Cottle County Fraternity Hazing Attorneys | $24M Pi Kappa Alpha Settlements Exposed | Attorney911 — The Firm That Closed Beta Nu | Federal Court | Former Insurance Defense | 1-888-ATTY-911

In the sleepy expanse of Cottle County, where the Texas sky stretches wide over communities like Paducah, the rhythm of life often feels far removed from the bustling campuses of Houston, Austin, or College Station. Yet, even here, in our close-knit communities, the shadow of hazing can reach our children attending universities across the Lone Star State. Imagine a student from a Cottle County high school, bright-eyed and full of dreams, heading off to one of Texas’s renowned universities. They join a fraternity, a sorority, an athletic team, or even a cherished spirit organization, hoping for camaraderie and a sense of belonging. But then, a late-night call breaks the peace. Your child is in the emergency room, critically ill from forced drinking at a “pledge event,” or injured from extreme physical activity masked as “bonding.” The shock, the fear, the anger—it’s a living nightmare that no family in Cottle County, or anywhere in Texas, should ever endure.

This isn’t just a hypothetical scenario. It’s a reality that has tragically unfolded for far too many Texas families, right here in our state. The Manginello Law Firm / Attorney911 has been at the forefront of these battles, including a major $10 million lawsuit against the University of Houston and Pi Kappa Phi fraternity on behalf of Leonel Bermudez, a student who suffered severe kidney damage after a brutal hazing ordeal.

This comprehensive guide serves as a vital resource for families in Cottle County and across Texas who need to understand the insidious nature of modern hazing, the legal landscape surrounding it, and the options available for seeking justice and accountability. We’ll explore what hazing truly looks like in 2025, delve into Texas and federal laws, analyze impactful national cases, and examine the specific challenges faced at major Texas universities like UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor. This article is your starting point, your educational tool, your guide in a legal emergency.

IMMEDIATE HELP FOR HAZING EMERGENCIES:

• If your child is in danger RIGHT NOW:

  • Call 911 for medical emergencies
  • Then call Attorney911: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
  • We provide immediate help – that’s why we’re the Legal Emergency Lawyers™

• In the first 48 hours:

  • Get medical attention immediately, even if the student insists they are “fine”
  • Preserve evidence BEFORE it’s deleted:
    • Screenshot group chats, texts, DMs immediately
    • Photograph injuries from multiple angles
    • Save physical items (clothing, receipts, objects)
  • Write down everything while memory is fresh (who, what, when, where)
  • Do NOT:
    • Confront the fraternity/sorority
    • Sign anything from the university or insurance company
    • Post details on public social media
    • Let your child delete messages or “clean up” evidence

• Contact an experienced hazing attorney within 24–48 hours:

  • Evidence disappears fast (deleted group chats, destroyed paddles, coached witnesses)
  • Universities move quickly to control the narrative
  • We can help preserve evidence and protect your child’s rights
  • Call 1-888-ATTY-911 for immediate consultation

Hazing in 2025: What It Really Looks Like

For families in Cottle County, who might be more familiar with traditional notions of campus life, understanding modern hazing is crucial. It’s no longer just about “pranks” or “joining the club.” Hazing in 2025 is a complex web of physical, psychological, and digital abuse, often shrouded in secrecy and cloaked under the guise of “tradition” or “bonding.” It is an intentional, knowing, or reckless act directed against a student for the purpose of pledging, initiation, affiliation, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization whose members include students, that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of that student. “I agreed to it” does not automatically make it safe or legal when there is peer pressure and a significant power imbalance.

Clear, Modern Definition of Hazing

Hazing involves any forced, coerced, or strongly pressured action tied to joining, keeping membership, or gaining status in a group, where the behavior endangers physical or mental health, humiliates, or exploits. This definition broadens the scope beyond simple physical acts, encompassing psychological manipulation, digital torment, and severe emotional distress.

Main Categories of Hazing

Hazing tactics are diverse and often escalate in severity, falling into three primary tiers:

Tier 1: Subtle Hazing

Subtle hazing behaviors emphasize power imbalances, often dismissed as “harmless” or “tradition.” However, they create psychological harm and pave the way for more severe abuse.

• Deception/Secrecy Oaths: Pledges are often told to lie to parents, the university, or outsiders about chapter activities.
• Assigning Derogatory Names or Identities: New members may be forced to answer to demeaning nicknames, reducing their individuality.
• Requiring New Members to Perform Duties for Older Members: This can include acting as a designated driver at all hours, cleaning rooms, doing laundry, or running errands, fostering a “pledges are on call 24/7” mentality.
• Social Isolation: New members might be cut off from friends outside the organization, or required to seek permission to socialize.
• Deprivation of Privileges: This can involve being forbidden to speak unless spoken to, or being denied access to certain campus areas or social events.
• Requiring Attendance at Events that Interfere with Academics: Mandatory late-night meetings during exam periods are a common example, subtly undermining academic performance.
• “Scavenger Hunts” or “Tasks”: These activities, while seemingly harmless, are often designed to humiliate or endanger, such as stealing items or performing embarrassing public stunts.
• Modern Evolutions: Digital methods now include group chat monitoring where pledges must respond instantly to messages, geo-tracking and location sharing, and social media policing that controls what pledges can post.

Tier 2: Harassment Hazing

Harassment hazing causes emotional or physical discomfort, creating a hostile and abusive environment, even if not resulting in lasting physical injury.

• Verbal Abuse: Yelling, screaming, insults, degrading language, and threats are used to intimidate.
• Sleep Deprivation: Late-night “meetings” or tasks, mandatory wake-up calls at odd hours, or multi-day events with minimal sleep are common tactics.
• Food/Water Restriction: Limiting meals, or forcing consumption of unpleasant substances like spoiled food, hot sauce, or excessive amounts of certain foods.
• Forced Physical Activity Beyond Safe Limits: This includes “smokings” or extreme calisthenics like hundreds of push-ups, wall sits until collapse, forced runs, or “workouts” disguised as conditioning but intended as punishment.
• Public Humiliation: Forcing pledges to perform embarrassing acts in public, such as singing, dancing, or wearing degrading costumes. “Roasts” or “grilling” sessions where members verbally attack pledges are also frequent.
• Exposure to Disgusting or Uncomfortable Conditions: Pledges may be forced into filthy spaces, or covered in food, condiments, eggs, or other degrading substances.
• Modern Evolutions: Hazers now use “voluntary” but coerced participation, where refusal leads to social exclusion. Digital humiliation forcing embarrassing posts on social media, livestreaming hazing, and “meme culture” hazing are also prevalent.

Tier 3: Violent Hazing

Violent hazing carries a high potential for physical injury, sexual assault, or even death. This is the most dangerous and explicitly illegal form of hazing.

• Forced/Coerced Alcohol Consumption: “Lineup” drinking games, Big/Little reveal nights with large quantities of hard liquor, “Bible study” or trivia games where wrong answers mean forced drinking, forced chugging, funneling, or keg stands.
• Forced Drug Use: Coercing pledges to consume marijuana, pills, or other illegal substances.
• Physical Beatings and Paddling: Punches, kicks, slaps, and the use of wooden paddles are common. “Branding” or other physical markings like burns or cuts may also occur.
• Dangerous Physical “Tests”: The “glass ceiling” where pledges are tackled while blindfolded, forced fights, jumping from heights, or driving while intoxicated.
• Sexualized Hazing: Forced nudity, simulated sexual acts, or forcing pledges to engage in sexually degrading acts.
• Racist/Homophobic/Sexist Hazing: Use of slurs, role-playing stereotypes, or forcing minority members to perform degrading acts.
• Kidnapping/Restraint: “Kidnapping” pledges, transporting them blindfolded, or physically restraining them.
• Exposure to Extreme Environments: Locking pledges in freezing rooms, leaving them outside in extreme weather, or denying access to bathrooms.
• Modern Evolutions: Hazing is moved to off-campus locations like Airbnbs to avoid detection. It’s often disguised as “team building,” “fitness challenges,” or “wellness.” Tragic examples include fire/burn hazing (such as the San Diego State Phi Kappa Psi case where a pledge was set on fire) and chemical hazing.

Where Hazing Actually Happens

For families in Cottle County, it’s important to understand that hazing extends far beyond the stereotypes of solely “frat boys.” It is a pervasive issue that can occur in nearly any collegiate group.

• Fraternities and Sororities: This includes Interfraternity Council (IFC), Panhellenic, National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), and multicultural Greek organizations.
• Corps of Cadets / ROTC / Military-Style Groups: These groups, with their emphasis on discipline and tradition, can sometimes foster hazing under the guise of training.
• Spirit Squads, Tradition Clubs: Groups like Texas Cowboys or similar organizations often engage in tradition-heavy initiations that can become hazing.
• Athletic Teams: Football, basketball, baseball, cheerleading, and even club sports sometimes use hazing as a perverse form of “team building.”
• Marching Bands and Performance Groups: The pressure to perform and conform within these groups can also lead to hazing.
• Some Service, Cultural, and Academic Organizations: Even groups seemingly dedicated to positive causes can develop hazing practices.

The common threads are often social status, tradition, and secrecy, which create an environment where hazing can thrive, even when everyone “knows” it’s illegal. This culture of silence is one of the biggest barriers to prevention and accountability.

Law & Liability Framework (Texas + Federal)

Understanding the legal landscape surrounding hazing in Texas is the first step toward seeking justice. For Cottle County families, navigating these complexities can be daunting, but the law provides avenues for accountability.

Texas Hazing Law Basics (Education Code)

Under Texas law (which governs cases in Cottle County and across the state), hazing is broadly defined as any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, on or off campus, by one person alone or with others, directed against a student, that:

• Endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student; AND
• Occurs for the purpose of pledging, initiation into, affiliation with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization whose members include students.

This definition covers a wide range of harmful activities, whether physical or psychological, and explicitly includes acts occurring away from campus, dispelling the myth that off-campus hazing is beyond legal reach.

Key points about Texas hazing law:

• On or Off Campus: The location of the hazing does not diminish its legal classification.
• Mental or Physical Harm: Hazing isn’t limited to physical abuse; severe psychological distress or manipulation also falls under the definition.
• Intent vs. Recklessness: The perpetrator doesn’t need to explicitly intend to harm; recklessly endangering a student is enough. This captures situations where hazers “didn’t think anyone would get hurt,” but proceeded with dangerous activities.
• “Consent” is not a Defense: Texas Education Code § 37.155 explicitly states that it is not a defense to prosecution for hazing that the person being hazed consented to the activity. This is critical, as victims often feel pressured to participate, making their “consent” invalid under the law.

Criminal Penalties

Hazing carries significant criminal consequences in Texas:

• Class B Misdemeanor (default): This applies to hazing that does not result in serious injury, carrying penalties of up to 180 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000.
• Class A Misdemeanor: If the hazing causes bodily injury requiring medical attention, the charge can be elevated to a Class A misdemeanor.
• State Jail Felony: If hazing results in serious bodily injury or death, the offense becomes a state jail felony, carrying far more severe penalties.
• Failure to Report: Any individual who is an officer or member of an organization and who has personal knowledge of hazing that would lead to serious bodily injury or death, and who fails to report it, can also face misdemeanor charges.
• Retaliation: Retaliating against someone who reports hazing is also a misdemeanor offense.

Organizational Liability

Under Texas Education Code § 37.153, organizations themselves can be held criminally responsible for hazing if:

• The organization authorized or encouraged the hazing activity; OR
• An officer or member of the organization, acting in an official capacity, had knowledge of the hazing and failed to report it.
  Penalties for organizations can include fines of up to $10,000 per violation, and the university often revokes institutional recognition, effectively banning the organization from campus. This dual criminal and organizational accountability underscores the serious legal view of hazing.

Reporter Protections

Texas law encourages reporting by providing immunity for individuals who, in good faith, report a hazing incident to university officials or law enforcement. This means those who come forward are protected from civil or criminal liability stemming from the report. Furthermore, many university policies and Texas’s good-faith reporter protection laws offer amnesty for students who call 911 in a medical emergency, even if underage drinking or hazing was involved, prioritizing immediate medical attention.

Criminal vs. Civil Cases

Understanding the distinction between criminal and civil hazing cases is vital for Cottle County families seeking full legal recourse.

• Criminal Cases: These are initiated by the state (prosecutors) against individuals or organizations accused of violating hazing laws. The primary goal is punishment, which can include incarceration, fines, and probation. In hazing contexts, criminal charges might range from misdemeanor hazing to state jail felonies like assault or even manslaughter, depending on the severity of harm.
• Civil Cases: These are lawsuits brought by victims or their surviving families against individuals and entities responsible for the hazing. The objective is to secure monetary compensation for the harm suffered and to ensure accountability. Civil claims often involve theories of negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, negligent supervision, premises liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A pivotal aspect is that a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for filing a civil lawsuit; both types of cases can proceed independently.

Federal Overlay: Stop Campus Hazing Act, Title IX, Clery

Beyond state laws, several federal regulations add layers of accountability for universities:

• Stop Campus Hazing Act (2024): This landmark federal legislation mandates that colleges and universities receiving federal funds enhance transparency and prevention efforts regarding hazing. By approximately 2026, institutions will be required to:
  • Publicly report all hazing incidents more transparently, including details of organizational and individual accountability.
  • Implement comprehensive hazing prevention education programs for students, faculty, and staff.
  • Maintain and make accessible public data on hazing violations, ensuring greater institutional accountability.
• Title IX: When hazing involves sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment, or sexual violence, federal Title IX regulations are triggered. This can include hazing rituals that exploit, degrade, or assault students based on gender, requiring universities to investigate and respond to ensure a safe educational environment.
• Clery Act: The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act requires institutions to disclose campus crime statistics and security policies. Hazing incidents, especially those involving assault, alcohol/drug violations, or sexual offenses, often fall under Clery reporting requirements, providing a broader picture of campus safety issues. The Stop Campus Hazing Act will mandate more specific hazing reporting within the Clery framework.

These federal mandates create additional pressure on universities to take hazing seriously, investigate thoroughly, and implement effective prevention strategies.

Who Can Be Liable in a Civil Hazing Lawsuit

Civil hazing lawsuits can target a broad spectrum of responsible parties, demonstrating the multi-layered accountability the legal system can enforce:

• Individual Students: Those who actively planned, encouraged, or directly participated in the hazing acts can be held personally liable. This includes those who supplied alcohol to minors or failed to intervene.
• Local Chapter/Organization: The specific fraternity, sorority, club, or team, often operating as a legal entity, can be sued directly. Its officers and members, particularly those in leadership roles, carry significant responsibility.
• National Fraternity/Sorority: The national headquarters, which charters, oversees, and often insures local chapters, can be named as a defendant. Liability often hinges on whether the national organization had knowledge of prior hazing incidents, failed to enforce its anti-hazing policies, or provided inadequate oversight.
• University or Governing Board: The educational institution itself, or its board of regents, may be held liable under theories of negligent supervision, negligent retention of a student organization, or even breach of duty to protect students, especially if the university was aware of previous hazing incidents or had a pattern of failing to enforce its own policies. For public universities in Texas, sovereign immunity may apply, but exceptions for gross negligence or Title IX violations can overcome this defense.
• Third Parties: Other entities can sometimes be implicated, including:
  • Property Owners: Landlords or owners of off-campus houses or venues where hazing occurred.
  • Alcohol Providers: Bars, stores, or individuals who illegally furnished alcohol to minors if it contributed to injury or death under dram shop laws.
  • Event Organizers: Companies or individuals hired to manage events where hazing took place.

Every case is unique, and the specific facts determine which parties may be held liable. An experienced hazing attorney carefully investigates all potential defendants to ensure comprehensive accountability.

National Hazing Case Patterns (Anchor Stories)

The tragic narratives of hazing victims across the United States have not only revealed a disturbing pattern of abuse but have also spurred legal and legislative reforms, leading to significant financial settlements and criminal convictions. For Cottle County families, these national cases illuminate the severe consequences of hazing and underscore why strong legal action against responsible parties is essential.

Alcohol Poisoning & Death Pattern

The most pervasive and deadly form of hazing involves forced alcohol consumption, a devastating pattern seen repeatedly across campuses nationwide.

• Timothy Piazza – Penn State, Beta Theta Pi (2017): In a case that shocked the nation, 19-year-old Timothy Piazza died after a brutal “bid acceptance” night. Forced to consume immense amounts of alcohol, he suffered multiple falls, including a head injury. Fraternity brothers allegedly waited hours before calling 911, and the delay in medical care proved fatal. His death led to dozens of criminal charges against fraternity members, comprehensive civil litigation, and the enactment of the Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law in Pennsylvania, one of the toughest in the nation. This case starkly highlighted the deadly combination of extreme intoxication, the deliberate delay in seeking medical help, and a pervasive culture of silence and cover-up within Greek organizations.
• Andrew Coffey – Florida State University, Pi Kappa Phi (2017): Andrew Coffey, also 20, died from alcohol poisoning after a “Big Brother Night” event. Pledges were given handles of hard liquor and pressured to consume them quickly. His death resulted in multiple criminal prosecutions, temporary suspension of all Greek life at FSU, and renewed calls for hazing reform in Florida. Coffey’s case tragically demonstrated how ritualized drinking nights, often disguised as “tradition,” are a recurring script for disaster, leading to alcohol levels far beyond safe limits.
• Max Gruver – Louisiana State University, Phi Delta Theta (2017): Max Gruver, 18, died after participating in a “Bible study” drinking game where pledges were forced to consume excessive amounts of alcohol for incorrect answers. His blood-alcohol content was nearly six times the legal limit. This tragic incident directly led to the Louisiana legislature passing the Max Gruver Act, a felony hazing law that significantly increased penalties for hazing offenses. Gruver’s case is a testament to how clear proof of hazing, coupled with public outrage, can drive crucial legislative change.
• Stone Foltz – Bowling Green State University, Pi Kappa Alpha (2021): Stone Foltz, 20, died after being forced to consume a liter of whiskey during a “Big/Little” pledge event. Criminal convictions followed, and the Foltz family reached a $10 million settlement in 2023, with $7 million from Pi Kappa Alpha national and nearly $3 million from Bowling Green State University. This case highlighted that universities, even public ones, can face substantial financial and reputational consequences for perceived inadequate oversight, directly impacting their duty of care.

Physical & Ritualized Hazing Pattern

Beyond alcohol, physical and ritualized hazing methods continue to cause severe injury and death, often through calculated acts of violence and disregard for safety.

• Chun “Michael” Deng – Baruch College, Pi Delta Psi (2013): Michael Deng, 19, died during a fraternity retreat in the Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania, while participating in a ritual called the “glass ceiling.” Blindfolded and weighted down with a backpack, he was repeatedly tackled. Fraternity members delayed calling 911 for over an hour after he became unresponsive. This led to criminal convictions, including an unprecedented criminal conviction against the national Pi Delta Psi fraternity, and the chapter being banned from Pennsylvania for a decade. Deng’s case starkly illustrates how off-campus “retreats” are often chosen specifically to evade university oversight, yet liability remains for both local chapters and national organizations.

Athletic Program Hazing & Abuse

Hazing is not confined to Greek life; it is a pervasive issue within athletic programs, where physical and psychological abuse often masquerades as character-building or team discipline.

• Northwestern University football (2023–2025): A massive scandal erupted at Northwestern following allegations from former football players describing widespread sexualized and racist hazing within the program. Players reported forced sexual acts, racial discrimination, and a culture of fear. This led to the firing of long-time head coach Pat Fitzgerald, numerous lawsuits against the university and coaching staff, and a confidential settlement with Fitzgerald for a wrongful-termination claim. This ongoing situation powerfully demonstrates that hazing is deeply embedded in major athletic programs and can encompass much more than physical torment, highlighting a severe institutional failure of oversight.

What These Cases Mean for Texas Families

These harrowing national cases, from the senseless deaths due to forced drinking to the brutal physical rituals and systemic athletic program abuses, share common, devastating threads: extreme physical or emotional torment, often combined with alcohol, followed by delayed or denied medical care and attempts at cover-up. The sheer volume of victims across different states and organizations reveals a pattern of negligence and a shocking disregard for student safety.

For families in Cottle County and elsewhere in Texas, these precedents are not distant tragedies; they are powerful examples of what happens when institutions fail in their duty of care. These cases show that:

• Litigation often leads to accountability: Multi-million-dollar settlements and significant verdicts frequently follow these tragedies, compelling institutions to enact reforms.
• Hazing laws are getting tougher: Public outcry often translates into stricter legislation, making it easier to hold individuals and organizations criminally and civilly liable.
• The stakes are incredibly high: Beyond the immeasurable personal loss, the financial and reputational costs to universities and national organizations are enormous.

These lessons directly inform our approach at Attorney911. We understand that new cases in Texas, including those from universities like UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor, are part of this broader national landscape. The patterns of negligence, foreseeability of harm, and institutional culpability established in these anchor cases are precisely what we leverage to seek justice for our Texas clients.

Texas Focus: UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, Baylor

For families in Cottle County, choosing a university is a monumental decision. It’s often assumed that well-regarded institutions have robust systems in place to protect students. However, hazing remains a persistent challenge at even the most prestigious Texas universities. While Cottle County itself does not host a major university, many of our local students aspire to attend, or currently attend, these prominent institutions across the state. Understanding the specific context of hazing at these Texas schools is crucial for our local community.

5.1 University of Houston (UH)

The University of Houston, a vibrant urban campus primarily located in Harris County, is home to a diverse student body, including many students hailing from, or with connections to, Cottle County. Its active Greek life, alongside numerous student organizations and athletic programs, creates a dynamic environment.

5.1.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

UH is a large, public research university in the heart of Houston, serving over 47,000 students. It offers a bustling campus experience, recognized for its strong academic programs and active campus life. Greek life at UH is extensive, with numerous fraternities and sororities, including Interfraternity Council (IFC), Panhellenic Council, National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), and multicultural Greek organizations. Many Cottle County families are drawn to the opportunities and diversity that UH offers for their children.

5.1.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

The University of Houston maintains a strict anti-hazing policy, emphasizing a zero-tolerance stance. Its policies explicitly define hazing in line with the Texas Education Code, prohibiting any act that endangers mental or physical health for the purpose of initiation or membership. This prohibition applies to both on-campus and off-campus activities related to any university-recognized student organization.

UH provides multiple channels for reporting hazing:

• Dean of Students Office: Responsible for investigating student conduct violations, including hazing.
• UH Police Department (UHPD): For incidents involving criminal behavior or immediate safety concerns.
• Online Reporting Forms: Available through the university’s website for anonymous or identified reports.

The university also attempts to provide training and education on hazing prevention, and publishes some disciplinary actions taken against organizations found in violation of hazing policies.

5.1.3 Example Incident & Response

The Manginello Law Firm’s $10 million lawsuit against the University of Houston and Pi Kappa Phi fraternity on behalf of Leonel Bermudez exemplifies the severe consequences of hazing at UH. Bermudez, a transfer student and fall 2025 pledge, was subjected to a series of escalating and dangerous hazing acts culminating in acute kidney failure and rhabdomyolysis.

• Pledges were required to carry a “pledge fanny pack” 24/7 containing degrading items like condoms and sex toys.
• Activities included forced strenuous physical exercises, such as 100+ push-ups and 500 squats on November 3, 2025, leaving Bermudez unable to stand.
• Hazing took place at the Pi Kappa Phi chapter house, an off-campus residence on Culmore Drive, and Yellowstone Boulevard Park in Houston.
• Bermudez was subjected to degrading rituals, including hose spraying “similar to waterboarding” and threats of actual waterboarding.
• Pledges were forced to consume substances until vomiting, including milk, hot dogs, and peppercorns, followed by immediate sprints.
• Another pledge was allegedly hog-tied face-down on a table with an object in his mouth for over an hour.

The University of Houston faced scrutiny for its response, though it publicly called the conduct “deeply disturbing” and promised disciplinary measures. The Pi Kappa Phi chapter was suspended by the national headquarters on November 6, 2025, and members voted to surrender their charter on November 14, 2025, effectively shutting down the chapter. This case, filed in a Harris County court, highlights the critical roles of all parties—the university, the national fraternity, housing corporations, and individual members—in hazing incidents.

5.1.4 How a UH Hazing Case Might Proceed

For Cottle County families, a hazing case originating at the University of Houston would typically fall under the jurisdiction of Harris County courts. Investigations might involve the UH Police Department, the Houston Police Department, and the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, depending on the severity and location of the incidents.
Potential defendants could include:

• The individual students who performed the hazing.
• The local Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu chapter.
• The national Pi Kappa Phi fraternity and its housing corporation.
• The University of Houston and the UH System Board of Regents, particularly concerning claims of negligent supervision or failure to enforce policies.

Litigation often involves extensive discovery to uncover internal communications, prior complaints, and enforcement records from both the fraternity and the university.

5.1.5 What UH Students & Parents Should Do

If you suspect hazing involving a student at the University of Houston, especially if they are from Cottle County:

• Prioritize Safety and Medical Care: Ensure immediate medical attention for any injuries or severe intoxication. UH’s good-faith reporting policies may offer some protections.
• Document Everything: Collect and preserve all digital evidence (texts, photos, videos) and detailed personal notes of what occurred.
• Report to UH Authorities: Contact the Dean of Students, UHPD, or utilize online reporting.
• Contact an Attorney: Consult with an attorney experienced in Houston-based hazing cases, especially one familiar with the specific dynamics of the University of Houston, to understand your rights and potential legal options in Harris County. The Manginello Law Firm has direct experience with hazing cases at UH, including the recent Bermudez lawsuit.

5.2 Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University, located in College Station (Brazos County) and roughly 150 miles southeast of Cottle County, is a flagship institution for many Texas families. Known for its strong traditions and the Corps of Cadets, A&M presents a unique environment where hazing can sometimes become intertwined with notions of loyalty and discipline. Many students from Cottle County choose Texas A&M, making the prevention and handling of hazing there a direct concern for our community.

5.2.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

Texas A&M is one of the largest public universities in the U.S., famous for its deep-rooted traditions, passionate alumni network, and the nationally recognized Corps of Cadets. Greek life is also prominent, but the sheer scale of student organizations and the unique culture of the Corps mean that hazing can occur in various forms and contexts. The emphasis on “Aggie Spirit” and historical traditions can sometimes be exploited to justify harmful behaviors during initiation or cadet training.

5.2.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

Texas A&M has a detailed anti-hazing policy that aligns with Texas state law, prohibiting any action that endangers physical or mental health, occurs for initiation or membership, and is applied to student organizations, including the Corps. The university website offers clear definitions and consequences.

