Affirmation of Jury Deference in Title IX and Title VII Retaliation: Causation in Position Eliminations (Lewis v. LSU)

Introduction

In Lewis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University (“LSU”), 5th Cir. No. 24-30341 (Apr. 8, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered whether a university employee, Sharon Lewis, had presented legally sufficient evidence of retaliation under Title IX and Title VII when her position was eliminated shortly after she reported sexual harassment by football coaches. Lewis, a long-time football recruiting administrator, had internally reported misconduct by coaches Les Miles and Frank Wilson, filed a Title IX complaint and an EEOC charge, and was later terminated following the hiring of new head coach Brian Kelly. The district court submitted the matter to a jury, which found for LSU, and denied Lewis’s post-verdict motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial. On appeal, Lewis challenged only the retaliation claims connected to her 2022 termination. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court applied the familiar Title IX retaliation framework: (1) protected activity, (2) adverse action, (3) causation.
It applied the parallel Title VII retaliation standard for filing an EEOC charge.
Deferring to the jury, the Court concluded there was ample evidence that Lewis’s position was eliminated as part of Coach Kelly’s “sweeping changes” and not in retaliation for her protected complaints.
The Court held that the district court properly denied Lewis’s renewed JMOL motion under Federal Rule 50(b) and, in the alternative, her motion for a new trial.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005): Recognized a private cause of action for retaliation under Title IX.
Willis v. Cleco Corp., 749 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2014): Articulated the three-element Title IX retaliation test (protected activity, adverse action, causation).
Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2004): Defined causation in retaliation claims under federal anti-discrimination statutes.
Collins v. Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist., 609 F. App’x 792, 795 (5th Cir. 2015): Applied the Title VII standard to Title IX retaliation claims.
Taylor-Travis v. Jackson State Univ., 984 F.3d 1107 (5th Cir. 2021): Confirmed parallel treatment of Title IX and Title VII retaliation standards.
Apache Deepwater, L.L.C. v. W&T Offshore, Inc., 930 F.3d 647, 652–53 (5th Cir. 2019): De novo review for JMOL, “especially deferential” in jury trials.
Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2008): Established that all reasonable inferences and credibility determinations must favor the non-moving party on Rule 50(b) review.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the governing standards for Title IX and Title VII retaliation. Under Rule 50(b), a motion for JMOL may prevail only if “the evidence points so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that no reasonable jury could return a contrary verdict.” The Fifth Circuit drew all reasonable inferences for LSU—the non-moving party—and upheld the jury’s verdict.

Key aspects of the court’s reasoning:

Coach Kelly testified he was unaware of Lewis’s Title IX reports at the time he eliminated her position and that he intended broad organizational changes in the recruiting department upon his arrival.
Multiple witnesses (the Athletic Director, senior administrators, and others) confirmed that roughly forty staff positions were eliminated as part of Kelly’s restructuring—a routine practice after a coaching change.
Absence of direct evidence that Lewis’s protected activity influenced the decision to terminate her position or to sign her termination letter.
Plaintiff’s arguments about alleged inconsistencies in testimony, internal reporting policies, and isolated knowledge of complaints were insufficient to overcome the non-retaliatory, legitimate business explanation.

3. Impact

Lewis v. LSU underscores several important principles for future employment discrimination litigation:

When a position is eliminated for documented, legitimate business reasons, courts will defer to the jury if those reasons are reasonably supported, even if the employee’s position is singled out.
Mere knowledge of an employee’s protected activity by decision-makers who do not act on it is insufficient to establish causation.
Rigorous application of the Rule 50(b) standard preserves jury verdicts unless evidence overwhelmingly favors the movant.
Title IX and Title VII retaliation claims remain parallel in proof requirements—employers must beware of documented restructuring decisions that may be perceived as pretextual if undertaken too soon after protected complaints.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Title IX: A federal statute prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs receiving federal funds, including an implicit cause of action for retaliation.
Title VII: A federal law banning employment discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and other protected categories, including retaliation against those who oppose discrimination.
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL), Rule 50(b): A post-verdict motion arguing that no reasonable jury could have found for the non-moving party based on the evidence.
New Trial Motion: Under Rule 59, a party may seek a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence or tainted by procedural errors.
De Novo vs. Abuse-of-Discretion Review: JMOL denials are reviewed de novo (fresh look), while new trial denials are reviewed for abuse of discretion (highly deferential).
Causation in Retaliation Claims: Plaintiff must link protected activity (e.g., Title IX report or EEOC filing) to the adverse action (e.g., firing, demotion) by demonstrating that the protected activity was a “but-for” or motivating factor.

Conclusion

Lewis v. LSU reaffirms the judiciary’s deference to jury fact-finding when an employer offers a non-retaliatory business rationale—here, sweeping staff restructuring—supported by credible witness testimony and documentary evidence. It clarifies that elimination of a position combined with consistent organizational change, absent direct proof of retaliatory animus, will defeat Title IX and Title VII retaliation claims. The decision highlights the importance for plaintiffs of producing more than temporal proximity or isolated knowledge; and for employers of maintaining clear, contemporaneous documentation of legitimate personnel decisions.