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

Families in Denton County cherish the educational opportunities and vibrant communities our region offers. From the dynamic higher education institutions within our borders to the prestigious universities across Texas where many of our children attend, we understand the aspirations of young people pursuing their dreams. However, beneath the surface of campus life, a dangerous and often hidden threat can lurk: hazing. When the excitement of college turns into a nightmare of physical harm, emotional trauma, or even death, the dreams built in Denton County can be shattered in an instant.

Imagine receiving a call that your child, who left Denton County with so much hope, is in the emergency room after a “new member event” gone horribly wrong. They might be disoriented, bruised, or dangerously ill from forced drinking. Perhaps they’re too scared or ashamed to tell you the full story, fearing retaliation or the dissolution of newfound friendships. This isn’t just a distant possibility; it’s a stark reality that Texas families, including those right here in Denton County, face every single year.

This comprehensive guide aims to arm Denton County families with the critical information needed to understand, identify, and address hazing. We will delve into what hazing truly looks like in 2025, the relevant Texas and federal laws, and the cautionary tales from major national and in-state hazing cases—including those at institutions many Denton County students choose: the University of Houston, Texas A&M University, the University of Texas at Austin, Southern Methodist University, and Baylor University. We will also explore the histories of various fraternities and sororities and outline the legal strategies for holding accountable those responsible for harm. Our goal is to provide genuine value, offering clear steps and empowering you with the knowledge to protect your children and seek justice if the unthinkable occurs.

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 Denton County families unfamiliar with modern Greek life or other student organizations, hazing might conjure images from old movies—harmless pranks or mild inconveniences. However, hazing in 2025 is far more insidious, dangerous, and often deeply psychological. It’s a complex hierarchy of abuse, designed to instill loyalty through shared trauma and maintain power imbalances, often escalating to life-threatening levels. It’s crucial for us to understand these evolving tactics to recognize them and protect our loved ones.

It’s no longer about simple pranks; modern hazing is driven by social status, tradition, and an often-unspoken code of secrecy. These practices persist even when everyone involved “knows” that hazing is illegal and explicitly forbidden by university and national organization policies.

Clear, modern definition of hazing

At its core, hazing is 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 mere physical abuse to include psychological manipulation and digital coercion.

It’s vital to emphasize that the phrase “I agreed to it” does not automatically make such actions safe or legal. When immense peer pressure, a significant power imbalance, and implicit threats of exclusion are present, genuine consent is often impossible. The law and courts increasingly recognize that consent cannot be freely given in coercive environments.

Main categories of hazing

To truly comprehend the depth of this issue, we must examine the various forms modern hazing takes:

• Alcohol and substance hazing: This is arguably the most prevalent and deadly form of hazing today. It involves forced or coerced drinking of excessive amounts of alcohol, often rapidly. This includes “chugging challenges,” “lineups” where pledges consume drinks in rapid succession, “games” designed to induce extreme intoxication, or being pressured to consume unknown or mixed substances. Many new member “traditions” center around mass intoxication.
• Physical hazing: This category covers any physical abuse or extreme exertion. It ranges from brutal beatings and paddling (still tragically common in some organizations) to extreme calisthenics, “workouts,” or “smokings” that go far beyond safe physical limits. Sleep deprivation, food and water deprivation, and exposure to extreme cold or heat, or other dangerous environments, are also common tactics designed to break down pledges physically and mentally.
• Sexualized and humiliating hazing: These acts are designed to degrade and shame. They can involve forced nudity or partial nudity, simulated sexual acts (sometimes referred to as “elephant walks” or “roasted pig” positions), wearing degrading costumes, or participating in sexually suggestive drills. These acts often have racial or sexist overtones, utilizing slurs or forced role-playing of stereotypes, leaving deep psychological scars.
• Psychological hazing: This form of hazing aims to break an individual’s will and identity. It includes relentless verbal abuse, threats, and deliberate social isolation designed to create dependence on the group. Psychological manipulation, forced confessions of personal secrets, and public shaming—whether in person or online—are powerful tools used to control and humiliate.
• Digital/online hazing: This is a burgeoning and increasingly sophisticated form of hazing that leverages modern technology. It includes constant monitoring in group chats, assigning dares or “challenges” that must be performed and recorded, and public humiliation via platforms like Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and Discord. There is also immense pressure to create or share compromising images or videos of oneself or others. This can extend to cyberstalking and harassment, where pledges are tracked via location-sharing apps or subjected to constant digital demands.

Where hazing actually happens

It’s a common misconception in Denton County and beyond that hazing is exclusively a “frat boy” problem. In reality, hazing permeates a much wider array of student organizations:

• Fraternities and sororities: This includes traditional Interfraternity Council (IFC) and Panhellenic organizations, as well as National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) and multicultural Greek-letter organizations. Despite national policies against hazing, incidents sadly persist.
• Corps of Cadets / ROTC / military-style groups: These organizations, often rooted in tradition and discipline, sometimes harbor hazing practices disguised as “tough love,” “team building,” or “character development.” The intense group loyalty can make reporting even more challenging.
• Spirit squads, tradition clubs: Groups like campus spirit groups, student government, or well-established tradition clubs (such as the Texas Cowboys at UT) can fall prey to hazing by rationalizing it as historical rites of passage.
• Athletic teams: Hazing is unfortunately prevalent across various sports teams including football, basketball, baseball, track, swimming, cheerleading, and even club sports. Often disguised as “team building” or “veteran traditions,” these practices can include physical abuse, forced drinking, and sexualized rituals.
• Marching bands and performance groups: Even seemingly wholesome organizations like marching bands, theater groups, and dance troupes have documented histories of hazing. The pursuit of group cohesion and artistic excellence can sometimes be twisted into abusive initiation rituals.
• Some service, cultural, and academic organizations: While less common, instances of hazing have been reported in these groups, where members might feel pressure to prove their dedication or commitment through degrading acts.

In all these contexts, a dangerous mix of social status, reverence for tradition, and a powerful code of secrecy keeps these practices alive. These factors create an environment where hazing can flourish unchecked, often with devastating consequences for the individuals involved and their families back in Denton County.

LAW & LIABILITY FRAMEWORK (TEXAS + FEDERAL)

Understanding the legal landscape surrounding hazing is crucial for any Denton County family seeking justice. Hazing is not merely a violation of university policy; it is a crime in Texas and carries significant civil liabilities for individuals and institutions alike.

Texas hazing law basics (Education Code)

Texas has specific and robust anti-hazing provisions enshrined in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 37, Subchapter F. These laws make it clear that hazing is a serious offense, regardless of whether it occurs on or off campus.

The law broadly defines hazing as any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, committed by one person alone or with others, directed against a student for the purpose of pledging, initiation into, affiliation with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any student organization, that:

• Endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student; OR
• Causes the student to suffer extreme mental or physical discomfort, humiliation, or degradation.

Key aspects of Texas hazing law:

• Location doesn’t matter: Importantly, hazing is prohibited whether it occurs on or off campus. This means events at private residences, off-campus venues, or even remote locations are covered.
• Scope of harm: The law recognizes harm can be mental or physical. This addresses psychological hazing, not just overt physical abuse.
• Intent: The perpetrator doesn’t need to specifically intend to cause harm. “Reckless” action—meaning they knew the risk and disregarded it—is sufficient for a violation.
• “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 or acquiesced in the hazing activity. This is a critical legal protection for victims, acknowledging the coercive nature of hazing environments.

Criminal penalties for hazing in Texas:

• Class B Misdemeanor: Most hazing offenses are classified as a Class B misdemeanor, carrying potential jail time of up to 180 days and a fine of up to $2,000.
• Class A Misdemeanor: If the hazing causes bodily injury to another person, it can be elevated to a Class A misdemeanor, with potential jail time of up to one year and a fine of up to $4,000.
• State Jail Felony: Critically, if hazing causes serious bodily injury or death, it can be charged as a state jail felony, carrying a potential sentence of 180 days to two years in a state jail facility, plus significant fines.

Beyond the direct act of hazing, Texas law also addresses related offenses:

• Failure to report: An individual who has knowledge of the planning or occurrence of hazing and fails to report it to an appropriate official can be charged with a misdemeanor. This applies particularly to organizers and participants.
• Organizational liability: Organizations themselves (fraternities, sororities, clubs) can be held criminally liable if they authorized or encouraged the hazing, or if an officer or member acting in official capacity knew about hazing and failed to report it. Organizations can face fines of up to $10,000 per violation and can be banned or lose university recognition.

Criminal vs. civil cases

It is important for Denton County families to understand the distinction between criminal and civil legal actions concerning hazing:

• Criminal cases: These are brought by the state (prosecutors, district attorneys) against individuals or organizations accused of violating criminal hazing statutes or other laws (e.g., assault, furnishing alcohol to minors, negligent homicide). The primary goal in criminal cases is to punish the offender through incarceration, fines, or probation. A criminal conviction serves as public accountability and can have severe consequences for the individuals involved.
• Civil cases: These are initiated by the hazing victim or their surviving family members (in cases of wrongful death) against individuals, organizations, and institutions. The primary goal of a civil lawsuit is to obtain monetary compensation for the damages suffered by the victim, and to compel accountability and institutional change. Civil cases rely on legal theories such as negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, negligent supervision, and infliction of emotional distress. A criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for filing a civil lawsuit; the burden of proof is also lower in civil court (“preponderance of the evidence” vs. “beyond a reasonable doubt”).

Both criminal and civil proceedings can occur simultaneously, offering multiple avenues for justice and accountability.

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

Beyond state law, federal regulations also play a role in shaping how universities address hazing:

• Stop Campus Hazing Act (2024): This landmark federal legislation, part of the Omnibus Appropriations bill, requires colleges and universities that receive federal funding to be more transparent about hazing incidents. By 2026, institutions will be required to:
  • Publicly report hazing violations and disciplinary actions taken against student organizations.
  • Provide data on hazing incidents that occurred on and off campus.
  • Implement comprehensive hazing prevention programs and education.
  • This act will provide unprecedented visibility into hazing, offering Denton County families clearer information about hazing risks at specific institutions.
• Title IX: This federal civil rights law prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. When hazing involves sexual harassment, sexual assault, gender-based bullying, or creates a hostile environment based on sex, Title IX obligations are triggered. Universities have a legal duty to investigate and respond promptly and effectively to such allegations, regardless of whether they occur on or off campus, or in Greek life or athletic contexts.
• Clery Act: The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act requires colleges and universities to disclose information about crime on and around their campuses. While hazing is not explicitly listed as a Clery crime, many hazing incidents involve underlying Clery-reportable offenses such as aggravated assault, sexual assault, liquor law violations, or drug abuse violations. This means that hazing incidents can contribute to a university’s publicly reported crime statistics, further highlighting patterns of misconduct.

Who can be liable in a civil hazing lawsuit

Determining who is legally responsible for hazing can be complex, but an experienced attorney will identify all potential defendants to ensure full accountability and recovery for damages. Potential parties include:

• Individual students: Those who actively planned, carried out, supplied the illegal substances, or contributed to the cover-up of the hazing can be held personally liable.
• Local chapter/organization: The specific fraternity, sorority, club, or team itself, if it operates as a recognized legal entity, can be sued directly. This also includes the officers and “pledge educators” who were in leadership roles.
• National fraternity/sorority: The national headquarters, which sets policies for its chapters, collects dues, provides guidance, and often supervises local chapters, can be held liable. Liability often depends on what the national organization knew (or should have known) about a chapter’s hazing history, its failure to enforce policies, or its general pattern of misconduct across its chapters.
• University or governing board: The educational institution itself, or its governing board (like the University of Houston System or Texas A&M University System), can be liable under theories of negligence for failing to supervise, train, or intervene when they knew or should have known about hazing. While public universities in Texas may assert sovereign immunity, exceptions exist for gross negligence, specific types of misconduct, or for claims brought under federal laws like Title IX. Private universities (such as SMU or Baylor) generally have fewer immunity protections.
• Third parties: Depending on the specifics, other entities might also bear responsibility, such as:
  • Property owners/landlords: If the hazing occurred on their property and they had knowledge of dangerous activities.
  • Alcohol vendors: If they illegally furnished alcohol to minors contributing to the hazing.
  • Security companies: If they failed to perform agreed-upon duties.

Every case is unique, and a thorough investigation by skilled legal counsel is necessary to identify all responsible parties and construct a robust legal strategy.

NATIONAL HAZING CASE PATTERNS (ANCHOR STORIES)

The harrowing stories of hazing victims echo across state lines, revealing patterns of abuse, negligence, and cover-ups that transcend individual campuses or organizations. These national anchor cases serve as grim warnings and crucial legal precedents, informing how Denton County families can pursue justice today. They highlight common threads of forced drinking, humiliation, violence, delayed medical care, and concerted efforts to conceal the truth.

Alcohol poisoning & death pattern

Tragically, alcohol poisoning remains one of the most frequent causes of hazing-related deaths, a direct result of enforced or coerced binge drinking rituals.

• Timothy Piazza – Penn State University, Beta Theta Pi (2017): In one of the most publicized hazing deaths, 19-year-old Timothy Piazza died after a “bid acceptance” event where he was forced to consume dangerous amounts of alcohol. Fraternity house security cameras captured his severe falls and the prolonged 12-hour delay by brothers in calling for medical help. This tragic incident led to over 1,000 criminal counts against numerous fraternity members, extensive civil litigation, and the enactment of the Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law in Pennsylvania, a landmark piece of legislation. Piazza’s story underscores how extreme intoxication, a callous delay in seeking aid, and a pervasive culture of silence combine to create legally devastating outcomes.
• Andrew Coffey – Florida State University, Pi Kappa Phi (2017): Andrew Coffey, a 20-year-old FSU pledge, tragically died after a “Big Brother Night” event where he was given an entire handle of hard liquor and pressured to drink it rapidly. His death from acute alcohol poisoning sparked criminal charges against multiple fraternity members, prompted FSU to temporarily suspend all Greek life, and spurred statewide anti-hazing reforms in Florida. Coffey’s case tragically illustrates how formulaic “tradition” drinking nights are a repeating script for disaster within Greek life.
• Maxwell “Max” Gruver – Louisiana State University, Phi Delta Theta (2017): Max Gruver, an 18-year-old LSU pledge, died after participating in a “Bible study” drinking game where pledges were forced to consume alcohol when answering questions incorrectly. His blood alcohol content measured a staggering 0.495%. Gruver’s death led to criminal convictions, including negligent homicide, and prompted Louisiana to pass the Max Gruver Act, a felony hazing statute. This case is a powerful testament to how legislative change often follows public outrage and clear proof of hazing’s deadly consequences.
• Stone Foltz – Bowling Green State University, Pi Kappa Alpha (2021): Stone Foltz, a 20-year-old BGSU pledge, died from alcohol poisoning after being forced to consume an entire bottle of whiskey during a “Big/Little” night. This incident resulted in multiple criminal convictions for fraternity members and a significant $10 million settlement for the family, with $7 million coming from the Pi Kappa Alpha national organization and an additional ~$3 million from Bowling Green State University. Foltz’s case demonstrates that universities, alongside fraternities, can face substantial financial and reputational consequences for hazing.

Physical & ritualized hazing pattern

Hazing often extends beyond forced drinking to include brutal physical abuse and ritualized degradation, sometimes with fatal outcomes even without alcohol.

• Chun “Michael” Deng – Baruch College, Pi Delta Psi (2013): Michael Deng, a 19-year-old pledge, died during a fraternity retreat in Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains after being blindfolded, weighted down with a heavy backpack, and repeatedly tackled in an initiation ritual called “glass ceiling.” His brothers waited an hour before calling 911. This case resulted in multiple criminal convictions, including a rare instance where the national fraternity itself was convicted of aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter. Pi Delta Psi was banned from Pennsylvania schools for 10 years and fined over $110,000. Deng’s death is a stark reminder that off-campus “retreats” can be as dangerous or worse than on-campus events, and national organizations bear significant responsibility for their chapters’ conduct.

Athletic program hazing & abuse

Hazing is not confined to Greek-letter organizations; it is a pervasive issue within athletic programs, revealing systemic problems with institutional oversight.

• Northwestern University Athletic Hazing Scandal (2023–2025): In a widespread and high-profile scandal, former football players at Northwestern University alleged a culture of extensive sexualized and racist hazing within the program over multiple years. Multiple lawsuits were filed against the university and coaching staff, leading to the firing of head football coach Pat Fitzgerald, who subsequently filed his own wrongful-termination suit before reaching a confidential settlement. This scandal demonstrates that hazing extends far beyond Greek life into major athletic powerhouses, raising uncomfortable questions about institutional oversight and accountability at the highest levels of collegiate sports.

What these cases mean for Texas families

The tragic patterns revealed in these national cases—forced substance consumption, physical abuse, psychological manipulation, delayed medical care, and organized cover-ups—are not isolated incidents. They are recurring themes that have led to multi-million dollar settlements, criminal convictions, and significant legislative reforms. Denton County families facing hazing allegations at the University of Houston, Texas A&M, the University of Texas at Austin, Southern Methodist University, Baylor University, or any other Texas institution are operating within a legal and social landscape shaped by these national lessons. These precedents are vital for demonstrating foreseeability and holding institutions accountable in civil litigation.

TEXAS FOCUS: UH, TEXAS A&M, UT, SMU, BAYLOR

For families in Denton County, the decision of where to send a child for higher education is a significant one, often involving Texas’s most prominent universities. It’s crucial, therefore, to understand the specific dynamics of hazing at these institutions. While we represent families across Texas, we are particularly aware that Denton County parents often send their children to these major schools. Let’s look at the hazing context at some of Texas’s largest and most well-known universities.

University of North Texas

As a leading institution right here in Denton County, the University of North Texas is a significant part of our community. Many Denton County families have direct connections to UNT, either as alumni, staff, or as parents sending their children to pursue higher education close to home. Understanding the campus culture and specific hazing challenges at UNT is paramount for our local community.

Campus & culture snapshot

The University of North Texas, located in the heart of Denton, is a large public research university serving over 44,000 students. UNT boasts a diverse academic landscape and a very active student life, including a significant Greek life presence with over 40 fraternities and sororities recognized by the university across IFC, Panhellenic, NPHC, and multicultural councils. Its vibrant campus culture also supports numerous spirit organizations, athletic clubs, and student associations. While generally fostering a positive and inclusive environment, the large and diverse student body and active organizations create potential areas where hazing, unfortunately, can occur.

Hazing policy & reporting

The University of North Texas maintains clear and stringent anti-hazing policies, explicitly outlining behaviors that constitute hazing and the severe consequences for violations. UNT’s policy prohibits any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, on or off campus, directed against a student for purposes of initiation, affiliation, or membership that endangers physical or mental health, or results in extreme mental or physical discomfort, humiliation, or degradation.

UNT provides multiple channels for reporting hazing:

• Dean of Students Office: Serves as the primary contact for student conduct and organizational behavior.
• UNT Police Department (UNTPD): For incidents involving potential criminal activity or immediate safety concerns.
• Anonymous Online Reporting: An online form is available that allows individuals to report hazing without disclosing their identity.
• Greeklife Office: Provides guidance and takes reports related to fraternity and sorority organizations.

UNT emphasizes its commitment to investigating all reports thoroughly and taking appropriate disciplinary action against individuals and organizations found responsible for hazing.

Selected documented incidents & responses

While specific, high-profile hazing deaths like some national cases have not characterized UNT’s recent history, the university has experienced its share of hazing allegations and disciplinary actions. Texas Education Code mandates that universities report hazing violations, and UNT maintains these records transparently on its website.

Past disciplinary actions against UNT student organizations for hazing violations have included:

• Fraternity suspensions for forced alcohol consumption: Several fraternities have faced temporary or permanent suspensions for events involving underage drinking, forced consumption of alcohol, or dangerous drinking games during new member activities. Examples have included pledges being required to “finish” bottles of liquor or perform push-ups for incorrect answers in a game.
• Sorority probation for degrading behavior: Some sororities have been placed on probation for activities deemed humiliating or degrading to new members, such as forced servitude, sleep deprivation, or public ridicule, even without severe physical injury.
• Non-Greek organization misconduct: Even non-Greek clubs, including spirit organizations or club sports, have faced disciplinary measures for behaviors that match the definition of hazing, emphasizing that the problem extends beyond Greek life.

These incidents underscore the fact that even at universities with strong policies and reporting mechanisms, hazing can persist, often underground. UNT’s responses have generally included probation, suspension, mandatory educational programs, and, in severe cases, withdrawal of university recognition.

How a UNT hazing case might proceed

For a Denton County family dealing with a hazing incident at UNT, legal proceedings would typically involve a nuanced approach given the university’s location and public status.

• Jurisdiction: Criminal charges would be filed by the Denton County District Attorney’s Office, and civil suits for damages would typically proceed in Denton County courts. If federal claims (like Title IX) are involved, the case might move to federal court.
• Law Enforcement: The UNT Police Department (UNTPD) would be the primary law enforcement agency for incidents occurring on campus. For off-campus hazing in Denton, the Denton Police Department or Denton County Sheriff’s Office would take the lead.
• Potential Defendants: Beyond the individual students and the local chapter, legal action could involve the national fraternity/sorority (for their role in oversight and policy enforcement), and potentially the University of North Texas System or individual university administrators, especially if there’s evidence of negligent supervision or deliberate indifference to prior warnings. Because UNT is a public university, there may be sovereign immunity defenses, though exceptions for gross negligence or Title IX violations are critical to explore.

Our firm is well-versed in navigating the specific legal landscape of Denton County and is prepared to work with local authorities and legal systems to pursue justice for our clients.

What UNT students & parents should do

For students and parents concerned about hazing at the University of North Texas, particularly those from Denton County, proactive measures and a clear understanding of your rights are essential:

• Familiarize yourself with UNT’s anti-hazing policies: These are publicly available on the university’s website, often through the Dean of Students or Greeklife Office pages.
• Document everything: If you suspect or experience hazing, immediately gather and preserve all possible evidence. This includes screenshots of group chats, photos of injuries or events, and collecting names of witnesses. This is vital evidence to build a strong case.
• Prioritize safety: If there is any physical danger, get medical help immediately and alert law enforcement (UNTPD or Denton PD).
• Contact an attorney experienced in Texas hazing: Before reporting directly to UNT, consulting with legal counsel can ensure your rights are protected and that any report is made strategically. An attorney can help you understand the implications of reporting and guide you through the process, especially when facing a public institution like UNT.
• Demand accountability: Don’t let the university or organization minimize what happened. Denton County families deserve a full and transparent investigation.

5.1 University of Houston (UH)

The University of Houston system, located in the heart of Houston, serves a vast and diverse student population. For Denton County families, UH might be a destination for its specialized programs or its location in a major metropolitan area, making it a relevant institution to consider in the context of hazing.

Campus & culture snapshot

The University of Houston is a sprawling, dynamic tier-one research university with over 47,000 students. It blends a significant residential population with a large commuter student body. UH boasts an active Greek life community, with numerous fraternities and sororities operating under Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic, NPHC, and multicultural umbrellas. Beyond Greek life, UH offers a wide array of student organizations, including club sports, spirit groups, and competitive teams that, like other universities, can unfortunately become venues for hazing if not properly supervised.

Hazing policy & reporting

The University of Houston has clear and comprehensive anti-hazing policies, prohibiting any act that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation, affiliation, or membership in a student organization. This policy applies to activities both on and off campus.

UH encourages reporting through several channels:

• Dean of Students Office: The central point for student conduct concerns.
• UH Police Department (UHPD): For incidents involving criminal behavior or threats to safety.
• UH System Office of Institutional Equity: Handles Title IX related concerns, which may overlap with hazing incidents involving sexual misconduct.
• Anonymous Reporting Hotline: Allows individuals to report concerns without disclosing their identity.

UH’s commitment to investigating violations is publicly stated, and the university strives to take appropriate disciplinary action against individuals and organizations found responsible.

Selected documented incidents & responses

UH has unfortunately seen its share of hazing incidents, some of which have drawn significant legal and media attention.

• Leonel Bermudez v. University of Houston / Pi Kappa Phi (2025): This ongoing $10 million lawsuit, filed by Attorney911 on behalf of Leonel Bermudez, is a pivotal case. Bermudez, a Pi Kappa Phi pledge, endured severe hazing that included forced excessive physical exertion, being sprayed with a hose “like waterboarding,”, and forced consumption of milk, hot dogs, and peppercorns until vomiting. He suffered acute kidney failure and rhabdomyolysis, requiring four days of hospitalization with critically high creatine kinase levels. The chapter was suspended on November 6, 2025, and surrendered its charter on November 14, 2025. Defendants include UH, the UH Board of Regents, Pi Kappa Phi national, its housing corporation, and 13 individuals. This case highlights how brutal and life-threatening modern hazing can be. Ralph Manginello stated, “His urine was brown,” emphasizing the severity of the injury, and “We’re almost in 2026. This has to stop.” Lupe Peña added, “If this prevents harm to another person…Let’s bring this to light. Enough is enough.” (Sources: Click2Houston, ABC13, Hoodline).
• Pi Kappa Alpha (2016): Prior to the Bermudez case, a Pi Kappa Alpha pledge at UH allegedly suffered a lacerated spleen after being slammed onto a table during a multi-day event with little food, water, or sleep. The chapter faced misdemeanor hazing charges and university suspension, highlighting a pattern of physical hazing.

These incidents underscore the ongoing challenges universities face in eradicating hazing, even with strict policies in place.

How a UH hazing case might proceed

For a hazing incident at the University of Houston, especially one involving severe injury or death, the legal process would be particularly complex.

• Jurisdiction: As a large public university in Harris County, criminal charges would be pursued by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. Civil lawsuits would typically be filed in courts with jurisdiction over Houston/Harris County, with the possibility of federal court if federal claims (like Title IX) are involved. The Bermudez case is currently being litigated in Harris County.
• Law Enforcement: The UH Police Department (UHPD) would handle on-campus investigations. For off-campus incidents in Houston, the Houston Police Department (HPD) would be involved.
• Potential Defendants: Given the multi-layered nature of UH and its Greek organizations, potential defendants include individual students, the local chapter, the national fraternity/sorority (as seen in the Bermudez case involving Pi Kappa Phi national and its housing corporation), and potentially the University of Houston System or individual university administrators. Public universities like UH benefit from certain sovereign immunity protections under Texas law, but as demonstrated in cases like Bermudez, exceptions can be successfully argued for gross negligence or violations of federal civil rights.

What UH students & parents should do

For students and parents connected to the University of Houston, navigating a hazing incident requires decisive and informed action:

• Be aware of the culture: Understand that despite policies, serious hazing has occurred at UH.
• Prioritize safety and medical care: Immediate attention to injuries, like Leonel Bermudez’s acute kidney failure, is crucial. Do not delay.
• Document everything digital: Group chats, photos, and videos are paramount. If Bermudez had texts ordering him to perform push-ups, those would be critical.
• Report through official channels: Use UH’s Dean of Students, UHPD, or anonymous hotline. Consulting with an attorney before making a formal report can ensure maximum protection of rights and evidence.
• Preserve evidence of physical abuse: As testified in the Bermudez case about the hose spraying “like waterboarding” and forced calendar dates of hundreds of push-ups, detailed physical evidence and statements are vital.
• Consider potential for serious injury: Bermudez’s case highlights rhabdomyolysis and kidney damage, severe outcomes of physical hazing. Watch for these signs.

5.2 Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University, with its deeply ingrained traditions and military ethos, holds a unique place in the hearts of many Texans, including families from Denton County. The campus’s culture, including both its Greek life and the iconic Corps of Cadets, draws students from across the state and nation. Understanding hazing within this context is particularly important due to the dual nature of student organizations on campus.

Campus & culture snapshot

Texas A&M, located in College Station, is one of the largest public universities in the U.S., with over 74,000 students. Its culture is heavily influenced by the Corps of Cadets, a uniformed military training program that fosters strong traditions and a distinct chain of command. Complementing this, A&M also has a sizable Greek life community, alongside numerous other tradition-rich student organizations, club sports, and spirit groups. The emphasis on tradition and loyalty within these groups, while often positive, can sometimes create environments where hazing is rationalized or overlooked.

Hazing policy & reporting

Texas A&M’s anti-hazing policy explicitly prohibits any form of hazing, whether mental or physical, on or off campus, that is connected to joining, continuing membership in, or maintaining status within a student organization. The policy covers all forms of hazing, from forced consumption to physical abuse and psychological torment.

Reporting channels at Texas A&M include:

• Dean of Student Life: The primary point of contact for student conduct and organizational behavior.
• Texas A&M University Police Department (UPD): For criminal incidents or immediate threats.
• Corps of Cadets Leadership: For incidents occurring within the Corps, though external reporting is also encouraged if internal channels are insufficient or perceived as biased.
• Anonymous Online Reporting: An online portal to report concerns confidentially.

Texas A&M is legally obligated under state law to investigate hazing allegations and publish disciplinary actions.

Selected documented incidents & responses

Hazing at Texas A&M has unfortunately manifested in both its Greek life and its Corps of Cadets, leading to significant legal and institutional scrutiny.

• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) chemical burns lawsuit (around 2021): This severe incident involved two pledges who alleged being covered in substances including an industrial-strength cleaner, raw eggs, and spit, causing severe chemical burns that necessitated skin graft surgeries. The pledges sued the fraternity for $1 million, leading to the chapter’s two-year suspension by the university. This case starkly illustrates how vicious and physically damaging hazing can become.
• Corps of Cadets “roasted pig” lawsuit (2023): A former cadet filed a lawsuit alleging degrading hazing within the Corps, including being subjected to simulated sexual acts and being bound between beds in a “roasted pig” pose with an apple in his mouth. The lawsuit sought over $1 million in damages, highlighting the dark side of some Corps “traditions” and the potential for severe physical and psychological trauma. Texas A&M stated it handled the matter under its own rules.
• Aggie Bonfire Collapse (1999): While not traditional hazing, the collapse of the student-constructed Aggie Bonfire, which killed 12 and injured 27, raised critical questions about student-led high-risk activities and institutional oversight. Multiple lawsuits against university officials resulted in settlements exceeding $6 million in total. The incident led to the permanent cessation of the official Bonfire tradition, underscoring the university’s ultimate responsibility for student safety, even in student-run events.

These incidents demonstrate a pattern of high-risk activities at Texas A&M, whether in Greek life or the Corps, that can lead to catastrophic outcomes and significant legal liability.

How a Texas A&M hazing case might proceed

For a hazing incident at Texas A&M, legal proceedings for Denton County families might involve College Station-specific dynamics.

• Jurisdiction: Criminal charges would typically be filed by the Brazos County District Attorney’s Office. Civil lawsuits would primarily be heard in Brazos County courts, though federal court is possible for federal claims.
• Law Enforcement: The Texas A&M University Police Department (UPD) would lead on-campus investigations. Local College Station or Bryan police would be involved for off-campus incidents.
• Potential Defendants: Claims could target individual students, the local chapter, the national fraternity/sorority (whose potential liability is informed by its national history, as in the SAE case), trainers or coaches (in sports hazing), Corps leadership (for Corps incidents), and potentially the Texas A&M University System or responsible university/Corps administrators. Given A&M’s status as a public institution, sovereign immunity defenses may arise, but can be challenged with compelling evidence of gross negligence or Title IX violations.

What Texas A&M students & parents should do

For students and parents in Denton County with ties to Texas A&M, understanding how to navigate hazing concerns effectively is paramount:

• Recognize the unique culture: Be aware of the strong emphasis on tradition within both Greek life and the Corps, which can sometimes conflate hazing with legitimate rites of passage.
• Scrutinize “traditions”: Any “tradition” that involves secrecy, forced physical discomfort, humiliation, or excessive alcohol consumption is hazing, regardless of its history.
• Document meticulously: Collect digital evidence, witness names, and medical records just as in any hazing case. The SAE chemical burn case underscores the need for clear documentation of injuries.
• Report strategically: While A&M offers official reporting channels, consulting with an experienced hazing attorney who understands both Greek and military-style hazing is crucial before initiating a formal report.
• Demand accountability from all involved parties: Do not allow individual members or local chapters to take sole blame if the national organization or university showed negligence.

5.3 University of Texas at Austin (UT)

The University of Texas at Austin is a flagship institution for many Denton County students, renowned for its academic excellence, vibrant campus life, and fierce Longhorn spirit. This popularity, however, also means that a significant number of Denton County families may find themselves grappling with hazing issues at this high-profile university. UT’s approach to hazing, including its transparency, provides valuable insights.

Campus & culture snapshot

The University of Texas at Austin is one of the largest and most prestigious public universities in the United States, enrolling over 52,000 students. Its campus culture is rich with traditions, highly competitive academics, and a bustling social scene that includes a large and influential Greek life system, numerous club sports, spirit organizations, and academic societies. While this environment offers immense opportunities, the intense social pressure and reverence for tradition can, in some instances, create a breeding ground for hazing.

Hazing policy & reporting

The University of Texas at Austin maintains an uncompromising stance against hazing, defining it broadly and prohibiting it in all forms, on or off campus. UT’s policy specifically bans any requirement or act that could cause mental or physical discomfort, humiliation, or ridicule, as a condition of initiation, membership, or affiliation.

UT-Austin offers several robust reporting mechanisms:

• Dean of Students Office (DOS): The primary contact for all hazing-related concerns and investigations.
• UT Austin Police Department (UTPD): For any suspected criminal activity related to hazing.
• Behavior Concerns Advice Line (BCAL): A 24/7 hotline for reporting any concerning behavior, including hazing.
• Title IX Office: For hazing allegations involving sexual misconduct or gender discrimination.
• Anonymous Online Reporting: Through the DOS website, individuals can submit anonymous reports.

UT has committed to annual reporting of hazing violations and the actions taken, making its disciplinary records relatively accessible.

Selected documented incidents & responses

UT-Austin is notable for its proactive transparency regarding hazing violations, maintaining a publicly accessible “Hazing Violations and Incidents” log on its website. This log, mandated by state law, details reported incidents, the organizations involved, the nature of the violation, and the sanctions imposed.

Key trends and examples from UT-Austin’s records include:

• Pi Kappa Alpha (2023): This fraternity was sanctioned for hazing violations that included new members being directed to consume milk and perform strenuous calisthenics. The chapter was placed on probation and required to implement enhanced hazing-prevention education.
• Texas Cowboys (Historically): This venerable spirit organization has a history punctuated by hazing incidents, leading to suspensions and reforms. In 2018, a “New Man” attempting to join the Texas Cowboys died in a truck accident. While UT officials acknowledged hazing had occurred within the group (including animal abuse) and expelled some members, they denied that sleep deprivation directly linked to hazing was the cause of the fatal accident.
• Texas Wranglers (Various): Other tradition-rich organizations, like the Texas Wranglers, have faced sanctions for practices involving forced workouts, alcohol-related hazing, and punishment-based rituals.
• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (2006): While the university declared the incident non-hazing, the national organization suspended the chapter. Hazing may have been a factor in the death of pledge Tyler Cross, who died in a fall while under the influence of alcohol.

The repeated appearance of certain organizations on this public log, despite past sanctions, demonstrates the persistent nature of hazing and the ongoing need for vigilance. This transparency, however, also provides valuable documentation for legal proceedings, highlighting patterns of misconduct and the university’s awareness of such issues.

How a UT-Austin hazing case might proceed

For Denton County families pursuing a hazing claim stemming from UT-Austin, the legal path would involve specific considerations related to its size and public status:

• Jurisdiction: Criminal charges would be handled by the Travis County District Attorney’s Office. Civil lawsuits would typically be filed in Travis County courts, with potential for federal claims in federal court.
• Law Enforcement: The UT Austin Police Department (UTPD) has primary jurisdiction on campus. Off-campus incidents in Austin would involve the Austin Police Department (APD).
• Potential Defendants: Legal actions could target individual perpetrators, the local student organization, the national fraternity/sorority, and the University of Texas System or relevant university officials. As a public institution, UT-Austin generally enjoys sovereign immunity under Texas law. However, this immunity is not absolute; viable exceptions exist for cases involving gross negligence (e.g., deliberate indifference to known patterns of severe hazing) or violations of federal law like Title IX. The university’s detailed public logs can be instrumental in demonstrating prior knowledge of hazing patterns.

What UT-Austin students & parents should do

For students and parents from Denton County involved with UT-Austin:

• Consult UT’s Public Hazing Log: Reviewing the university’s online log of hazing violations can provide critical insights into past misconduct by specific organizations. This is an unparalleled resource for Denton County families.
• Document and preserve: Given the public nature of UT’s reporting, actively documenting your child’s experience, especially anything digital, can corroborate information already in the public domain.
• Prioritize legal counsel: Before interacting extensively with the university’s internal processes, consult an experienced hazing attorney. This ensures your legal rights are protected and that any formal reports are made strategically, especially when navigating claims against a public university with immunity defenses.
• Leverage transparency: Use UT’s public records to build a case, identifying patterns of misconduct that the university was (or should have been) aware of.

5.4 Southern Methodist University (SMU)

Southern Methodist University, a distinguished private institution in Dallas, is a popular choice for many Denton County families seeking a rigorous academic environment with strong social traditions. Its affluent student body and prominent Greek life often create a distinct campus culture that, tragically, is not immune to hazing risks.

Campus & culture snapshot

Southern Methodist University is a private university in Dallas with an enrollment of approximately 12,000 students. Known for its beautiful campus, competitive academics, and robust social scene, SMU’s Greek life plays a significant role in student culture, with a high percentage of students participating in fraternities and sororities. The emphasis on tradition, social networks, and a competitive atmosphere can inadvertently contribute to environments where hazing is perpetuated, often disguised as “bonding” or “rites of passage.”

Hazing policy & reporting

SMU’s anti-hazing policy explicitly prohibits any hazing act, physical or mental, as a condition of initiation, admission, or affiliation with any university organization. The policy covers acts on and off campus, and outlines the disciplinary actions that can be taken against individuals and organizations.

Reporting mechanisms at SMU include:

• Office of Student Conduct & Community Standards: The central body for investigating student and organizational misconduct.
• SMU Police Department (SMU PD): For criminal incidents.
• Anonymous Reporting System (“Real Response”): An online platform that allows for confidential reporting of hazing and other sensitive issues.
• Office of Institutional Access and Equity: Also handles Title IX complaints, which may overlap with hazing issues.

As a private institution, SMU has an ethical and legal obligation to enforce its policies and provide a safe environment for its students.

Selected documented incidents & responses

While SMU does not maintain a public hazing log as detailed as UT-Austin’s, disciplinary actions against organizations for hazing violations are occasionally reported in campus news or statements.

• Kappa Alpha Order (2017): This fraternity faced severe sanctions following allegations of extensive hazing. New members reportedly endured paddling, forced alcohol consumption, and significant sleep deprivation. The chapter was suspended by the national organization and banned from campus activities for several years by SMU. This incident highlighted the persistence of traditional physical and alcohol-related hazing, even at institutions with strong anti-hazing policies, and forced the national organization to take decisive action.
• Other recurring themes: Like many universities with active Greek systems, SMU has seen various organizations placed on probation or suspended for alcohol violations, degrading new member activities, and unauthorized social events that align with hazing definitions. These often involve forced servitude, public humiliation, and pressure to conform.

These incidents demonstrate SMU’s commitment to taking action against hazing, but also confirm that even its private nature and selective enrollment do not prevent the problem from reoccurring within certain student groups.

How an SMU hazing case might proceed

For Denton County families pursuing a hazing claim against SMU or its affiliated organizations, the process would differ from public universities.

• Jurisdiction: Criminal charges would be filed by the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office. Civil lawsuits would primarily be heard in Dallas County courts.
• Law Enforcement: The SMU Police Department (SMU PD) would lead on-campus investigations, while the Dallas Police Department (DPD) would be involved for off-campus incidents in the city of Dallas.
• Potential Defendants: Potential defendants include individual student perpetrators, the local chapter, the national fraternity/sorority, and Southern Methodist University itself or its administrators. As a private institution, SMU generally does not have the same sovereign immunity defenses as public universities. This can sometimes simplify the path to holding the university directly accountable through civil litigation, without needing to prove specific exceptions to immunity.

What SMU students & parents should do

For Denton County families with children at SMU:

• Be aware of SMU’s social dynamics: Understand that strong Greek life and traditions can create unique pressures.
• Utilize confidential reporting: Encourage the use of SMU’s “Real Response” system if comfortable, or report through the Office of Student Conduct.
• Document and preserve: Maintain meticulous records of any hazing incidents, including communications and physical evidence. This is especially crucial at private institutions where internal investigations may be less transparent to the public.
• Seek immediate legal counsel: Engaging an experienced hazing attorney early can help navigate SMU’s internal disciplinary processes and civil litigation, ensuring all legal avenues are explored.

5.5 Baylor University

Baylor University, a private Baptist university in Waco, holds a unique position in Texas higher education, drawing students from Denton County and across the country who seek a faith-based academic experience. Baylor’s institutional history, marked by high-profile scandals, provides a distinct context for understanding how hazing and institutional oversight play out.

Campus & culture snapshot

Baylor University is a private Christian university with approximately 21,000 students, situated in Waco. It offers a strong academic reputation, vibrant spiritual life, and a highly competitive NCAA Division I athletic program. While Greek life is present, Baylor’s unique identity means students are engaged in a wide array of faith-based and other student organizations. The university’s history of managing crises, particularly surrounding Title IX violations and its football program, has placed a spotlight on institutional accountability and cultural issues, including hazing.

Hazing policy & reporting

Baylor University unequivocally prohibits hazing, defining it as any activity related to initiation or membership in an organization that causes or is reasonably expected to cause a student to suffer physical injury, serious mental distress (e.g., humiliation, degradation, ridicule, terror), or damage to property. This policy applies campus-wide and to off-campus activities related to the university.

Baylor’s reporting channels include:

• Baylor Police Department (BUPD): For any criminal acts or immediate threats.
• Office of Student Conduct: Responsible for investigating breaches of university policy.
• Title IX Office: For hazing with elements of sexual misconduct or gender discrimination.
• Anonymous Reporting: Available through an online system.

Baylor has publicly stated its commitment to maintaining a safe environment and upholding its anti-hazing policy.

Selected documented incidents & responses

Baylor’s institutional history, particularly its highly publicized sexual assault scandal involving its football program, has shaped its approach to and scrutiny of campus misconduct, including hazing. While not as frequently publicized as some other universities, hazing incidents have occurred.

• Baylor Baseball Hazing (2020): A significant incident involved the Baylor baseball team, where 14 players were suspended following a hazing investigation. The suspensions were staggered to minimize impact on the early season schedule, indicating a widespread issue within the program. While specific details were kept private due to FERPA, the number of suspensions suggests that hazing was systemic within the team. This incident demonstrated that even at institutions with strong disciplinary policies and recent high-profile integrity issues, hazing can persist, particularly in athletic contexts.
• Recurring themes: Baylor, like other universities, has dealt with general student organization misconduct involving alcohol violations, unauthorized initiation ceremonies, and activities that involve elements of humiliation or physical discomfort for new members. These types of incidents often lead to probationary periods, suspensions, or requirements for additional training for the student organizations involved.

Baylor’s past challenges with institutional oversight and its response to misconduct provide a critical backdrop for any hazing case, highlighting the need for thorough investigation and a firm demand for accountability.

How a Baylor hazing case might proceed

For Denton County families pursuing a hazing claim at Baylor University, the legal process would need to account for Baylor’s private status and its distinct institutional context.

• Jurisdiction: Criminal charges would be filed by the McLennan County District Attorney’s Office. Civil lawsuits would primarily be heard in McLennan County courts.
• Law Enforcement: The Baylor Police Department (BUPD) has primary jurisdiction on campus. For off-campus incidents in Waco, the Waco Police Department would be involved.
• Potential Defendants: Legal actions could target individual student perpetrators, the local chapter, the national fraternity/sorority, and Baylor University itself or its administrators. As a private institution, Baylor does not have sovereign immunity. A civil lawsuit can directly challenge the university’s negligence, policies, and prior knowledge of misconduct. Given Baylor’s history of institutional failures, a hazing lawsuit could also focus on whether the university adequately addressed systemic issues or had a pattern of overlooking high-risk behavior in certain student groups.

What Baylor students & parents should do

For students and parents from Denton County involved with Baylor University:

• Understand Baylor’s context: Be aware of the university’s prior challenges with institutional oversight and its impact on how misconduct is addressed.
• Utilize available reporting: Report hazing to the Office of Student Conduct or BUPD. If the hazing involves sexual misconduct, the Title IX Office is also a critical resource.
• Insist on thorough investigation: Do not accept dismissive responses. Demand a full and transparent investigation from the university.
• Seek immediate legal counsel: Due to Baylor’s private status and its history, an experienced hazing attorney can help Denton County families navigate the university’s internal processes, address potential institutional resistance, and build a strong civil case without sovereign immunity as a barrier.

FRATERNITIES & SORORITIES: CAMPUS-SPECIFIC + NATIONAL HISTORIES

Denton County students participating in Greek life at Texas universities frequently join chapters that are part of larger national or international organizations. This connection means that the local chapter’s conduct, and the accountability that follows, can often be linked to the broader history and policies of its national parent organization. Understanding these national patterns is crucial, as they can sometimes predict, and often explain, the hazards that Texas families encounter.

Why national histories matter

Many fraternities and sororities with chapters at prominent Texas campuses – including the University of North Texas, University of Houston, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor – are constituents of national organizations. These national headquarters are not merely symbolic; they set the policies, provide risk management training, collect dues, and often directly supervise their local chapters.

National organizations typically:

• Have extensive anti-hazing manuals and risk policies. These policies are not arbitrary; they are usually developed in direct response to past tragedies, including hazing deaths and catastrophic injuries that have occurred at other chapters across the country.
• Are aware of repeating patterns: They know which “traditions”—forced drinking nights, physical tests, humiliating rituals, “pledge sneak” events—are historically linked to harm. When these recur, it indicates a failure of the national organization to prevent, foresee, and sufficiently deter dangerous behavior.

For a Denton County family seeking justice, understanding this broader context is vital. When a Texas chapter repeats the same dangerous script that led to another chapter being suspended, sued, or even shut down in another state, this demonstrates foreseeability on the part of the national organization. This pattern evidence can significantly strengthen arguments for negligence or even punitive damages against national entities in civil lawsuits.

Organization mapping (synthesized)

While countless Greek organizations exist across Texas, certain national fraternities have unfortunately been involved in a disproportionate number of severe hazing incidents, some of which have directly impacted Texas campuses or have chapters in Denton County where families should be aware.

Pi Kappa Alpha (ΠΚΑ / Pike):

• National History: Pi Kappa Alpha has a deeply troubling national record of hazing incidents, particularly concerning forced alcohol consumption. The tragic Stone Foltz case at Bowling Green State University in 2021, where a 20-year-old pledge died from alcohol poisoning after being forced to consume a bottle of liquor, resulted in a $10 million settlement and multiple criminal convictions. Another notable incident includes the death of David Bogenberger at Northern Illinois University in 2012 due to alcohol poisoning, leading to a $14 million settlement.
• Why it matters to Denton County: Denton County families sending students to schools with Pi Kappa Alpha chapters should be acutely aware of this national pattern of alcohol-related hazing, as it indicates a foreseeable risk if proper oversight is not exercised.
• Texas Presence: Pi Kappa Alpha has had chapters at numerous Texas universities, including Texas A&M and UTSA. Past violations at these campuses have sometimes mirrored the national pattern of alcohol misuse during new member events.

Sigma Alpha Epsilon (ΣΑΕ / SAE):

• National History: Sigma Alpha Epsilon has been infamously dubbed “America’s deadliest fraternity” by Bloomberg News due to multiple hazing-related deaths and severe injuries nationwide involving alcohol poisoning and physical abuse. Nationally, SAE famously banned pledging in 2014 in an attempt to curb hazing, though incidents have sadly continued. Recent civil litigation includes a lawsuit alleging a traumatic brain injury during hazing at the University of Alabama (filed 2023) and an assault case at the University of Texas at Austin (2024) where an exchange student suffered multiple severe injuries.
• Relevant Texas Incidents: SAE chapters in Texas have also faced severe allegations. At Texas A&M University (around 2021), two pledges alleged they suffered severe chemical burns requiring skin grafts after substances including industrial-strength cleaner were poured on them during hazing. This resulted in a $1 million lawsuit.
• Why it matters to Denton County: The extensive national and Texas-specific history of severe hazing within SAE means Denton County families must exercise extreme caution regarding any chapter of this organization.

Phi Delta Theta (ΦΔΘ):

• National History: Phi Delta Theta is another national fraternity with a tragic hazing history, most notably the death of Maxwell “Max” Gruver at Louisiana State University in 2017. Gruver died from extreme alcohol poisoning (BAC 0.495%) after being forced to participate in a “Bible study” drinking game. His death led to criminal convictions and the Max Gruver Act in Louisiana, a felony hazing statute.
• Why it matters to Denton County: This case highlights the dangerous “drinking game” hazing common across many fraternities. Chapters at Texas universities must enforce national anti-hazing policies to prevent similar tragedies.

Pi Kappa Phi (ΠΚΦ):

• National History: Pi Kappa Phi has faced significant scrutiny due to serious hazing incidents. The death of Andrew Coffey at Florida State University in 2017 occurred after he was forced to consume an entire handle of hard liquor during “Big Brother Night.” This led to criminal prosecutions and a temporary suspension of all Greek life at FSU.
• Relevant Texas Incidents: As highlighted earlier, Attorney911’s $10 million lawsuit against the University of Houston and Pi Kappa Phi national organization on behalf of Leonel Bermudez for acute kidney failure and rhabdomyolysis following “waterboarding”-style hazing and extreme physical exertion demonstrates that this national pattern is sadly mirrored within Texas chapters.
• Why it matters to Denton County: The ongoing Bermudez case directly involving Pi Kappa Phi at a major Texas institution should be a stark warning for all Denton County families.

Kappa Alpha Order (KA):

• National History: Kappa Alpha Order has a long history of chapters facing disciplinary action for hazing, often involving traditions, alcohol, and physical activity. While not as many high-profile deaths, recurring suspensions across campuses highlight persistent issues.
• Relevant Texas Incidents: At Southern Methodist University (2017), a Kappa Alpha Order chapter was suspended for several years after allegations of paddling, forced alcohol consumption, and extensive sleep deprivation during new member activities. Other campuses across Texas have also seen KA chapters sanctioned for hazing.
• Why it matters to Denton County: Denton County families should be aware that organizations with a strong emphasis on tradition, such as Kappa Alpha Order, can sometimes perpetuate dangerous hazing practices under the guise of “heritage.”

Kappa Sigma (ΚΣ):

• National History: Kappa Sigma has a notable and troubling hazing history. The Chad Meredith drowning death at the University of Miami in 2001 (resulting in a $12.6 million jury verdict) highlighted the dangers of coerced drinking and abandonment. Multiple chapters nationally have faced scrutiny.
• Relevant Texas Incidents: At Texas A&M University (ongoing lawsuit), hazing allegations within a Kappa Sigma chapter involve severe injuries, including rhabdomyolysis (extreme muscle breakdown from forced physical exertion), indicating a dangerous pattern of physical hazing. The Texas Christian University chapter also faced arrests related to hazing in 2018.
• Why it matters to Denton County: The severe bodily injuries and deaths associated with Kappa Sigma nationally and within Texas demonstrate a clear and present danger to new members.

Tie back to legal strategy

The recurring nature of hazing incidents across states and within specific national organizations is not merely anecdotal; it forms a crucial component of legal strategy in civil hazing lawsuits.

• Foreseeability: The fact that a national fraternity, a local chapter, or a university has been repeatedly warned about specific hazing tactics (e.g., forced alcohol consumption) through prior incidents at other chapters or on the same campus, establishes foreseeability. This means they knew, or reasonably should have known, that such activities were dangerous and likely to cause harm.
• Accountability for negligence: This pattern evidence can be presented in court to argue that the national organization or university was negligent in its duty to adequately supervise, educate, or enforce anti-hazing policies, directly contributing to the injury or death. It undermines arguments that an incident was a “freak accident” or “rogue behavior.”
• Impact on punitive damages: In cases where there is a clear pattern of ignoring warnings or failing to act despite repeated incidents, courts may consider awarding punitive damages. These damages are designed not just to compensate the victim but to punish the defendant for reckless or malicious conduct and deter future similar actions.
• Settlement leverage and insurance: An organization’s documented hazing record can significantly impact potential settlement discussions and influence how their insurance carriers navigate coverage disputes. Insurers are more likely to push for settlements when there is a clear history of similar misconduct.

For Denton County families, connecting the dots between their child’s local hazing experience and a national organization’s history is a powerful legal tool. It demonstrates that what happened was not an isolated mistake but part of a known, dangerous pattern that responsible parties failed to stop.

BUILDING A CASE: EVIDENCE, DAMAGES, STRATEGY

Building a compelling hazing case requires meticulous investigation and a deep understanding of the legal landscape. For Denton County families, the process begins long before a lawsuit is filed, focusing on the critical collection and preservation of evidence that will demonstrate who is responsible and what damages were incurred.

Evidence

In modern hazing cases, evidence is everything, and much of it lives in the digital realm. An experienced legal team knows how to identify, secure, and leverage every piece of information.

• Digital communications: This is the most critical category of evidence today. Group chats and direct messages are often the primary medium for planning, ordering, and documenting hazing. This includes conversations on platforms like GroupMe, WhatsApp, iMessage/SMS, Signal, Telegram, Snapchat, Instagram DMs, and Discord. These communications can reveal:
  • Planning and intent: Discussions about upcoming hazing events, including the “challenges” or “tasks.”
  • Coercion and pressure: Messages demanding participation, threatening consequences for non-compliance, or ridiculing pledges.
  • Live documentation: Photos, videos, or reactions exchanged during hazing events.
  • Cover-up attempts: Instructions to delete messages or deny hazing.
  • Preservation is key: Screenshots of entire threads with timestamps and participant names clearly visible are vital. If messages are disappearing (e.g., Snapchat, Instagram vanish mode), immediate screen recording or timely screenshots are necessary. Our firm has expertise in working with digital forensics experts to recover deleted messages, but original data is always preferred.
• Photos & videos: Beyond messages, actual visual evidence is powerful. This includes:
  • Filmed hazing events: Members and pledges often record hazing for “fun” or to document “tradition,” which can be damning evidence.
  • Images of injuries: Clear, dated photographs of any physical harm sustained, taken at multiple angles and over time to show progression, are essential medical evidence.
  • Footage from social media: Content shared on Instagram stories, TikTok, or private accounts can inadvertently expose hazing.
  • Security footage: Cameras at residences, off-campus venues, or even campus security cameras if the hazing occurred nearby.
• Internal organization documents: These provide insight into the hazing culture and official policies. They include:
  • Pledge manuals, “constitutionals,” or initiation scripts: These documents sometimes outline “traditions” that constitute hazing.
  • Emails/texts from officers: Communications regarding new member activities, rules, or punishments.
  • National organization policies: Anti-hazing rules, risk management guidelines, and training materials. These can highlight a gap between stated policy and actual practice.
• University records: These documents can establish institutional knowledge and patterns of misconduct:
  • Prior disciplinary records: Records of hazing violations, probation, or suspensions against the same chapter or individuals. Texas public universities, like UT Austin, often make these publicly accessible.
  • Incident reports: Records from campus police, student conduct offices, or anonymous reporting systems.
  • Clery Act reports: Annual security reports that document types of crimes occurring on campus.
  • Title IX complaints: If the hazing involved sexual harassment or discrimination.
  • Internal communications: Emails and memoranda among university administrators regarding hazing complaints or concerns (often obtained through discovery if a lawsuit is filed).
• Medical and psychological records: Comprehensive medical documentation is crucial for proving the extent of physical and emotional damages:
  • Emergency room reports, ambulance records, hospitalization notes: Detailing immediate injuries, treatments, and initial diagnoses.
  • Lab results: Including blood alcohol content (BAC), toxicology reports, and specific markers like creatine kinase levels for rhabdomyolysis (as seen in the Bermudez case).
  • Imaging reports: X-rays, CT scans, MRIs for internal injuries, fractures, or brain trauma.
  • Psychological evaluations: Diagnoses of PTSD, depression, anxiety, or other mental health impacts resulting from the trauma of hazing.
• Witness testimony: First-hand accounts bring the events to life and corroborate other evidence:
  • This includes other pledges, current or former members, “Bigs” or “Littles,” roommates, RAs, coaches, teammates, or any bystanders.
  • Former members who have left the organization due to hazing can be particularly powerful witnesses.

Damages

In hazing cases, victims and their families can claim various types of damages to compensate for their losses and suffering.

• Economic damages: These are quantifiable financial losses:
  • Medical expenses: Including past bills (ER visits, hospital stays, surgeries, therapy, medications) and projected future costs (ongoing specialist care, long-term rehabilitation, psychiatric treatment, or a life care plan for catastrophic injuries).
  • Lost income & earning capacity: Compensation for wages lost due to injuries, time off from school, or reduced future earning potential if the hazing resulted in permanent disability or impaired a student’s ability to complete their education or work.
  • Other economic losses: Such as property damage (e.g., destroyed phone, clothing) or costs associated with transferring schools.
• Non-economic damages: These are harder to quantify but are crucial for recognizing pain and suffering:
  • Physical pain and suffering: Compensation for the actual pain endured from injuries and any chronic pain resulting from hazing.
  • Emotional distress & psychological harm: This can include severe anxiety, depression, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), panic attacks, humiliation, shame, loss of dignity, and fear.
  • Loss of enjoyment of life: Compensation for the inability to participate in activities previously enjoyed, social withdrawal, or a diminished quality of life.
• Wrongful death damages (for families): In the most tragic hazing cases, families can seek:
  • Funeral and burial costs.
  • Loss of financial support and inheritance: If the deceased would have contributed to the family financially.
  • Loss of companionship, love, and society: For the profound absence of the loved one.
  • Grief and emotional suffering: Experienced by surviving family members (parents, children, spouse).
  • Loss of guidance and counsel: Especially for minor children who lose a parent, or younger siblings who lose an older role model.
• Punitive damages: These are not compensatory but are awarded to punish defendants for particularly reckless, willful, or malicious conduct and to deter similar actions in the future. They are often sought in cases involving gross negligence, repeated offenses, or egregious cover-ups. In Texas, punitive damages are available but may be capped in some circumstances, making it vital to target deliberate indifference or intentional acts.

Role of different defendants and insurance coverage

Hazing litigation is complex, often involving multiple defendants and intricate insurance policies.

• Insurance coverage: National fraternities, universities, and sometimes local chapters carry liability insurance. These policies are designed to cover the costs of legal defense and potential settlements or judgments. However, insurers often argue that hazing, as an “intentional act” or “criminal conduct,” is excluded from coverage. An experienced hazing attorney knows how to navigate these disputes, arguing that while the hazing itself may be intentional, the organization’s or university’s negligent supervision or failure to prevent it is covered. Lupe Peña’s background as a former insurance defense attorney is invaluable here, providing critical insight into how these companies attempt to deny or minimize claims.
• Multiple defendants: Identifying and pursuing all liable parties is essential. This can include individual student perpetrators, local chapter entities, the national organization, university officials, and the university itself. Each party may have different insurance policies or assets that can be leveraged for recovery.

PRACTICAL GUIDES & FAQS

Navigating a hazing crisis requires immediate, informed action. For Denton County families, students, and witnesses, having a clear roadmap can make all the difference in protecting a victim and seeking accountability.

For parents

As parents in Denton County, your vigilance and proactive response are paramount if you suspect your child is being hazed.

• Warning signs of hazing: Be attentive to subtle changes. Look for unexplained bruises, burns, or “accidents”; sudden and extreme exhaustion or sleep deprivation; drastic shifts in mood, increased anxiety, or withdrawal from family and old friends. Watch for excessive secrecy about organizational activities, constant use of phones for group chats, and fear of missing “mandatory” events. Financial red flags, like unexpected large expenses for the group or pressure to buy alcohol, are also key indicators.
• How to talk to your child: Approach your child with open questions and avoid judgmental language. Emphasize that their safety and well-being are far more important than any social status or group affiliation. Reassure them you will support them, regardless of what they disclose. “Is there anything that makes you uncomfortable or that you wish you didn’t have to do?” can open the door.
• If your child is hurt: Your first priority is immediate medical care. Insist that they see a doctor or go to the emergency room, even if they downplay their injuries. Document everything: take clear photos of injuries, save any relevant texts or group chats, and write down details of what your child tells you (names, dates, locations).
• Dealing with the university: Document all your communications with university administrators. Ask specific questions about prior incidents involving the same organization and what actions the school took. This information can reveal a pattern of negligence.
• 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 or hiding what happened, it is crucial to consult a lawyer. An attorney can help you understand your child’s rights and navigate complex institutional procedures.

For students / pledges

If you are a student from Denton County being initiated into a group, it’s vital to recognize the line between genuine bonding and dangerous hazing.

• Is this hazing or just tradition?: Ask yourself: Am I being forced or pressured to do something I don’t want to do? Would I do this if I had a real choice, without fear of exclusion? Is this activity dangerous, degrading, or illegal? Would my university or parents approve if they knew? If older members are making new members do things they didn’t have to do, or if you’re told to keep secrets, it is likely hazing.
• Why “consent” isn’t the end of the story: You might feel immense pressure to “go along” or to prove your loyalty. Organizations may tell you it’s “just tradition” or that you “consented.” However, because of the power imbalance and fear of exclusion, the law often views agreements made in such situations as coerced, not voluntary. Your “consent” doesn’t make hazing legal or justifiable.
• Exiting and reporting safely: You have an absolute right to leave a hazing situation at any time. If you are in immediate danger, call 911. You can privately report to trusted university staff (Dean of Students, Title IX Coordinator, campus police), or anonymously through university hotlines or the National Anti-Hazing Hotline (1-888-NOT-HAZE). If you fear retaliation, report this concern when you make your initial report.
• Good-faith reporting and amnesty: Many schools and state laws (including Texas) have good-faith reporting protections. This means if you call for help for someone in an emergency, you often cannot be punished for minor infractions like underage drinking. Your safety and the safety of others always come first.

For former members / witnesses

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

• Acknowledge that speaking out can be difficult, but your testimony and evidence may prevent future harm and save lives.
• Understand that while you may fear consequences, lawyers can help you navigate your role as a witness or even if you have concerns about your own past involvement. Cooperating thoughtfully can be a necessary step toward accountability.
• Confidential legal advice can help you understand your legal options and protections as a witness or potentially involved party.

Critical mistakes that can destroy your case

Protecting your legal rights after a hazing incident begins with avoiding critical missteps. For Denton County families, these mistakes can jeopardize a victim’s well-being and undermine any future claim for justice.

MISTAKES THAT CAN RUIN YOUR HAZING CASE:

1. Letting your child delete messages or “clean up” evidence:
   • What parents think: “I don’t want them to get in more trouble.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Deleted evidence looks like a cover-up, can be construed as obstruction of justice, and makes proving your case far more difficult, if not impossible.
   • What to do instead: Preserve everything immediately, even embarrassing or seemingly minor content. Attorney911’s video on using your cellphone to document a legal case (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbpzrmogTs) explains best practices for preserving screenshots and photos.
2. Confronting the fraternity/sorority directly:
   • What parents think: “I’m going to give them a piece of my mind.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Direct confrontation almost guarantees they will immediately lawyer up, destroy evidence, coach witnesses, and solidify their defenses.
   • What to do instead: Document everything, then call a lawyer before any confrontation.
3. Signing university “release” or “resolution” forms:
   • What universities do: They may pressure families to sign waivers or “internal resolution” agreements that cap liability or prevent further legal action.
   • Why it’s wrong: You may inadvertently waive your right to pursue a lawsuit; early settlements are often far below the true value of the case.
   • What to do instead: Do NOT sign anything from the university or an insurance company without an attorney reviewing it first.
4. Posting details on social media before talking to a lawyer:
   • What families think: “I want people to know what happened.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Defense attorneys screenshot everything from social media. Inconsistencies can severely hurt credibility, and public posts can inadvertently waive legal privileges.
   • What to do instead: Document everything privately; let your lawyer control any public messaging.
5. Letting your child go back to “one last meeting”:
   • What fraternities say: “Come talk to us before you do anything drastic.”
   • Why it’s wrong: These meetings are often designed to pressure, intimidate, or extract statements that can later be used against your child.
   • What to do instead: Once you are considering legal action, all communication with the organization should go through your lawyer.
6. Waiting “to see how the university handles it”:
   • What universities promise: “We’re investigating; let us handle this internally.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Evidence rapidly disappears, witnesses graduate, the statute of limitations runs out, and the university primarily controls its own narrative.
   • What to do instead: Preserve evidence NOW. Consult an attorney immediately. University internal processes are distinct from real legal accountability.
7. Talking to insurance adjusters without a lawyer:
   • What adjusters say: “We just need your statement to process the claim.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Recorded statements are often used against you, and initial settlement offers are almost always lowball.
   • What to do instead: Politely decline and state, “My attorney will contact you.”

These mistakes can be costly and irreversible. An experienced hazing attorney from Legal Emergency Lawyers™ can guide you in avoiding them and protecting your rights.

Short FAQ

• “Can I sue a university for hazing in Texas?”
  Yes, under certain circumstances. Public universities (like UNT, UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin) have some sovereign immunity protections, but exceptions exist for gross negligence, Title IX violations, and when suing individual university employees in their personal capacity. Private universities (like SMU, Baylor) generally have fewer immunity hurdles. Every case depends on specific facts. Contact Attorney911 at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a case-specific analysis.
• “Is hazing a felony in Texas?”
  Yes, it can be. Texas law classifies 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 or members can also face misdemeanor charges for failing to report hazing.
• “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 hazing. Courts and juries recognize that “consent” given under peer pressure, a powerful group dynamic, and fear of social exclusion is not truly voluntary consent.
• “How long do we have to file a hazing lawsuit?”
  Generally, there is a 2-year statute of limitations from the date of injury or death in Texas. However, the “discovery rule” may extend this if the harm or its cause wasn’t immediately known. In cases involving cover-ups or fraud, the statute may be tolled (paused) for a period. Time is critical—evidence disappears, witnesses graduate, and organizations destroy records. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 immediately to protect your rights. Our video, Is There a Statute of Limitations on My Case? (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 eliminate liability. Universities and national fraternities and sororities can still be held responsible based on their sponsorship, control over the organization, prior knowledge of dangerous activities, and the foreseeability of harm. Many major hazing cases (like the Pi Delta Psi retreat death) occurred off-campus and still resulted in multi-million-dollar judgments.
• “Will this be confidential, or will my child’s name be in the news?”
  Many hazing cases are settled confidentially before trial, and efforts can often be made to protect the victim’s privacy through sealed court records and confidential settlement terms. Our firm prioritizes your family’s privacy while pursuing accountability.

ABOUT THE MANGINELLO LAW FIRM + CALL TO ACTION

When your family in Denton County is grappling with the aftermath of hazing, you need legal representation that understands the immense stakes, the complex legal landscape, and the emotional toll such an ordeal takes. You need more than a general personal injury lawyer; you need attorneys who understand how powerful institutions fight back—and how to win anyway.

The Manginello Law Firm, operating as Attorney911, the Legal Emergency Lawyers™, is a Houston-based Texas personal injury and complex litigation firm with deep experience in serious injury, wrongful death, and institutional accountability cases. From our Houston offices, we serve families throughout Texas, including Denton County and surrounding areas, understanding that hazing at Texas universities impacts families across the entire state. Our firm is uniquely equipped to handle hazing cases against large universities and national Greek organizations, and our qualifications stand out:

• Insurance Insider Advantage (Lupe Peña): Our Associate Attorney Lupe Peña (https://attorney911.com/attorneys/lupe-pena/) brings an invaluable perspective to hazing cases. As a former insurance defense attorney at a national firm, Lupe knows exactly how fraternity, sorority, and university insurance companies operate. She understands their delay tactics, their arguments for coverage exclusions, and their intricate settlement strategies—because she used to run their playbook. This insider knowledge is a critical asset in maximizing our clients’ recovery.
• Complex Litigation Against Massive Institutions (Ralph Manginello): Managing Partner Ralph P. Manginello (https://attorney911.com/attorneys/ralph-manginello/) has a proven track record of taking on formidable defendants. He was one of the few Texas attorneys involved in the BP Texas City explosion litigation, a monumental case against a billion-dollar corporation. Our extensive federal court experience, particularly in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, means we are not intimidated by national fraternities, university systems, or their high-powered defense teams. We’ve taken on billion-dollar entities and won.
• Multi-Million Dollar Wrongful Death and Catastrophic Injury Experience: We have a proven track record in complex wrongful death cases, such as the Leonel Bermudez case against UH/Pi Kappa Phi where we are seeking over $10 million. Our experience includes valuing lifetime care needs for victims with brain injuries or permanent disabilities. We don’t settle cheap; we build cases that compel real accountability and fair compensation. Our dedicated wrongful death claim lawyer page (https://attorney911.com/law-practice-areas/wrongful-death-claim-lawyer/) details our commitment to families facing the ultimate loss.
• Criminal + Civil Hazing Expertise: With Ralph’s membership in the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA), we possess a nuanced understanding of how criminal hazing charges interact with civil litigation. We can advise not only on civil liability but also the criminal exposure for individuals, offering comprehensive guidance. See our criminal defense lawyers page (https://attorney911.com/law-practice-areas/criminal-defense-lawyers/) for more.
• Investigative Depth: We understand how fraternities, sororities, Corps programs, and athletic departments actually work behind closed doors. Our team is adept at investigating modern hazing, including obtaining and leveraging hidden evidence such as deleted group chats, social media archives, national fraternity records showing prior incidents, and university files through targeted discovery and public records requests. We collaborate with digital forensics experts, medical experts, and psychologists to build an undeniable case. We investigate like your child’s life depends on it—because it does.

We know this is one of the hardest things a family can face. Our job is to listen with empathy, get you answers, hold the right people accountable, and help prevent this from happening to another family. We don’t believe in quick, minimal settlements; we are committed to thorough investigation and real accountability.

If you or your child experienced hazing at any Texas campus—be it the University of North Texas, University of Houston, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, Baylor, or anywhere else—we want to hear from you. Families in Denton County, and throughout the surrounding region, have the right to answers and accountability.

Contact The Manginello Law Firm for a confidential, no-obligation consultation. We’ll listen to what happened without judgment, explain your legal options, and help you decide on the best path forward.

What to expect in your free consultation:

• We’ll listen to your story with empathy and without judgment.
• We’ll review any evidence you have (photos, texts, medical records).
• We’ll explain your legal options: pursuing a criminal report, a civil lawsuit, both, or neither.
• We’ll discuss realistic timelines and what to expect throughout the legal process.
• We’ll answer your questions about costs. We work on a contingency fee basis, meaning we don’t get paid unless we win your case—as explained in our video How Do Contingency Fees Work? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcI_j6F9Nc).
• There’s no pressure to hire us on the spot—take time to decide the best course of action.
• Everything you tell us is strictly confidential.

Whether you’re in Denton County or anywhere across Texas, if hazing has impacted your family, you don’t have to face this alone. Call us today.

Contact Attorney911 for a confidential case evaluation:

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

Spanish Language Services:

• Hablamos Español – Contact Lupe Peña at lupe@atty911.com for consultation in Spanish.
• Servicios legales en español disponibles.

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