Reporting channels include:

• Office of Student Conduct: Investigates violations pertaining to student organizations.
• University Police Department (UPD): For criminal incidents.
• Hazing Hotline: An anonymous reporting service available to the university community.
• Corps of Cadets Leadership: Specific reporting structures exist within the Corps itself for cadet-related violations.

5.2.3 Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

Texas A&M has a troubling history with hazing, both within Greek life and the Corps of Cadets:

• Sigma Alpha Epsilon lawsuit (circa 2021): Pledges alleged being subjected to extreme physical and degrading acts, including having industrial-strength cleaner, raw eggs, and spit poured on them, resulting in severe chemical burns requiring skin graft surgeries. The chapter was swiftly suspended by the national organization and the university.
• Corps of Cadets lawsuit (2023): A former cadet filed a lawsuit alleging continuous and degrading hazing within the Corps, including simulated sexual acts and being bound in a “roasted pig” pose with an apple in his mouth. While A&M publicly stated it handles such matters under its rules, the alleged details underscore the severity that can occur within such highly structured organizations.
• Aggie Bonfire Collapse (1999): While not classified as traditional hazing, this tragic event, which killed 12 students and injured 27 during the construction of a student-led tradition, highlighted the inherent dangers of unsupervised, high-risk, student-organized activities and raised questions about institutional oversight. Civil settlements in excess of $6 million were paid out.

These incidents demonstrate that the university sometimes faces civil actions, even when it emphasizes its internal disciplinary procedures.

5.2.4 How a Texas A&M Hazing Case Might Proceed

For Cottle County families, a hazing incident at Texas A&M would involve Brazos County courts. Investigations would likely include the Texas A&M University Police Department and local College Station law enforcement. Because of the Corps of Cadets’ unique structure, cases may involve military regulations alongside civil and criminal laws. Potential defendants would again include individuals, the local chapter, national organizations, and potentially the university itself, particularly given situations like the Bonfire Collapse, which raised questions about the university’s ultimate responsibility.

5.2.5 What Texas A&M Students & Parents Should Do

• Utilize A&M’s Reporting Channels: Report incidents to the Office of Student Conduct, UPD, or the hazing hotline. Within the Corps, the chain of command and the Ross Volunteer Association are key reporting avenues.
• Document Traditions Carefully: If hazing is cloaked as “tradition,” document how it deviates from official policy or crosses into harmful territory. These unique cultural elements can be crucial in a legal case.
• Seek Legal Counsel Informed on A&M Culture: An attorney familiar with Texas A&M’s specific cultural nuances, including the Corps of Cadets and Greek life, can better navigate the complexities and potential defenses in a hazing claim.

5.3 University of Texas at Austin (UT)

The University of Texas at Austin, located in the state capital, is a large public institution that draws students from every corner of Texas, including Cottle County. Its diverse student body, robust Greek life, and competitive academic and athletic programs make it a focal point for many families.

5.3.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

UT Austin is a sprawling campus in the heart of the state capital, serving over 50,000 students. It boasts a vibrant social scene, with a significant presence of fraternities and sororities, as well as numerous student organizations and highly active spirit groups. The campus culture, while diverse, is also fiercely proud of its traditions, which occasionally become breeding grounds for hazing.

5.3.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

The University of Texas at Austin maintains strong anti-hazing policies, explicitly forbidding any activity that includes physical or mental abuse, forced consumption of substances, or humiliation tied to initiation or membership. UT is particularly notable for publishing comprehensive hazing statistics and a public online log of violations.

Reporting channels at UT Austin include:

• Dean of Students / Student Conduct and Academic Integrity: Manages all student conduct issues, including hazing.
• UT Police Department (UTPD): Handles criminal matters on campus.
• Office of the Title IX Coordinator: For hazing with sexual or gender-based harassment components.
• Anonymous Online Reporting System: A widely known platform for confidential reports.
• Public Hazing Violations Log: UT’s publicly accessible database of hazing violations at hazing.utexas.edu. This log typically details:
  • The name of the organization.
  • The date of the violation.
  • A brief description of the hazing conduct.
  • The university’s finding (Responsible/Not Responsible).
  • Sanctions imposed.

5.3.3 Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

UT Austin’s public hazing log provides a transparent, albeit disturbing, record of recurring issues:

• Pi Kappa Alpha (2023): The chapter was found responsible for hazing violations, including directing new members to consume milk and perform strenuous calisthenics, activities resulting in physical discomfort and potential harm. Sanctions typically include probation, educational requirements, and social restrictions.
• Texas Cowboys (2018): This spirit organization faced severe penalties, including a suspension until 2025, after investigations revealed extensive hazing. Allegations included forced consumption of alcohol, physical abuse, sleep deprivation, and dangerous activities that may have contributed to a member’s death in a car accident. This incident followed patterns previously seen with the Texas Cowboys death in 1995, where Gabriel Higgins drowned during drinking games, underscoring a persistent culture within some spirit groups.
• Sigma Chi (2024): The hazing-related suicide of Sawyer Updike, 18, prompted a lawsuit against the fraternity and individuals. The lawsuit alleges that hazing, including sleep deprivation and physical abuse, significantly contributed to Updike’s depression and eventual death, highlighting the profound psychological impact of hazing.

The repeated presence of individual Greek organizations and spirit groups on the violations log demonstrates a pattern of non-compliance and continued risk, even with transparent reporting.

5.3.4 How a UT Austin Hazing Case Might Proceed

For Cottle County families, a hazing incident at UT Austin would typically involve investigations by UTPD or the Austin Police Department and fall under the jurisdiction of Travis County courts. The existence of UT’s public hazing log is a powerful tool for plaintiffs, as it can directly demonstrate both foreseeability of harm and the university’s prior knowledge of an organization’s problematic history, which are crucial for establishing negligence. Potential defendants include individuals, the local chapter, national organizations, and the university, with specific legal arguments informed by state tort claims and, if applicable, Title IX.

5.3.5 What UT Austin Students & Parents Should Do

• Check UT’s Hazing Violations Log: Cottle County parents should review https://hazing.utexas.edu/ to understand any organization’s past conduct.
• Document Everything Thoroughly: Given the transparency of UT, meticulous documentation of any incidents, alongside university responses, is key.
• Report to UT Authorities: Use the Dean of Students office, UTPD, or the Title IX Coordinator.
• Seek Experienced Legal Counsel: An attorney familiar with UT Austin’s specific culture and its commitment to transparency (even if sometimes forced) can strategically use university records to strengthen a hazing claim.

5.4 Southern Methodist University (SMU)

Southern Methodist University, a distinguished private institution situated in Dallas, Texas, attracts students from across the state and beyond, including those from Cottle County seeking a high-quality private education. Its affluent campus culture and prominent Greek life present a distinct set of dynamics for hazing.

5.4.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

SMU is a private research university known for its rigorous academics, beautiful campus, and strong Greek system. Greek life is a central component of social life at SMU, with a high percentage of students participating in fraternities and sororities. This strong emphasis on Greek culture, coupled with a close-knit community feel, can sometimes lead to intense social pressures during pledge periods. Given its private status and student demographics, hazing incidents here often involve significant social and financial stakes, making legal recourse particularly important for affected families.

5.4.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

SMU has a clear anti-hazing policy that is consistent with Texas law, prohibiting any mental or physical endangerment tied to initiation or membership. As a private institution, SMU maintains internal disciplinary processes that often don’t have the same public-facing incident logs as public universities, though it is still legally obligated to respond to hazing in certain circumstances.

Reporting channels at SMU include:

• Office of Student Conduct & Community Standards: Oversees investigations and disciplinary actions against student organizations and individuals.
• SMU Police Department (SMU PD): For incidents involving criminal behavior on or near campus.
• Title IX Coordinator: For hazing incidents with sexual harassment or gender-based violence components.
• Anonymous Reporting System: Available online for confidential submissions (e.g., through its “Real Response” platform).

5.4.3 Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

Despite its private status, SMU has faced significant hazing incidents:

• Kappa Alpha Order (2017): The chapter was suspended after an investigation revealed a pattern of severe hazing, including reports of paddling, forced alcohol consumption, and significant sleep deprivation. Sanctions included a multi-year suspension from campus, demonstrating the university’s capacity for severe organizational penalties when hazing is identified.
• Numerous other Greek organizations and athletic teams have faced disciplinary actions ranging from probation to suspension in recent years for alcohol violations, physical abuse, and other forms of hazing that violate university and state policies. These incidents underscore that hazing is a recurring issue across various student groups at SMU.

While specific incident details may not always be as publicly detailed as at state-funded universities, SMU’s internal records can be obtained through legal discovery in civil lawsuits, providing crucial evidence of patterns and institutional knowledge.

5.4.4 How an SMU Hazing Case Might Proceed

For Cottle County families, a hazing case at SMU would typically be filed in Dallas County courts. Investigations might involve both SMU PD and the Dallas Police Department. As a private university, SMU does not enjoy sovereign immunity, which can simplify some aspects of civil litigation. Potential defendants would likely include individuals, the local chapter, relevant national organizations (e.g., Kappa Alpha Order), and the university itself, with claims focusing on negligent supervision, failure to enforce policies, and duty of care. The firm’s experience with BP Texas City explosion litigation demonstrates our ability to take on large, well-resourced institutional defendants like private universities.

5.4.5 What SMU Students & Parents Should Do

• Understand SMU’s Policies: Familiarize yourself with SMU’s specific hazing policies and reporting mechanisms.
• Document and Report: Meticulously document any suspected hazing incidents and report them through SMU’s official channels, ensuring a clear record of institutional notification.
• Seek Legal Counsel: Given SMU’s private nature and the potential for a less public internal process, consulting with a lawyer experienced in hazing litigation against private universities is vital. An attorney can help navigate internal investigations and, if necessary, initiate legal discovery to access critical records.

5.5 Baylor University

Baylor University, located in Waco (McLennan County) and approximately 180 miles southwest of Cottle County, is a private Baptist university with a distinct religious identity and a strong commitment to its values. However, even within this values-driven environment, hazing incidents can and do occur, impacting families from Cottle County and beyond.

5.5.1 Campus & Culture Snapshot

Baylor University is the largest Baptist university in the world, fostering a close-knit community with a strong emphasis on Christian values and academic excellence. Greek life is active, as are numerous athletic, religious, and service-oriented student organizations. Baylor’s culture is steeped in tradition, and while many of these traditions are positive, some can be misinterpreted or manipulated to facilitate hazing practices within its various student groups. The university has faced significant scrutiny in the past regarding institutional culture and accountability, particularly concerning sexual assault, which adds a layer of complexity to any claims of campus misconduct.

5.5.2 Official Hazing Policy & Reporting Channels

Baylor University strictly prohibits hazing, articulating its policy in alignment with Texas state law and its own commitment to a safe and respectful campus environment. The policy condemns any physical or mental endangerment related to initiation, admission into, affiliation with, or continued membership of any student organization.

Baylor’s reporting channels include:

• Student Conduct Administration: Responsible for investigating policy violations and imposing sanctions.
• Baylor Police Department (BUPD): For criminal incidents occurring on campus.
• Title IX Office: Critical for any hazing that involves discrimination based on sex, sexual harassment, or sexual violence.
• Anonymous Reporting: Available through various online platforms linked on the university website.

5.5.3 Selected Documented Incidents & Responses

Baylor, like other universities, has seen hazing incidents across various student groups:

• Baylor Baseball Hazing (2020): An internal investigation led to the suspension of 14 baseball players due to hazing allegations. While specific details were not fully disclosed, the university confirmed violations of policies related to hazing and misconduct, resulting in staggered suspensions that affected the team’s season. This incident underscored that hazing is not confined to Greek life and can occur within prominent athletic programs.
• Baylor Chamber of Commerce (1967): In a historical but still relevant case, John E. Clifton died after choking on a foul concoction during an initiation ritual for the Baylor Chamber of Commerce, a prominent student organization. While the death was ruled an “accident” by the state, the university’s initial response downplayed hazing, though it eventually strengthened its anti-hazing stance. This earlier incident highlights a long-standing challenge with hazing at the institution.
• Recent Greek Life Incidents: Various fraternities and sororities at Baylor have faced probation or social restrictions due to hazing-related alcohol violations, forced physical activities, and other behaviors that violate the university’s zero-tolerance policies.

These incidents demonstrate the ongoing challenge of enforcing anti-hazing policies, even at institutions like Baylor with strong values-based guidance.

5.4.4 How a Baylor Hazing Case Might Proceed

For Cottle County families, a hazing case at Baylor University would typically be filed in McLennan County courts. Investigations might involve BUPD and the Waco Police Department. As a private university, Baylor does not have the protection of sovereign immunity, similar to SMU. Given Baylor’s past institutional challenges and scrutiny regarding student safety and conduct, any hazing claim would likely face intense legal scrutiny. Potential defendants would include individuals, the local chapter, national organizations, and Baylor University itself, focusing on negligent supervision, failure to enforce policies, and its duty of care to students.

5.4.5 What Baylor Students & Parents Should Do

• Understand Baylor’s Specific Policies: Be thoroughly familiar with Baylor’s anti-hazing policy and its reporting mechanisms, noting any unique aspects tied to its religious affiliation or past institutional reviews.
• Document and Preserve: Meticulously document all alleged hazing incidents with objective details, including dates, times, names, and evidence.
• Report Internally then Seek Legal Advice: Report to Baylor’s Student Conduct Administration or BUPD. Then, consult an attorney experienced in hazing lawsuits against private institutions. Their expertise is crucial for navigating Baylor’s internal processes and determining external legal options.

6. Fraternities & Sororities: Campus-Specific + National Histories

For Cottle County families, understanding the complex interplay between a local chapter and its national organization is critical when facing hazing. Many of the fraternities and sororities present at Texas’s major universities are chapters of national or international organizations. These national bodies often have extensive histories, including repeated hazing incidents, which underscore the foreseeability of harm and can strengthen a civil claim for negligence or gross negligence.

6.1 Why National Histories Matter

When a student from Cottle County pledges a fraternity or sorority in Texas, they are not just joining a local campus group. They are becoming part of a larger national (and sometimes international) organization. These national headquarters are critical entities in hazing litigation for several reasons:

• Policy and Oversight: National organizations draft strict anti-hazing policies, often in response to past tragedies, and are theoretically responsible for enforcing them across their chapters.
• Prior Notice and Foreseeability: When a hazing incident occurs at a Texas chapter, a key legal question is whether the national organization knew or should have known about the risk of such behavior. This is proven by demonstrating a pattern of similar hazing incidents at other chapters of the same national organization across the country.
• Financial Resources: National organizations often possess significant financial resources and insurance policies, making them crucial targets for civil litigation seeking meaningful compensation for victims.

When a Texas chapter repeats a hazing script that has previously led to injury, death, or legal action at another chapter of the same national organization, it can be powerful proof of foreseeability. This pattern evidence is central to arguments for negligence, gross negligence, and even punitive damages against national entities.

6.2 Organization Mapping (Synthesized)

Below are some key national fraternities and sororities prominent at Texas universities that have documented national histories of hazing incidents. This is not an exhaustive list, but highlights organizations whose patterns of conduct significantly inform hazing litigation.

Pi Kappa Alpha (ΠΚΑ / Pike)

• National Hazing History: This fraternity has been repeatedly associated with severe alcohol hazing. The tragic death of Stone Foltz at Bowling Green State University in 2021, where a pledge died from alcohol poisoning after a forced drinking event, resulted in criminal convictions and a $10 million settlement from the fraternity and university. The death of David Bogenberger at Northern Illinois University in 2012 from alcohol poisoning also led to a $14 million settlement.
• Relevance to Texas: Pike chapters exist at numerous Texas universities, including the University of Houston and the University of Texas at Austin. This national pattern suggests a foreseeable risk of alcohol-related hazing at any of their chapters.

Sigma Alpha Epsilon (ΣΑΕ / SAE)

• National Hazing History: SAE has faced multiple hazing-related deaths and severe injuries nationwide, earning it the label “America’s deadliest fraternity” from Bloomberg News at one point. The organization famously eliminated its traditional pledging process in 2014 in response to these patterns. However, severe incidents persist. A lawsuit was filed in 2023 against an SAE chapter at the University of Alabama alleging a traumatic brain injury suffered by a pledge during hazing. In January 2024, an SAE chapter at UT Austin faced a lawsuit after an exchange student alleged assault and severe injuries from hazing. In 2021, an SAE chapter at Texas A&M University faced allegations and a lawsuit where pledges suffered chemical burns from industrial cleaner poured on them during a hazing ritual.
• Relevance to Texas: SAE has a strong presence at Texas A&M, UT Austin, and other state universities. The documented injuries and lawsuits, including those within Texas, show a recurring problem despite national policy changes.

Phi Delta Theta (ΦΔΘ)

• National Hazing History: This fraternity is linked to the high-profile death of Maxwell “Max” Gruver at Louisiana State University in 2017, who died from alcohol poisoning after a forced drinking game. This incident directly led to Louisiana’s Max Gruver Act, a felony hazing statute.
• Relevance to Texas: Phi Delta Theta chapters operate at various Texas universities, including UT Austin and Texas A&M. The national history of fatal alcohol hazing highlights a known risk within the organization.

Pi Kappa Phi (ΠΚΦ)

• National Hazing History: Pi Kappa Phi has a national history of hazing incidents, most notably the death of Andrew Coffey at Florida State University in 2017 due to alcohol poisoning during a “Big Brother Night.”
• Relevance to Texas: The Manginello Law Firm’s $10 million lawsuit against the University of Houston and its Pi Kappa Phi Beta Nu chapter for the severe hazing of Leonel Bermudez underscores the direct relevance of this national pattern to Texas students. This legal action against a Houston-based chapter confirms the pattern of abuse.

Kappa Alpha Order (KA)

• National Hazing History: Kappa Alpha Order has faced numerous hazing suspensions and sanctions across the country, often involving alcohol and physical degradation. For instance, an SMU chapter of Kappa Alpha Order was suspended in 2017 for alleged paddling, forced drinking, and sleep deprivation.
• Relevance to Texas: With chapters at SMU, UT Austin, and Texas A&M, KA’s national challenges with hazing translate directly to risks for Texas students.

Sigma Chi (ΣΧ)

• National Hazing History: Sigma Chi has been involved in significant hazing litigation. A case at the College of Charleston in 2024 resulted in the pledge’s family receiving over $10 million in damages for physical beatings, forced consumption of drugs and alcohol, and psychological torment. A chapter at the University of Texas at Arlington in 2020 also faced a hazing lawsuit after a pledge was hospitalized for alcohol poisoning.
• Relevance to Texas: Sigma Chi chapters are present at many Texas universities, including the University of Texas, Texas A&M, and SMU. These incidents, including those within Texas, confirm a national pattern of concern.

Kappa Sigma (ΚΣ)

• National Hazing History: Kappa Sigma is notable for the death of Chad Meredith at the University of Miami in 2001, who drowned after being coerced into swimming a lake while intoxicated. His family received a $12.6 million verdict, and a law was named in his honor in Florida. More recently, chapters have faced allegations of rhabdomyolysis—severe muscle breakdown—from extreme physical hazing, including at Texas Christian University in 2023.
• Relevance to Texas: Kappa Sigma chapters are active at Texas A&M, TCU, and SMU, demonstrating that the fraternity’s national issues directly translate to risks within Texas.

Phi Kappa Psi (ΦΚΨ)

• National Hazing History: A recent harrowing incident at San Diego State University in 2024 involved a pledge being set on fire during a party skit, resulting in third-degree burns. This led to felony charges against fraternity members, facing substantial prison time.
• Relevance to Texas: Phi Kappa Psi has chapters at several Texas universities, including UT Austin and Texas State. The violent, dangerous nature of this national incident highlights a severe potential for harm.

This synthesized view of national organizations is not meant to be exhaustive but rather illustrative. For Cottle County families, it means that an incident with a local chapter in Texas is rarely an isolated event; it often fits into a broader pattern of conduct that national organizations are aware of, or should be aware of, and thus can be held accountable for.

6.3 Tie Back to Legal Strategy

Understanding these national patterns, and how they manifest in local Texas chapters at universities like UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, and Baylor, is a cornerstone of our legal strategy at The Manginello Law Firm/Attorney911.

• Proving Foreseeability: When a lawsuit is filed, we demonstrate that the national organization, and often the university, had prior knowledge of these hazing risks. The repeated occurrence of similar incidents (e.g., alcohol poisoning during “pledge sneak” type events or physical abuse during “bonding” rituals) at different chapters shows that the harm was foreseeable.
• Challenging “Rogue Chapter” Defenses: National organizations frequently attempt to distance themselves from local chapter conduct, claiming they were unaware or that the chapter acted “rogue.” Our litigation strategy counters this by presenting the national history as evidence that such behavior is systemic and predictable, or that the national’s oversight was negligently inadequate.
• Impacting Insurance Coverage: Knowledge of national patterns can influence how insurance companies approach claims. If a national organization has a long documented history of hazing, it becomes harder for their insurers to argue that a given incident was an unforeseeable “accident” or that the “intentional acts” exclusion should apply, especially if the organization’s own negligence contributed to the environment where hazing occurred.
• Supporting Punitive Damages: In egregious cases, where an organization demonstrated a reckless disregard for known risks and failed to implement effective safeguards despite repeated warnings, evidence of a national pattern of hazing can be critical in supporting a claim for punitive damages. These damages are designed not just to compensate victims but to punish the defendant and deter similar conduct in the future.

For Cottle County families, this means that even if a local chapter claims the isolated incident was a “one-off,” our firm is prepared to demonstrate how it fits into a larger, more troubling, national picture, strengthening the case for accountability regardless of where the incident occurred in Texas.

7. Building a Case: Evidence, Damages, Strategy

Building a compelling hazing case requires meticulous investigation, a deep understanding of legal strategy, and a compassionate approach to representing victims and their families. This is especially true for Cottle County families navigating incidents at large Texas universities, where powerful institutions and national organizations often try to control the narrative. At The Manginello Law Firm / Attorney911, our experience in complex litigation, including the BP Texas City explosion, has equipped us to take on well-resourced defendants and uncover the truth. In hazing cases, preserving and presenting evidence is paramount. Our firm’s video on using your cellphone to document evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbpzrmogTs explains best practices for preserving screenshots and photos critical for these cases.

7.1 Evidence

The strength of any hazing case hinges on the evidence collected. In modern hazing, a significant portion of this evidence is digital.

• Digital Communications: These are often the “smoking gun” in hazing cases.

  • Group Messaging Apps: Platforms like GroupMe, WhatsApp, iMessage/SMS, Discord, and Slack are frequently used by organizations to coordinate activities. Messages here can reveal planning, peer pressure, instructions for hazing, and discussions about cover-ups. We instruct families to screenshot entire conversations, ensuring timestamps, participant names, and context are visible. These should be saved in native resolution and backed up to cloud storage immediately.
  • Disappearing Messages: For apps with auto-delete features (like Snapchat stories or Instagram vanish mode), immediate screenshots or screen recordings are vital.
  • Emails: Official chapter communications, calendar invites to “mandatory” events, instructions from officers, and correspondence with national or university officials can all be critical.

• Photos & Videos:

  • Content Captured by Members: Photos and videos taken by participants during hazing events, often shared in group chats or on private social media, are crucial. They can directly depict injurious or degrading acts, show who was present, and establish the level of coercion.
  • Injuries: Immediate and sequential photographs of any physical injuries (bruises, burns, cuts) over several days, with a scale (like a coin or ruler) and from multiple angles, are essential documentation for damages.
  • Locations: Documenting the locations where hazing occurred, whether a chapter house, off-campus residence, or recreational area, can corroborate witness testimony and link the activity to a specific setting.

• Internal Organization Documents: These provide insight into the hazing ‘culture’ and organizational structure.

  • Pledge Manuals/Initiation Scripts: These can show official versus unofficial practices and highlight contradictions between stated values and actual conduct.
  • Officer Communications: Emails or texts from leaders to members regarding “new member education,” rules, or consequences can reveal intent and knowledge.
  • National Policies & Training Materials: These demonstrate what the national organization knew should happen versus what actually transpired, revealing gaps in enforcement.

• University Records: Accessing university records is vital for establishing institutional knowledge and prior warnings.

  • Prior Conduct Files: Documents detailing previous hazing violations, probation, or suspensions against the chapter or individuals.
  • Campus Police/Student Conduct Reports: Incident reports filed with university authorities that may show a pattern of problematic behavior.
  • Athlete Handbooks/Corps of Cadets Regulations: Specific rules and incident reports for athletic teams or military-style organizations.

• Medical and Psychological Records: These document the full extent of the harm suffered.

  • Emergency Room/Hospital Records: Detail initial injuries, diagnostic tests (e.g., toxicology for alcohol/drugs, blood tests for rhabdomyolysis), and treatment.
  • Therapy Notes: For psychological harm, records from psychiatrists, psychologists, or counselors can document diagnoses like PTSD, depression, or anxiety stemming from the hazing. Your right to choose your doctor after an accident is paramount for proper documentation.

• Witness Testimony: The accounts of individuals who observed or experienced the hazing are invaluable.

  • Pledges/Members/Former Members: Their direct accounts, even if initially reluctant to share, can provide crucial inside information.
  • Other Bystanders: Roommates, RAs, coaches, or even staff at off-campus venues.

7.2 Damages

In a civil hazing lawsuit, victims and their families can seek compensation for a wide range of damages. While every case is unique as to specific amounts, demonstrating the full scope of harm is essential for fair recovery. Understanding compensation for rear-end collisions and high-speed collisions shows how effectively Attorney911 approaches various injury claims, applying similar rigor to hazing cases.

• Medical Bills & Future Care: This covers all costs associated with physical and psychological injuries.
  • Past Medical Expenses: Ambulance, emergency room visits, hospital stays, surgeries, specialist consultations, medications, and physical therapy.
  • Future Medical Care: For severe cases like brain injuries or rhabdomyolysis, this can include long-term therapy, continuous psychiatric care, or even lifelong assisted living.
• Lost Earnings / Educational Impact: Hazing can derail a student’s academic and career trajectory.
  • Lost Wages & Career Opportunities: If an injury prevents work or significantly delays graduation, leading to lost income potential.
  • Lost Academic Progress: Costs for missed tuition, withdrawal penalties, and the value of lost scholarships. Delayed graduation also means delayed entry into the workforce.
• Non-Economic Damages: These compensate for the profound, non-financial suffering.
  • Physical Pain and Suffering: Compensation for the physical agony endured, including chronic pain or permanent disfigurement.
  • Emotional Distress & Psychological Harm: This category addresses the mental anguish, trauma, humiliation, and lasting psychological impact, such as PTSD, severe anxiety, and depression.
  • Loss of Enjoyment of Life: For instance, a victim may no longer be able to participate in sports, hobbies, or social activities, impacting their overall quality of life.
• Wrongful Death Damages (for families): In the most tragic cases, families can seek compensation for the loss of their loved one. Our firm offers comprehensive support in wrongful death claims, which you can learn more about at https://attorney911.com/law-practice-areas/wrongful-death-claim-lawyer/.
  • Funeral and Burial Costs: Direct expenses related to the death.
  • Loss of Financial Contributions: If the deceased would have provided financial support to the family.
  • Loss of Companionship, Love, and Support: Compensation for the deep emotional void left by the victim’s absence.
  • Grief and Emotional Suffering: Damages for the profound sorrow and mental distress experienced by surviving family members.
• Punitive Damages: In cases of extreme recklessness or malicious conduct, punitive damages may be awarded to punish the defendants and deter similar future behavior. This is often pursued when there’s clear evidence that the involved parties consciously disregarded a known risk of severe harm.

7.3 Role of Different Defendants and Insurance Coverage

Navigating the complexities of multiple defendants and intricate insurance policies is a hallmark of hazing litigation. Lupe Peña’s background as a former insurance defense attorney is invaluable here, as she intimately understands how these entities operate. Our firm’s expertise gained from cases like the BP Texas City explosion litigation demonstrates our ability to take on well-resourced opponents.

• Identifying All Defendants: A crucial step is identifying every party that could hold some liability, from individual students and local chapter officers to national organizations and university administrations. Each defendant brings their own legal team and, often, their own insurance coverage.
• Insurance Coverage for Hazing: Many national fraternities and universities carry substantial liability insurance policies designed to cover student-related incidents. However, insurance companies often attempt to deny coverage for hazing claims by arguing:
  • “Intentional Act” Exclusions: Policies may exclude coverage for damages arising from “intentional” harm, attempting to categorize hazing as such.
  • “Hazing” Exclusions: Some policies specifically exclude coverage for hazing, especially if the organization was found to have violated its own policies.
• Overcoming Denials: An experienced hazing attorney argues that even if the hazing incident itself involved intentional acts, the national organization’s or university’s failure to supervise, implement, or enforce anti-hazing policies constitutes negligence, which is typically covered by insurance. This legal distinction is crucial. Furthermore, our firm’s strong federal court experience (including admission to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas) makes us ready for complex jurisdictional issues that may arise with national defendants. We navigate these complex insurance battles, identifying all potential sources of recovery. This meticulous approach ensures that all responsible parties are brought to the table. Our firm also boasts expertise in criminal defense (https://attorney911.com/law-practice-areas/criminal-defense-lawyers/), a critical asset when hazing cases involve parallel criminal charges, allowing us to advise clients on both fronts.

8. Practical Guides & FAQs

When hazing impacts a family, whether in Cottle County or across Texas, immediate and informed action is critical. This section provides practical guidance for parents, students, and witnesses, as well as answers to common questions. Our video on client mistakes that can ruin your injury case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3IYsoxOSxY provides important advice to avoid common pitfalls.

8.1 For Parents

Parents in Cottle County are often the first to notice changes if their child is being hazed. Recognizing the signs and knowing how to respond is key.

• Warning Signs of Hazing: Be alert to:
  • Unexplained injuries: Bruises, cuts, or “accidents” with inconsistent explanations. Our firm’s video on using your cellphone to document a legal case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbpzrmogTs offers essential tips.
  • Extreme fatigue or sleep deprivation: Constant late nights, exhaustion beyond typical college stress.
  • Drastic mood changes: Increased anxiety, depression, irritability, or withdrawal from usual activities.
  • Secrecy about organizational activities: “I can’t talk about it,” or evasiveness when asked about group events.
  • Constant phone monitoring: Anxiety about missing messages from group chats or constantly checking for updates.
  • Changes in appearance: Forced haircuts, specific attire, or changes in hygiene can be subtle indicators.
  • Academic decline: A sudden drop in grades or lack of interest in studies.
• How to Talk to Your Child: Approach conversation calmly and with empathy. Emphasize their safety and well-being over social status or group loyalty. Reassure them you will support them, no matter what. Listen more than you speak, and avoid judgmental language.
• If Your Child is Hurt: Prioritize immediate medical attention. Document everything you can: take photos of injuries, screenshot any messages or posts your child shows you, and keep detailed notes of what was said, when, and by whom.
• Dealing with the University: Every communication with university officials should be documented. Ask specific questions about their hazing investigation process, prior incidents involving the same organization, and what the university plans to do to ensure safety.
• When to Talk to a Lawyer: If your child has suffered significant physical or psychological harm, or if you feel the university or organization is minimizing the incident, immediate legal consultation is advised.

8.2 For Students / Pledges

If you are a student or pledge from Cottle County or anywhere in Texas, your safety is paramount. You have the right to a safe environment free from abuse.

• Is This Hazing or Just “Tradition”? If an activity makes you feel unsafe, humiliated, coerced, or forced to consume harmful substances or endure pain; if it’s hidden from the public or administrators; or if you’re told to keep secrets—it is likely hazing. True tradition should uplift, not degrade.
• Why “Consent” Isn’t the End of the Story: Despite pressure to participate, no one truly “consents” to being abused. Texas law explicitly recognizes that consent given under duress, peer pressure, or fear of exclusion is not valid for hazing. You are a victim, not a willing participant.
• Exiting and Reporting Safely: You have the absolute right to leave a pledging process or organization at any time without fear of retaliation. If in immediate danger, call 911. For non-emergencies, report to campus authorities (Dean of Students, Title IX Coordinator, Campus Police) or the National Anti-Hazing Hotline at 1-888-NOT-HAZE. Always prioritize your safety; you can seek legal counsel for advice on how to report without putting yourself in further jeopardy.
• Good-Faith Reporting and Amnesty: Texas law and most university policies provide good-faith reporter immunity, meaning you won’t be penalized for reporting hazing or seeking emergency medical help, even if alcohol was involved.

8.3 For Former Members / Witnesses

If you are a former member or witness to hazing, your role can be crucial in preventing future harm and seeking justice.

• Acknowledging Your Role: It’s common to feel guilt, fear of retaliation, or conflicted loyalty. However, your insights and testimony can save lives and hold perpetrators accountable.
• How You Can Help: Your accounts and any evidence you possess (texts, photos, videos) can provide critical insight into the patterns of abuse. We understand these situations are sensitive.
• Seeking Legal Advice: If you are concerned about your own potential criminal exposure or civil liability, or if you fear retaliation, seeking legal advice is crucial. An attorney can help you understand your rights and potential protections. Ralph Manginello’s membership in the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association allows our firm to advise on both criminal and civil ramifications.

8.4 Critical Mistakes That Can Destroy Your Case

Tragically, many families inadvertently jeopardize their hazing cases by making common mistakes, often driven by fear, anger, or a lack of understanding of the legal process. For families in Cottle County and throughout Texas, avoiding these pitfalls is critical to ensuring accountability for hazing.

1. Letting Your Child Delete Messages or “Clean Up” Evidence:
   • Mistake: Believing that deleting incriminating texts, photos, or group chats will protect your child from further trouble.
   • Why it’s wrong: This looks like a cover-up, can be considered obstruction of justice, and eliminates crucial evidence needed to prove the hazing occurred. Digital forensics can often recover deleted data, and the absence of original evidence can be severely detrimental to a case.
   • Instead: Preserve everything immediately. Screenshot, save, and back up all digital communications, regardless of how embarrassing or incriminating they may seem. This provides an authentic, unfiltered record.
2. Confronting the Fraternity/Sorority Directly:
   • Mistake: Parents, driven by anger or a desire for immediate answers, directly confronting the organization or its members.
   • Why it’s wrong: This immediately puts the organization on alert. They will likely legal counsel, instruct members to remain silent, delete evidence, and formulate defenses, severely complicating any future investigation or litigation.
   • Instead: Document everything privately, then consult with a lawyer before any direct confrontation. Let your legal counsel manage communication.
3. Signing University “Release” or “Resolution” Forms:
   • Mistake: Agreeing to university-offered internal “resolutions,” non-disclosure agreements, or waivers without legal review. Universities sometimes pressure families to accept internal disciplinary actions in exchange for waiving legal rights.
   • Why it’s wrong: You may inadvertently waive your right to pursue a civil lawsuit, and any “settlement” offered may be a fraction of what your case is truly worth in a court of law.
   • Instead: Never sign any document from the university or organization without extensive review by an independent attorney.
4. Posting Details on Social Media Before Talking to a Lawyer:
   • Mistake: Seeking public awareness or airing grievances on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or TikTok.
   • Why it’s wrong: Defense attorneys will monitor and screenshot everything. Inconsistencies between public statements and legal testimony can harm credibility and provide fodder for the defense. It can also waive important legal privileges.
   • Instead: Document privately. Your attorney will advise on the appropriate public relations strategy, if any, that aligns with your legal goals.
5. Letting Your Child Go Back to “One Last Meeting” to “Explain Themselves”:
   • Mistake: Allowing your child to attend meetings with the organization or university officials alone, especially if they’re being pressured to “talk things over” or “clear the air.”
   • Why it’s wrong: These are often attempts to pressure, intimidate, or extract statements that can later be used against your child or weaken a potential legal claim.
   • Instead: Once you are considering legal action, all communications with the organization or university should go through your attorney.
6. Waiting “to See How the University Handles It”:
   • Mistake: Relying solely on the university’s internal disciplinary process to deliver justice or accountability.
   • Why it’s wrong: University processes are not designed to compensate victims or enforce legal rights effectively. Evidence disappears rapidly, witnesses graduate or move on, and the statute of limitations continues to run. The university’s primary goal is often self-preservation, not full transparency or victim compensation.
   • Instead: Preserve evidence NOW. Consult with a lawyer immediately, even while participating in internal university processes.
7. Talking to Insurance Adjusters Without a Lawyer:
   • Mistake: Providing statements or engaging in settlement discussions with insurance adjusters directly.
   • Why it’s wrong: Adjusters are trained to minimize payouts. Any statements you make can be used against you, and early settlement offers are almost always lowball.
   • Instead: Politely decline to speak and inform them that your attorney will contact them. All communications should be managed by your legal counsel.

8.5 Short FAQ

• “Can I sue a university for hazing in Texas?”
  Yes, under certain circumstances. Public universities like the University of Houston, Texas A&M, and UT Austin have some sovereign immunity protections, but exceptions exist for cases involving gross negligence, Title IX violations, or when suing individual employees in their personal capacity. Private universities such as SMU and Baylor have fewer immunity protections. Every case is fact-dependent—contact Attorney911 at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a case-specific analysis.
• “Is hazing a felony in Texas?”
  It can be. Texas Education Code defines hazing as a Class B misdemeanor by default. However, it becomes a state jail felony if the hazing causes serious bodily injury or death. Individual officers and members of an organization can also face misdemeanor charges for failing to report hazing or for retaliating against a reporter.
• “Can my child bring a case if they ‘agreed’ to the initiation?”
  Yes. Texas Education Code § 37.155 explicitly states that consent is not a defense to prosecution for hazing. Courts recognize that “consent” given under duress, peer pressure, or fear of exclusion is not true voluntary consent and does not absolve the perpetrators or institutions of liability.
• “How long do we have to file a hazing lawsuit?”
  Generally, families have 2 years from the date of injury or death to file a hazing lawsuit in Texas. However, the “discovery rule” may extend this period if the harm or its cause was not immediately apparent. In cases involving deliberate cover-ups or fraud, the statute of limitations may be tolled (paused). Time is critical—evidence disappears, witnesses’ memories fade, and organizations destroy records. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 immediately to protect your rights. Our video on the statute of limitations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRHwg8tV02c provides further details.
• “What if the hazing happened off-campus or at a private house?”
  The location of the hazing does not automatically eliminate liability for the university or national organization. They can still be held liable based on their sponsorship of the organization, their knowledge of previous hazing patterns, and their failure to adequately supervise or enforce anti-hazing policies. Many major hazing cases, including the Pi Delta Psi retreat death in Pennsylvania and the Sigma Pi unofficial house death in Ohio, occurred off-campus and resulted in significant judgments.
• “Will this be confidential, or will my child’s name be in the news?”
  We prioritize your family’s privacy. While filing a lawsuit typically makes the case public record, most hazing cases settle confidentially before trial. Confidentiality clauses are often part of settlement agreements. We strive to balance public accountability with protecting your child’s identity and future. An experienced attorney can discuss strategies for maintaining privacy.
• “How do contingency fees work?”
  Our firm operates on a contingency fee basis. This means you pay no upfront legal fees, and we only get paid if we win your case. Our fees are a percentage of the compensation we recover for you. If we don’t win, you don’t owe us attorney’s fees. This arrangement ensures that access to justice is available to all families, regardless of their financial situation. Our video explaining contingency fees https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcI_j6F7Nc provides a detailed explanation.
• “Will the lawsuit target my child’s friends?”
  Our focus is on holding all responsible parties accountable, which may include individuals directly involved in the hazing. However, we also consider the broader systemic failures of the institution and national organization. Each case is unique, and we will discuss the implications of naming individuals versus institutions with your family to align with your goals for justice and accountability.

9. About The Manginello Law Firm + Call to Action

When your family faces the profound trauma of hazing, you need more than just a general personal injury lawyer. You need attorneys who understand how powerful institutions fight back—and how to win anyway. At The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, operating as Attorney911, the Legal Emergency Lawyers™, we bring a unique blend of experience, empathy, and aggressive advocacy to hazing cases across Texas, serving families from Cottle County to the state’s largest metropolitan areas.

Our firm is uniquely qualified to tackle the complexities of hazing litigation:

• Insurance Insider Advantage: Lupe Peña, one of our skilled associate attorneys, honed her expertise as a former insurance defense attorney at a national firm. She knows their playbook inside and out – how fraternity and university insurance companies evaluate (or devalue) hazing claims, their delay tactics, and their strategies for arguing coverage exclusions. We know their playbook because we used to run it. Lupe’s comprehensive profile can be viewed at https://attorney911.com/attorneys/lupe-pena/.
• Complex Litigation Against Massive Institutions: Ralph Manginello, our managing partner, has a decorated career taking on some of the largest defendants. His involvement in the BP Texas City explosion litigation is a testament to our firm’s capability to challenge billion-dollar corporations and win. We are admitted to practice in federal court (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas) and are not intimidated by national fraternities, universities, or their formidable defense teams. We’ve taken on powerful defendants and won. Ralph’s full credentials are available at https://attorney911.com/attorneys/ralph-manginello/.
• Multi-Million Dollar Wrongful Death and Catastrophic Injury Experience: We have a proven track record in securing multi-million dollar results in complex wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases. We don’t settle cheap; we painstakingly build cases that force accountability, drawing on expert testimony from economists, medical specialists, and life care planners to ensure full compensation for lifelong harms.
• Criminal + Civil Hazing Expertise: Ralph’s membership in the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA) underscores our dual expertise. We understand how criminal hazing charges interact with civil litigation, enabling us to advise clients on both criminal exposure and civil liability for all parties involved. This comprehensive approach is critical when individuals face criminal charges alongside a civil lawsuit.
• Investigative Depth: We leverage a vast network of experts, including digital forensics specialists to recover deleted evidence, medical and psychological professionals to document injuries and trauma, and economists to calculate long-term financial impacts. We investigate like your child’s life depends on it—because it does.

From our Houston offices, we proudly serve families throughout Texas, including Cottle County and its surrounding communities. We understand that hazing at major Texas universities, whether it’s UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, or Baylor, profoundly affects families like yours. Our firm comprehends how these organizations, Corps programs, and athletic departments operate behind closed doors, how to unearth hidden evidence, and what makes hazing cases distinctively challenging. We also offer Spanish language services.

Call to Action

If your child, whether attending a university across Texas or closer to Cottle County, has experienced hazing, you don’t have to face this alone. The Manginello Law Firm is here to listen, investigate, and fight for the justice your family deserves.

Contact The Manginello Law Firm for a confidential, no-obligation consultation. We will attentively listen to your story, explain your legal options, and help you determine the most effective path forward.

What to expect in your free consultation:

• We will listen to your story without judgment.
• We will review any evidence you have, including photos, texts, and medical records.
• We will explain your legal options, whether that involves a criminal report, a civil lawsuit, both, or neither.
• We will discuss realistic timelines and what to expect throughout the legal process.
• We will answer your questions about costs, confirming our contingency fee model—meaning we don’t get paid unless we win your case.
• There is no pressure to hire us on the spot; we encourage you to take the time you need to decide.
• Everything you share with us is held in strict confidence.

Whether you’re in Cottle County, Paducah, or anywhere across the Lone Star State, if hazing has impacted your family, you deserve answers and accountability.

Call Attorney911 today:

• Emergency Hotline: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
• Direct Line: (713) 528-9070
• Cell: (713) 443-4781
• Website: https://attorney911.com
• Email: ralph@atty911.com

Hablamos Español: Please contact Lupe Peña at lupe@atty911.com for consultation services in Spanish. Servicios legales en español disponibles.

Don’t let powerful institutions dictate your family’s path to justice. Call us today.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC.

Hazing laws, university policies, and legal precedents can change. The information in this guide is current as of late 2025 but may not reflect the most recent developments. Every hazing case is unique, and outcomes depend on the specific facts, evidence, applicable law, and many other factors.

If you or your child has been affected by hazing, we strongly encourage you to consult with a qualified Texas attorney who can review your specific situation, explain your legal rights, and advise you on the best course of action for your family.

The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC / Attorney911
Houston, Austin, and Beaumont, Texas
Call: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
Direct: (713) 528-9070 | Cell: (713) 443-4781
Website: https://attorney911.com
Email: ralph@atty911.com