Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, TORT CLAIMS—5th Cir.: Plaintiff’s counsel in failed employment discrimination suit, ordered to pay sanctions, revives defamation claim against defense counsel, (Oct 9, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The attorney’s defamation claim was based on allegations that defense counsel published false statements in federal and state court averring that he fabricated evidence when he filed pleadings on behalf of his client.

A plaintiff’s attorney, who was ordered to pay sanctions after a state court judge found he engaged in misconduct during his representation of a former associate athletic director at Louisiana State University (LSU) in an ultimately unsuccessful multi-year employment discrimination lawsuit, revived his claims of defamation and civil conspiracy related to false statements the LSU attorneys allegedly made during the sanctions proceedings. Vacating the dismissal of those two tort claims, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the source of the injury asserted in the defamation claim was the LSU attorneys’ conduct, not the state court judgment, and as such the district court erred in applying the Rooker—Feldman doctrine. However, the Fifth Circuit declined to revive his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (English v. Crochet, No. 25-30074 (5th Cir. Oct. 8, 2025)).

Coach’s alleged harassment. In 2013, the LSU employee reported students’ allegations of sexual assault and harassment by the football coach to senior LSU officials, prompting a Title IX investigation. Two attorneys at the law firm that served as outside counsel to the LSU Board of Supervisors (the LSU attorneys) were appointed to lead the investigation. The employee alleged that they engaged in misconduct during the course of that investigation.

Former employee loses lawsuit. In April 2021, the employee filed lawsuits in Louisiana state and federal court. The federal court action alleged Title IX and RICO violations, and the state court action alleged violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act. The federal case was dismissed in part at the motions stage and proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict against her, which the Fifth Circuit declined to overturn.

Sanctions against her and her attorney. Meanwhile, in the unsuccessful state court proceedings, the LSU attorneys successfully pursued sanctions against the employee and her attorney. The state court awarded $330,461.97 in sanctions jointly and severally against them for, amongst other things, making allegations of criminal conduct against the LSU attorneys that were not based in fact or law, fabricating evidence to support their baseless claims, and employing abusive litigation tactics.

Attorney sues LSU attorneys. The employee’s attorney subsequently filed this lawsuit against the LSU attorneys and their law firm asserting claims of defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The district court dismissed all claims with prejudice, and the attorney appealed as to all but the NIED claim.

Rooker Feldman doctrine. The district court dismissed the attorney’s defamation claim solely on the basis of the Rooker Feldman doctrine, which derives from two Supreme Court cases: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). “Reduced to its essence, the Rooker—Feldman doctrine ‘holds that inferior federal courts do not have the power to modify or reverse state court judgments’” except when authorized by Congress, the Fifth Circuit has observed. But the Supreme Court has cautioned that the doctrine is a narrow one, “confined to... cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.”

Defamation allegations. Here, the attorney’s defamation claim was based on allegations that the LSU attorneys published statements in federal and state court averring that the he had fabricated evidence when he filed pleadings on behalf of the former LSU employee. He also alleged that the LSU attorneys “specifically published” statements that his description of wire and mail communications between the LSU attorneys and the football coach accused of harassment were fabricated.

District court erred. The district court concluded that “the crux” of the attorney’s defamation claim was that the state court sanctions rulings were erroneous, which “essentially amounts to a challenge in federal court over a state court sanction order” barred by Rooker—Feldman. The Fifth Circuit disagreed. While one of the many reasons the state court imposed sanctions was its finding that the employee’s attorney had fabricated evidence, that fact was not dispositive.

Independent claim. The key inquiry was the source of the injury alleged in the federal complaint. “If the injury stems from the state court decision itself, then Rooker—Feldman bars federal jurisdiction,” explained the Fifth Circuit. “But if the injury arises from the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff asserts an independent claim not subject to Rooker—Feldman.”

Here, the attorney argued that his injuries were caused not by the state court’s sanctions order itself, but by the LSU attorneys’ conduct (through their counsel) during the sanctions proceedings. Indeed, the LSU attorneys acknowledged that he sought damages for defamation arising out of alleged false and defamatory statements made by defense counsel that he claimed were the basis for judge’s issuance of the sanctions judgment. Thus, he did not seek to overturn the state-court judgment but instead pursued damages for injuries caused by the LSU attorneys’ allegedly defamatory statements (through counsel) made during those proceedings. While the LSU attorneys’ alleged conduct may have led to the state court judgment, which in turn caused additional harm, the Rooker—Feldman did not apply. And having found the defamation claim to be independent, the Fifth Circuit also rejected the LSU attorneys’ invocation of the “inextricably intertwined” label.

Remanded. Because the LSU attorneys raised several other grounds for dismissal of the defamation claim that were not reached by the district court, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of the defamation claim on the Rooker-Feldman grounds and remanded for consideration of those alternative arguments in the first instance.

Conspiracy claim. The district court dismissed the attorney’s conspiracy claim because it required a cognizable underlying tort. Thus, because the Fifth Circuit reinstated his defamation claim, it also reinstated his conspiracy claim.

IIED claim. However, the court declined to reinstate his IIED claim, which he based on the LSU attorneys actions in accusing him of fabricating evidence, referring to him as “sophomoric” and “ignorant” in open court and in pleadings, and causing him to undergo a judgment debtor exam. The district court correctly determined that the statements at issue were not sufficiently extreme and outrageous, and his claim based on the judgment debtor examination failed because there is no IIED liability “where the actor has done no more than to insist upon his legal rights in a permissible way.”

The case is No. 25-30074.

Judge: Elrod, J.

Attorneys: Larry English, pro se. Brandon Kelly Black (Jones Walker) for Vicki Crochet, Robert Barton and Taylor Porter Brooks & Phillips, L.L.P.

Companies: Taylor Porter Brooks & Phillips, L.L.P.

Cases: StateLawClaims TortClaims Procedure LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews