in a Title IX investigation. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the university.

Concurrence. In a separate concurrence, Judge Wilson argued that the officer’s dishonorable discharge was not properly preserved as a basis for his retaliation claim so the judge would not have analyzed the prima facia elements of his claim through the lens of his discharge, “particularly as to the ‘new scenario’ we confront regarding the causal link between [the officer’s] protected activity and his discharge.”

The case is No. 25-10887.

Judge: Graves, J., Jr.

Attorneys: Kyle Thomas Carney (Carney Law) for Nathan Crawford. Nathaniel Anson Plemons, Office of the Texas Attorney General, for West Texas A&M University.

MainStory: TopStory Retaliation SexualHarassment Discharge LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews GCNNews