Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—5th Cir.: Fired football employee who alleged harassment denied new trial on retaliation claims, (Apr 9, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

She alleged that an assistant coach at LSU sexually harassed her and pressured her to assist the head coach in sexualizing student workers.

A former associate athletic director at Louisiana State University—fired after reporting the former football coach’s alleged sexual harassment of student workers, and then an assistant coach’s alleged sexual harassment and assault of her and pressure to assist the head coach in sexualizing student workers—is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on her Title IX and VII retaliation claims, the Fifth Circuit found. The university presented sufficient evidence supporting its theory that the employee and her position were terminated as part of the new coach’s restructuring of LSU’s football program and recruiting department, not in retaliation for her Title IX complaints. And though an athletic director admitted to knowing about her EEOC complaint, he testified that her complaint did not influence “any decision” he made concerning her, and it was the new coach who ultimately terminated her position (Lewis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, No. 24-30341 (5th Cir. Apr. 8, 2025)).

21 years in football program. The employee, according to the court, spent nearly 21 years working for the LSU football program. In 2001, she was hired as the coordinator for recruiting operations. She was later promoted to assistant athletics director for football recruiting and alumni relations, and she remained in that position for about 13 years. Her job responsibilities included management of full-time employees and student workers who assisted with day-to-day recruiting tasks and related activities.

Alleged misconduct by former coach. In 2005, LSU hired a new head football coach. She alleged that during his tenure at LSU, through 2016, she witnessed numerous instances of his allegedly racist and sexist misconduct and received complaints of sexual assault and harassment by him, LSU football players, coaches, and other staff members from several of the student workers she oversaw.

…and assistant coach. She further alleged that an assistant coach and recruiting coordinator under the coach sexually assaulted and harassed her and other female employees and students. He also, she alleged, pressured her to assist the head coach in sexualizing student workers.

Complaints. She lodged several complaints with her supervisors and the Athletic Department’s designee for receiving and investigating Title IX-related complaints and reports, often with no action taken.

Alleged retaliation. But the head coach allegedly began to retaliate against her for reporting the complaints of two students against him. She specifically alleged that he left her off recruiting emails and excluded her from recruiting meetings. In addition, the department restructured her position so that the head coach controlled her pay raises. And, in 2013, the department allegedly sent her several admonishment letters and disciplined her for recruiting and NCAA violations that she allegedly did not commit and was not aware of.

Refusal to promote and other alleged retaliation. She also alleged that, as a result of her filing Title IX complaints against the head coach and other senior department officials, LSU repeatedly refused to promote her. When she complained to her immediate supervisor, he reportedly told her she was not being promoted because she used “the word Title IX too much” and “people [were] afraid” of her.

When she was eventually promoted to associate athletic director of football recruiting and alumni relations in 2020, she alleged that she received no increase in pay despite her responsibilities having increased. She alleged that, from 2020 to 2021, she was denied access to resources and the support of administrative staff and was subjected to disciplinary actions because of her complaints of Title IX violations in the department.

EEOC complaint and lawsuit. In April 2021, she filed both a complaint with the EEOC and the instant lawsuit.

New head coach. During the pendency of her case in the district court, LSU hired a new head coach, who then re-hired the assistant coach in December 2021. The plaintiff, who took a paid leave of absence beginning in April 2021, never met or communicated with the new head coach.

Discharge. In January 2022, however, she was terminated. According to the plaintiff, her termination stemmed from her previous reports of the assistant coach’s misconduct. The university argued that she, along with about 40 others in the football program, was fired as part of the new head coach’s initiative to reorganize the recruiting department and hire his own staff.

Lawsuit. She initially sued LSU along with dozens of other defendants. She brought claims pursuant to Titles IX and VII and civil RICO, alleging, among other things, sex- and race-based discrimination and harassment at LSU, and that her termination, along with the 2020 promotion she received without a corresponding increase in pay, were in retaliation for her reporting of discrimination and misconduct.

Verdict. Five of her claims remained against LSU proceeded to trial by jury: (1) Title IX retaliation, for being given a promotion without a pay increase in August 2020; (2) Title IX retaliation, for her 2022 termination; (3) Title VII retaliation, for being given a promotion without a pay increase in August 2020; (4) Title VII retaliation, for her 2022 termination; and (5) Title VII hostile work environment on the basis of sex.

A jury eventually returned a verdict in favor of the LSU as to all five claims, awarding her no damages, and the district court denied her renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a motion for new trial.

Appeal. She appealed to the Fifth Circuit, addressing only the second and fourth claims that proceeded to trial: her Title IX and Title VII retaliation claims relating to her 2022 termination.

Title IX retaliation. The appeals court first affirmed as to her Title IX retaliation claim. LSU, the court found, presented sufficient evidence supporting its theory that the former associate athletic director and her position were terminated as part of the new head coach’s restructuring of LSU’s football program and the recruiting department, not in retaliation for her Title IX complaints. The jury, for instance, heard testimony that neither he nor LSU’s athletic director was aware of her prior allegations against the assistant coach at the time of her termination. The jury also heard the new head coach’s testimony about the “sweeping changes” he intended to make to the program, including its recruiting department. And the jury heard the plaintiff’s attorney question him about the alleged discrepancies between his trial and deposition testimonies. “Armed with this evidence, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Board,” the appeals court concluded, and “is not the role of this court to substitute its own inferences or assessments of conflicting evidence and witness credibility for those of the jury.”

Title VII retaliation. She also failed, the Fifth Circuit found, “to put forth the strong and overwhelming evidence needed to reverse the district court’s denial of her renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on her Title VII retaliation claim.” LSU introduced evidence supporting its reason for terminating her: namely, as part of the new head coach’s “sweeping” changes to the football program and its staff. And though the athletic director did admit to knowing about her EEOC complaint, it was the new head coach, not the athletic director, who terminated her position. To the extent that the athletic director was involved in her termination, moreover, as evidenced by his signature on her termination letter, he testified that her EEOC complaint did not influence “any decision” he made concerning her, and “[t]he jury was free to discredit any inferential connection between [his] knowledge and [her] termination…”

Finally, that the employee was the only person who filed an EEOC complaint among the 40 others who were terminated also did not indicate that there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis upon which the jury could have found in favor of the LSU. “If anything,” observed the appeals court, “this cuts against [her] retaliation claim; that the other terminated employees did not file EEOC charges seemingly suggests that whether an employee filed an EEOC charge was unrelated to LSU’s termination decisions.”

The case is No. 24-30341.

Judge: Douglas, D.

Attorneys: Larry English (English & Associates.) for Sharon Lewis. Susan W. Furr (Phelps Dunbar) for Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.

Companies: Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

Cases: SexualHarassment SexDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews