In the City of Coppell, Attorney911 offers expert legal representation for fraternity and sorority hazing cases. Our University Hazing Injury & Wrongful Death Attorneys, including a former insurance defense attorney, understand fraternity insurance tactics. We have federal court experience taking on national fraternities and universities, proven by our BP Explosion litigation. With HCCLA criminal defense and civil wrongful death expertise, we secure multi-million dollar results. We handle cases from UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor, specializing in evidence preservation with over 25 years of experience. Hablamos Español. Free consultation; contingency fee: no win, no fee. Call 1-888-ATTY-911.

A chill hung in the air on a late Texas night, mirroring the cold dread in a young student’s heart. He was at an off-campus house near a major university, miles from his family home in City of Coppell, far from the familiar streets of Dallas County. This was supposed to be a bonding experience, the culmination of weeks of “new member education” for a fraternity he’d dreamed of joining. Instead, he was being pressured, along with other pledges, to drink far beyond safe limits. Older members, fueled by alcohol and a misguided sense of tradition, chanted for him to “chug, chug, chug.” The room spun, the laughter became menacing, and the fear of “letting down the chapter” warred with his body’s desperate plea for him to stop. Someone stumbled, others vomited, but no one dared to call for help, fearing reprisal. He felt trapped, alone, and desperately wished he could be back in City of Coppell, safe from this escalating nightmare.

This could happen at any Texas university—across Dallas County and beyond—impacting families from City of Coppell and communities statewide. The scenario is not a relic of the past; it’s a modern reality on campuses across Houston, College Station, Austin, Dallas, and Waco, reaching students from our very own North Texas communities.

We understand that when your child leaves City of Coppell for college, you expect them to be safe, to learn, and to grow, not to be subjected to dangerous and demeaning rituals. If your family faces a situation like this, the immediate question is often: What now? Is this even hazing? What are our rights? Whom can we trust?

This comprehensive guide is designed for families in City of Coppell and throughout Texas who need to understand:

• What hazing truly looks like in 2025, extending beyond outdated stereotypes, including the insidious role of digital coercion.
• The intricacies of Texas and federal laws that govern hazing.
• Critical lessons from major national hazing cases and how these precedents apply to Texas families.
• The specific, documented hazing histories and incidents at major institutions like the University of Houston (UH), Texas A&M University, the University of Texas at Austin (UT), Southern Methodist University (SMU), and Baylor University.
• The legal pathways and options available to victims and their families in City of Coppell and across the Lone Star State.

While this article provides general information, it is crucial to remember that it does not constitute specific legal advice for your unique situation. Every case is different, and its outcome depends on its specific facts. The Manginello Law Firm is here to evaluate individual cases based on their particular circumstances and we are proud to serve families throughout Texas, including those in City of Coppell and the surrounding areas, by offering legal guidance in these challenging times.

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.” Prioritize their health and safety above all else.
  • Preserve evidence BEFORE it’s deleted:
    • Screenshot group chats, texts, and direct messages (DMs) immediately.
    • Photograph any visible injuries from multiple angles, ensuring clear timestamps if possible.
    • Save any physical items related to the hazing, such as damaged clothing, receipts for forced purchases, or unusual objects.
  • Write down everything while the memory is fresh—who was involved, what exactly happened, when and where it took place, and any specific details you recall.
  • Do NOT:
    • Confront the fraternity, sorority, or organization directly, as this could lead to evidence destruction or retaliation.
    • Sign anything from the university or an insurance company without first consulting with an attorney.
    • Post details about the incident on public social media platforms, as this could compromise your case.
    • Allow your child to delete messages, clean up evidence, or attempt to erase any digital footprints.

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

  • Evidence disappears rapidly due to deleted group chats, destroyed items, and coached witnesses.
  • Universities and organizations often move quickly to control the narrative and conduct their own internal investigations, which may not align with your child’s best interests.
  • Our experienced legal team can help you preserve critical evidence and protect your child’s rights from the outset.
  • Call 1-888-ATTY-911 for immediate consultation to discuss your situation confidentially.

2. HAZING IN 2025: WHAT IT REALLY LOOKS LIKE

For families in City of Coppell and beyond, understanding hazing today requires looking past outdated movie portrayals or simple pranks. Modern hazing can be far more insidious, dangerous, and digitally sophisticated, often evolving to evade detection while maintaining its coercive power. We define hazing not merely as a “rite of passage,” but as any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, whether committed by an individual or a group, against a student for the purpose of initiation, affiliation, or maintaining membership in any organization. This act must endanger the mental or physical health or safety of a student, or cause them humiliation or exploitation.

It is crucial to emphasize that a student’s “agreement” to participate does not automatically make the activity safe, legal, or consensual when there is inherent peer pressure, a significant power imbalance, or a threat of social exclusion. The law recognizes that consent given under duress is not true consent.

2.1 Clear, modern definition of hazing

Hazing involves any forced, coerced, or strongly pressured action tied to joining, keeping membership, or gaining status within a group. This behavior, whether physical or psychological, endangers mental or physical health, humiliates, or exploits. The key elements are coercion, affiliation with an organization, and the endangerment of a student’s well-being. This definition covers a broad spectrum of activities, many of which are specifically designed to fly under the radar of university policies and state laws.

2.2 Main categories of hazing

Hazing practices have adapted over time, but their core intent—to exert control and instill perceived loyalty through degradation or danger—remains. For City of Coppell parents and students, recognizing these categories is critical.

• Alcohol and substance hazing: This is arguably the most prevalent and deadly form of hazing. It involves forcing or coercing new members to consume excessive amounts of alcohol, often rapidly, through chugging challenges, “lineups,” or games designed for rapid intoxication. Pledges might be pressured to drink from communal sources, or consume unknown substances, directly leading to alcohol poisoning, injury, or death. From the “Big/Little” drinking nights at Pi Kappa Alpha, as seen in the tragic Stone Foltz case at Bowling Green State University, to the “Bible study” drinking game that led to Max Gruver’s death at LSU, the script for disaster is frighteningly similar and frequently rehearsed.

• Physical hazing: This category includes acts that inflict bodily harm or extreme physical discomfort. Examples range from traditional paddling and beatings to extreme calisthenics, forced “workouts,” or “smokings” designed to push individuals beyond safe physical limits. Sleep deprivation, food or water deprivation, and exposure to extreme environmental conditions (cold, heat) also fall under this umbrella. The incident at Texas A&M, where two Sigma Alpha Epsilon pledges allegedly suffered chemical burns after substances like industrial-strength cleaner were poured on them, illustrates how physical hazing can involve severe, lasting injury.

• Sexualized and humiliating hazing: These acts are deeply degrading and often involve forced nudity or partial nudity, simulated sexual acts (such as “roasted pig” positions), or being made to wear humiliating costumes. Instances of racial or sexist overtones, slurs, or role-playing designed to demean specific groups are also common. The allegations within the Northwestern University football program, which included widespread sexualized and racist hazing, highlight how such abuse can extend beyond Greek life into other high-profile organizations.

• Psychological hazing: While less visible, psychological hazing can cause profound and lasting trauma. It encompasses verbal abuse, threats, forced isolation, and manipulative tactics designed to break down an individual’s self-esteem. Public shaming, whether in person or online, and creating an environment of constant fear or anxiety are hallmarks of this type of hazing. This can lead to severe emotional distress, heightened anxiety, depression, and even suicidal ideation.

• Digital/online hazing: This is the modern frontier of hazing. It leverages technology for coercion and control, often in ways that are difficult to track or prove. Examples include group chat dares, “challenges,” or public humiliation tactics executed via Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Discord, or other online platforms. Students might be pressured to create or share compromising images or videos, or to engage in online bullying. The constant monitoring through group chats, with demands for immediate responses, can also cause severe sleep deprivation and mental stress. Pledges are often forced to delete messages, creating an ephemeral digital trace that only specific forensic tools can recover.

2.3 Where hazing actually happens

It is a common misconception that hazing is exclusively a “fraternity problem.” In reality, this dangerous behavior permeates a wide array of student organizations, including those connected to City of Coppell families and their children attending universities across Texas:

• Fraternities and sororities: This includes traditional Greek letter organizations across Interfraternity Council (IFC), Panhellenic Council, National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), and various multicultural Greek councils.
• Corps of Cadets / ROTC / military-style groups: Groups with a hierarchical structure and strong traditions, like the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets, can unfortunately become environments where hazing flourishes under the guise of “discipline” or “tradition.”
• Spirit squads, tradition clubs: Organizations like university spirit groups or long-standing campus clubs (such as the Texas Cowboys at UT Austin) are sometimes found to engage in hazing practices.
• Athletic teams: From football and basketball to baseball, cheerleading, and other sports teams, hazing can occur within athletic programs, as demonstrated by the Northwestern University scandal.
• Marching bands and performance groups: Even seemingly innocuous groups are not immune; the tragic death of drum major Robert Champion at Florida A&M University due to hazing within the marching band is a stark reminder.
• Some service, cultural, and academic organizations: Any group that requires initiation or a “pledge” period can potentially harbor hazing.

These practices persist because they are often shrouded in secrecy, defended as “tradition,” and driven by desires for social status and group belonging. Despite “zero-tolerance” policies and increased awareness, organizations subtly adapt their tactics, making it harder for universities to detect and prevent. This culture of silence is what we, at The Manginello Law Firm, aim to break, offering a voice to those hurt by these damaging practices.

3. LAW & LIABILITY FRAMEWORK (TEXAS + FEDERAL)

Understanding the legal landscape surrounding hazing in Texas is vital for families in City of Coppell and across the state. It clarifies what recourse victims and their families truly have. Texas law, amplified by certain federal mandates, provides a framework for both criminal prosecution and civil recourse, targeting not only individual perpetrators but also the organizations and institutions that permit hazing to occur.

3.1 Texas hazing law basics (Education Code)

Texas has clear, specific anti-hazing provisions outlined in the Texas Education Code, Chapter 37, Subchapter F. These laws are designed to protect students and hold accountable those who engage in or permit hazing.

Hazing is broadly defined in § 37.151 as any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, on or off campus, by one person alone or with others, directed against a student, that:

• Endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, such as physical abuse, forced consumption of alcohol or drugs, excessive exercise, or sleep deprivation.
• Or substantially affects the mental health or safety of a student through extreme humiliation, intimidation, or degradation.
• And such acts occur for the purpose of pledging, initiation into, affiliation with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization whose members include students.

Key aspects of Texas hazing law:

• On or off campus: The law applies regardless of where the hazing takes place. This means off-campus houses, private venues, or even remote retreats are covered.
• Mental or physical harm: It doesn’t have to be physical injury to be hazing; severe psychological distress or humiliation is also a violation.
• Intent: The law covers intentional acts, but also those committed knowingly or recklessly. This means if someone knew (or should have known) the act could endanger a student and proceeded anyway, it fits the definition.
• “Consent” is not a defense: As per § 37.155, agreeing to be hazed does not absolve the perpetrators or organization of liability. The law recognizes the coercive environment inherent in hazing.

Criminal penalties:

• Class B Misdemeanor: The default penalty for hazing. This can carry up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.
• Class A Misdemeanor: If the hazing causes bodily injury requiring medical treatment.
• State Jail Felony: This is a more severe penalty, applicable if hazing results in serious bodily injury or death.
• Organizational Liability (§ 37.153): Organizations themselves can be criminally prosecuted if they authorized, encouraged, or if an officer acting in an official capacity knew about hazing and failed to report it. Penalties can include fines up to $10,000 per violation and revocation of university recognition.
• Failing to report: Those who are aware of hazing and fail to report it can also face misdemeanor charges.
• Retaliation: Retaliating against someone for reporting hazing is also a misdemeanor.

Reporter protections (§ 37.154):

• Individuals who report hazing incidents in good faith to university or law enforcement authorities are generally immune from civil or criminal liability that might arise from that report.
• Additionally, Texas law provides some immunity for students who call 911 or seek medical help in good faith during an emergency, even if underage drinking or other illegal activities were involved. This “amnesty” is designed to encourage students to prioritize safety over fear of punishment.

This summary provides a foundational understanding; the actual Texas Education Code contains more technical language and numerous nuances. For City of Coppell residents concerned about hazing, understanding these legal provisions is the first step toward seeking justice.

3.2 Criminal vs civil cases

When hazing occurs, two distinct legal avenues may open: criminal prosecution and civil litigation. Both serve different purposes and are pursued by different parties, yet they can often run concurrently.

• Criminal cases: These are initiated by the state (through a prosecutor’s office) to punish offenders for violating criminal statutes. In hazing incidents, potential criminal charges can range from misdemeanor hazing offenses to more serious charges such as furnishing alcohol to minors, assault, aggravated assault, or even manslaughter or negligent homicide in fatal hazing cases. The goal of a criminal case is to determine guilt and, if found guilty, impose penalties like fines, probation, or incarceration. A criminal conviction can also serve as powerful evidence in a subsequent civil lawsuit.

• Civil cases: These are brought by victims of hazing or their surviving family members (as plaintiffs) against the individuals and organizations responsible for the harm (as defendants). The primary aim of a civil case is not punishment, but monetary compensation for the damages suffered by the victim. Common legal theories in hazing civil lawsuits include:

  • Negligence and Gross Negligence: Alleging that perpetrators, organizations, or institutions failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent hazing, or acted with conscious indifference to student safety.
  • Wrongful Death: Brought by eligible family members when hazing leads to a fatality, seeking compensation for their losses.
  • Negligent Hiring/Supervision: Alleging that an institution failed to properly vet or oversee employees (e.g., resident advisors, coaches) who had a duty to prevent hazing.
  • Premises Liability: If hazing occurred on property owned or controlled by a defendant who failed to maintain a safe environment.
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: For severe psychological harm caused by outrageous conduct.
  • Assault and Battery: For physical harm caused by intentional acts.

It’s important to understand that a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for filing a civil lawsuit. The standards of proof are different: “beyond a reasonable doubt” for criminal cases versus “preponderance of the evidence” (more likely than not) for civil cases. This means a civil case can succeed even if criminal charges are never filed or do not result in a conviction.

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

Beyond state laws, specific federal mandates impose additional responsibilities on universities regarding hazing, impacting how these cases are investigated and adjudicated. These federal requirements provide additional layers of protection for students, including those from City of Coppell attending colleges across Texas.

• Stop Campus Hazing Act (2024): This significant federal legislation mandates greater transparency and accountability for colleges and universities that receive federal funding. By around 2026, institutions will be required to:

  • Publicly report all hazing incidents, detailing the nature of the violation and the sanctions imposed.
  • Strengthen and enhance their hazing education and prevention programs campus-wide.
  • Maintain publicly accessible data on hazing incidents, which will improve the clarity and consistency of information available to prospective students and their families from City of Coppell.
    This act aims to provide families with more comprehensive data to make informed decisions about campus safety.

• Title IX: This federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. When hazing involves elements of sexual harassment, sexual assault, gender-based hostility, or unequal treatment based on sex, Title IX obligations are triggered. Universities have a legal duty to investigate such incidents promptly and effectively, and to provide support to victims. A university’s failure to adequately address hazing that falls under Title IX can expose it to federal investigations, legal action, and loss of federal funding.

• Clery Act (Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act): The Clery Act requires colleges and universities to disclose information about crime on and around their campuses. While hazing itself is not a specific Clery Act crime category, many hazing incidents overlap with crimes that must be reported, such as:

  • Assault (aggravated or simple).
  • Liquor law violations (especially in cases of forced underage drinking).
  • Drug abuse violations.
  • Sexual offenses (if hazing involves sexual assault or harassment).
    The Clery Act aims to provide students and their families with accurate information about campus safety, and a pattern of hazing-related incidents can highlight systemic safety failures by an institution.

These federal requirements complement Texas state laws, creating a more robust framework for addressing hazing and ensuring greater institutional accountability.

3.4 Who can be liable in a civil hazing lawsuit

Determining liability in a civil hazing lawsuit can be complex, as multiple individuals and entities may share responsibility for the harm caused. For families in City of Coppell seeking justice, identifying all potentially liable parties is a critical step in building a strong case.

• Individual students: This includes the active members who directly planned, supplied the alcohol or other prohibited substances, carried out the hazing acts, or actively participated in the cover-up. Their personal actions can lead to claims of assault, battery, negligence, or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

• Local chapter/organization: The specific fraternity, sorority, club, or athletic team itself (if it is recognized as a legal entity) can be held accountable. This liability often extends to individual officers or “pledge educators” who held positions of authority and were involved in organizing or overseeing the hazing activities.

• National fraternity/sorority: Many local chapters are affiliates of larger national organizations. These national bodies often set policies, receive dues, provide guidance, and have the authority to supervise or sanction local chapters. Liability against a national organization can stem from:

  • Negligent supervision: Failure to adequately monitor or control a local chapter despite knowledge of past hazing.
  • Failure to enforce anti-hazing policies: If the national organization had robust policies on paper but failed to enforce them effectively.
  • Foreseeability/Pattern Evidence: If the national organization knew or should have known a particular hazing ritual was common within its chapters nationwide and failed to prevent it.

• University or governing board: The college or university can also be held liable under certain legal theories. This is particularly relevant when:

  • The university had prior knowledge of hazing within a specific organization but failed to take appropriate action.
  • The institution was grossly negligent in supervising student organizations.
  • Hazing incidents trigger violations of federal laws like Title IX (sex-based discrimination or harassment) or the Clery Act.
  • Claims involve negligent hiring or supervision of university staff (e.g., fraternity/sorority advisors, coaches) who had a duty to prevent hazing. Public universities (like UH, Texas A&M, UT) may assert sovereign immunity, but exceptions exist, especially in cases of gross negligence or Title IX violations.

• Third parties: Depending on the circumstances, additional third parties could be liable:

  • Landlords or property owners: If the hazing occurred at an off-campus house where the landlord knew or should have known about dangerous activities.
  • Bars or alcohol providers: Under “dram shop” laws in Texas, a bar or establishment that over-serves alcohol to someone who then causes injury can be held liable.
  • Security companies or event organizers: If they failed in their duty to provide a safe environment at an event where hazing occurred.

Every hazing case is fact-specific, and not every party will be liable in every situation. A thorough investigation by experienced hazing attorneys, like our team at The Manginello Law Firm, is essential to identify all responsible parties and maximize the potential for recovery for victims and their families.

4. NATIONAL HAZING CASE PATTERNS (ANCHOR STORIES)

The headlines of hazing tragedies often fade, but the legal precedents they set continue to shape how we understand accountability for these incidents. For City of Coppell families and students, knowing these cases isn’t just about sad stories; it’s about recognizing patterns of risk and understanding the legal landscape you operate within should hazing strike your family. These anchor stories demonstrate critical common threads: forced intoxication, physical abuse, cover-ups, and the ultimate accountability for powerful institutions when they fail to protect students.

4.1 Alcohol poisoning & death pattern

The most common and devastating hazing incidents involve forced alcohol consumption, often leading to tragic and entirely preventable deaths. These cases highlight the pattern of young lives lost and the legal battles for justice that ensue.

• Timothy Piazza – Penn State University, Beta Theta Pi (2017): Timothy Piazza, a 19-year-old pledge, died after participating in a “bid acceptance” night filled with extreme alcohol consumption. Security cameras captured him falling repeatedly, sustaining severe head injuries. Alarmingly, fraternity members delayed calling for help for nearly 12 hours, a critical factor in his death. This case resulted in one of the largest hazing prosecutions in U.S. history, with 18 fraternity members facing over 1,000 criminal counts, including involuntary manslaughter. Timothy’s family pursued civil litigation, and the tragedy spurred the creation of the Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law in Pennsylvania.

  Takeaway for Texas families: The Piazza case dramatically illustrates how extreme intoxication, egregious delays in seeking medical attention, and a pervasive culture of silence can lead to devastating consequences and widespread legal condemnation. These factors are common in Texas hazing incidents as well.

• Andrew Coffey – Florida State University, Pi Kappa Phi (2017): Andrew Coffey, a freshman pledge, died from acute alcohol poisoning during a “Big Brother Night” event. Pledges were allegedly given handles of hard liquor and forced to consume large quantities. Multiple fraternity members were criminally prosecuted, with many pleading guilty to misdemeanor hazing. His family filed a wrongful death suit, the terms of which were confidential. The incident led to a temporary suspension of all Greek life at FSU and fueled a statewide anti-hazing movement in Florida.

  Takeaway for Texas families: This case underscores the danger of “traditional” drinking nights, where forced alcohol consumption is a common and predictable “script” for disaster in fraternities across the nation, including those with chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, and Baylor.

• Max Gruver – Louisiana State University, Phi Delta Theta (2017): Max Gruver, a pledge at LSU, died from alcohol toxicity with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.495% after participating in a “Bible study” drinking game. Pledges were forced to drink whenever they answered questions incorrectly. This tragedy led to the passage of the Max Gruver Act in Louisiana, making felony hazing a reality in the state. Multiple members were charged, with one convicted of negligent homicide. The family settled a civil lawsuit before the verdict.

  Takeaway for Texas families: The Gruver case clearly demonstrates that legislative change and public accountability often follow direct evidence of hazing, impacting legal frameworks that apply to similar incidents across the South and the entire country.

• Stone Foltz – Bowling Green State University, Pi Kappa Alpha (2021): Stone Foltz, a 20-year-old pledge, was forced to consume an entire bottle of whiskey during a “Big/Little” night. He died from alcohol poisoning. This incident resulted in multiple criminal convictions for hazing-related charges against fraternity members. The family reached a $10 million settlement ($7 million from the Pi Kappa Alpha national fraternity and approximately $3 million from Bowling Green State University).

  Takeaway for Texas families: Stone Foltz’s case establishes a powerful precedent for accountability involving both national fraternities and universities. It shows that universities, even public ones, can face significant financial and reputational consequences for their role in hazing deaths, along with the fraternity itself. This applies directly to families in City of Coppell seeking justice from Texas universities and national organizations.

4.2 Physical & ritualized hazing pattern

Hazing is not always about alcohol; it can involve brutal physical and psychologically damaging rituals that lead to death or severe injury. These cases highlight the extreme lengths some organizations will go to perpetuate harmful “traditions.”

• Chun “Michael” Deng – Baruch College, Pi Delta Psi (2013): Michael Deng, a pledge, died after participating in a fraternity retreat in the Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania. During a blindfolded “glass ceiling” ritual, he was weighted down with a heavy backpack and repeatedly tackled. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, and fraternity members tragically delayed calling 911 for crucial hours. This case was particularly significant because not only were multiple members convicted of various charges, but the national fraternity itself was criminally convicted of aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter, and banned from Pennsylvania for a decade.

  Takeaway for Texas families: The Deng case provides a stark warning that hazing moved to off-campus “retreats” is not immune from liability. It emphasizes that national organizations can face severe criminal and civil sanctions when they fail to control dangerous rituals, regardless of where they take place. This pattern of off-campus hazing to avoid detection is relevant for students from City of Coppell attending universities across Texas.

4.3 Athletic program hazing & abuse

Hazing is unfortunately not exclusive to Greek life. Major athletic programs, often operating with substantial budgets and community prestige, can also foster environments where abuse is allowed to persist under the guise of “team building.”

• Northwestern University football (2023–2025): Former football players at Northwestern University alleged widespread and severe hazing within the program, including sexualized and racist rituals, stretching back years. These allegations included forced sexually explicit acts and racial discrimination. This scandal led to multiple lawsuits against Northwestern and its coaching staff. Head coach Pat Fitzgerald was fired and later confidentially settled a wrongful-termination lawsuit.

  Takeaway for Texas families: The Northwestern scandal unequivocally demonstrates that hazing is not confined to fraternities and sororities. It can occur in high-profile, big-money athletic programs, raising critical questions about institutional oversight and the responsibility of universities to protect student-athletes. This pattern is directly applicable to athletic programs at major Texas universities, including those attended by students from City of Coppell.

4.4 What these cases mean for Texas families

The national hazing cases, though geographically diverse, share chillingly consistent common threads. They reveal patterns of forced drinking, often to lethal levels, profound humiliation, physical violence, deliberate delays in seeking medical care, and concerted efforts to cover up the abuse. The legal and institutional reforms that follow these tragedies, often culminating in multi-million-dollar settlements or verdicts, typically occur only after immense suffering and determined litigation.

For City of Coppell families whose children attend or plan to attend UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, Baylor, or any other Texas university, these national lessons are not distant. They highlight the systemic risks inherent in certain organizational cultures and demonstrate that justice, though hard-won, is possible. These precedents mean that when hazing occurs in Texas, the blueprint for legal action is well-established. Our firm leverages this national understanding to protect the rights of Texans.

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

For families in City of Coppell, knowing the specific contexts of hazing at Texas’s major universities is crucial. While hazing is a nationwide problem, its manifestation varies with each campus’s unique culture, regulatory environment, and historical incidents. This section details the situation at the flagship universities across Texas, emphasizing how these institutions respond—and sometimes fail to respond—to hazing, and how cases might unfold if your child, attending one of these schools, is affected. City of Coppell, situated in Dallas County, is approximately 20 miles northwest of Dallas, making Southern Methodist University (SMU) one of the closest major universities often attended by students from our community, though many also choose UT Austin, Texas A&M, Baylor, and UH. These proximity considerations inform how families from City of Coppell might interact with these institutions and the legal system.

5.1 Southern Methodist University (SMU)

For many families in City of Coppell, SMU represents a nearby, prestigious option for higher education. It’s located in the heart of Dallas, approximately 20 miles southeast of Coppell, making it easily accessible for Dallas County residents. This proximity means that SMU’s campus culture, including its Greek life, directly impacts students from our local community.

5.1.1 Campus & culture snapshot

SMU is a private university renowned for its strong Greek life presence, which is a significant part of its vibrant social scene. The campus environment, characterized by its affluent student body and focus on tradition, can sometimes create pressures within its student organizations. Like many private institutions, SMU maintains a high degree of control over its campus environment, but the social dynamics, particularly within fraternities and sororities, can present unique challenges for hazing prevention.

5.1.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels

SMU has clear and publicly articulated anti-hazing policies, which are made available through its Office of Student Affairs and Fraternity & Sorority Life department. The university explicitly prohibits all forms of hazing, both on and off campus, and outlines potential sanctions that can range from individual disciplinary action to organizational suspension or permanent removal. SMU encourages reporting through various channels, including its Dean of Students office, the Office of Institutional Access and Equity (for Title IX related issues), and its anonymous reporting systems, such as “Real Response.” The university also publishes a comprehensive Greek Life roster outlining currently recognized organizations and their conduct statuses.

5.1.3 Selected documented incidents & responses

While SMU is committed to hazing prevention, like many universities with active Greek systems, it has faced documented incidents. A notable example involved the Kappa Alpha Order fraternity around 2017. Reports emerged of pledges being subjected to physical abuse, including paddling, forced alcohol consumption, and severe sleep deprivation. Following an investigation, the university suspended the Kappa Alpha Order chapter, imposing strict restrictions on its activities and recruitment practices for several years. This incident underscored the university’s stated commitment to addressing hazing, though ongoing vigilance remains crucial. These incidents, while distressing, demonstrate that even prestigious private institutions are not immune to hazing and that university action, though sometimes slow, can be taken.

5.1.4 How an SMU hazing case might proceed for City of Coppell families

For families from City of Coppell, pursuing a hazing case originating at SMU would involve specific legal considerations. Jurisdiction for civil lawsuits would typically fall within Dallas County courts, given SMU’s location in Dallas. This is familiar territory for City of Coppell residents. Key parties in such a case could include individual student perpetrators, the local SMU chapter, the national fraternity or sorority, and potentially SMU itself. As a private university, SMU generally does not benefit from sovereign immunity, which public Texas universities might claim. This can simplify certain aspects of litigation against the institution. Our attorneys are well-versed in navigating litigation within Dallas County and understand the intricate balance of private university regulations and Texas state law.

5.1.5 What SMU students and parents from City of Coppell should do

If you are an SMU student from City of Coppell, or a parent of one, and you suspect hazing:

• Prioritize safety: If there is any immediate danger, call SMU Police at (214) 768-3333 or Dallas 911.
• Document everything: Screenshot digital communications (GroupMe, texts, social media), photograph any injuries, and meticulously record dates, times, and specific details. Preservation of evidence is key.
• Report internally: Utilize SMU’s official channels, including the Dean of Students or the anonymous “Real Response” system. However, understand the limitations of internal investigations.
• Seek medical attention: If any injury, physical or psychological, has occurred, ensure it is documented by medical professionals at the SMU Health Center or local Dallas hospitals.
• Contact legal counsel: For City of Coppell families, engaging with a law firm like ours, with experience in Dallas County courts and private university litigation, is crucial. We can provide guidance on navigating SMU’s internal processes while simultaneously building a potential civil case. We serve City of Coppell families and those across Dallas County with dedication.

5.2 University of Houston (UH)

The University of Houston, located in the heart of the state’s largest city, is a major destination for students across Texas, including many from City of Coppell who venture south for an urban university experience. Its dynamic environment and large student body contribute to an active Greek life and diverse student organizations that are routinely scrutinized for hazing.

5.2.1 Campus & culture snapshot (with City of Coppell connection)

UH is a large, diverse public research university, serving a significant number of commuter and residential students. Its vibrant downtown Houston location means students are immersed in a bustling metropolitan environment. Many students from City of Coppell choose UH for its strong academic programs and its proximity to internship and career opportunities in the Greater Houston area. The university hosts a very active Greek system across multiple councils (Panhellenic, IFC, NPHC, Multicultural), alongside numerous other student performance, cultural, and sports organizations. The anonymity of a large campus can sometimes embolden hazing behaviors, making strong oversight crucial.

5.2.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels

UH maintains a comprehensive hazing policy under its Student Code of Conduct, which strictly prohibits hazing activities both on and off campus. The policy clearly states that actions endangering mental or physical health, or involving forced consumption of alcohol/substances, are forbidden. Students are encouraged to report hazing through the Dean of Students office, the Office of Student Conduct, or the University of Houston Police Department (UHPD). While UH does publish some disciplinary actions, its transparency regarding hazing incidents is not as extensive as some other public universities in Texas.

5.2.3 Selected documented incidents & responses

UH has a history of publicized hazing incidents resulting in chapter suspensions and disciplinary actions:

• Pi Kappa Alpha (2016): A significant incident involved the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity where pledges were allegedly subjected to food, water, and sleep deprivation. One student reportedly suffered a lacerated spleen after being physically assaulted during the hazing ritual. The chapter was charged with misdemeanor hazing and subsequently suspended by the university, with its national organization also taking action. This incident highlighted the severe physical dangers involved in hazing.
• Subsequent disciplinary actions: Over the years, UH has disciplined other fraternities and student organizations for various forms of hazing, including alcohol misuse and activities designed to cause mental or physical discomfort. While specific details sometimes remain internal, these disciplinary actions underscore the ongoing challenge of combating hazing even with policies in place.

5.2.4 How a UH hazing case might proceed for City of Coppell families

For City of Coppell families, a hazing case originating at UH would typically involve the Houston Police Department (HPD) and/or UHPD investigations, depending on where the incident occurred. Civil lawsuits would generally be filed in courts within Harris County (where Houston is located). Potential defendants could include individual students, the local chapter, the national fraternity or sorority, and the University of Houston itself. As a public university, UH may raise defenses related to sovereign immunity under Texas law. However, exceptions exist for cases involving gross negligence, certain tort claims, or Title IX violations. Attorney911 operates its primary office in Houston, giving us direct, in-depth knowledge of the Harris County court system and how to navigate claims against a major public institution like UH.

5.2.5 What UH students & parents from City of Coppell should do

If you are a student or parent from City of Coppell and hazing is suspected at UH:

• Contact UHPD or HPD: If there’s an immediate threat or serious injury, call for emergency assistance.
• Preserve evidence rigorously: Capture screenshots of GroupMe chats, DMs, social media posts, and any other digital communication. Photograph any injuries. These are critical as UH’s transparency can sometimes be limited.
• Report through official UH channels: Utilize the Dean of Students and the Office of Student Conduct, but keep a detailed record of all interactions and follow-ups.
• Seek medical and psychological support: Ensure all physical and mental health impacts are professionally documented.
• Consult with Attorney911 immediately: Our Houston-based team regularly handles complex litigation in Harris County. We can help families from City of Coppell navigate UH’s specific policies, uncover prior incidents through discovery, and effectively pursue legal accountability against all responsible parties.

5.3 University of Texas at Austin (UT)

The University of Texas at Austin, a flagship institution, draws a significant number of bright students from across Texas, including many from the City of Coppell area seeking its renowned academic programs and vibrant capital city experience. Given its large Greek system and numerous student organizations, UT Austin frequently faces hazing challenges.

5.3.1 Campus & culture snapshot (with City of Coppell connection)

UT Austin is one of the largest and most prestigious universities in Texas, celebrated for its academic rigor and extensive array of student activities. Its Greek life is robust and highly visible, attracting a diverse student body, including many from City of Coppell and the broader Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. The campus also boasts numerous spirit organizations, sports clubs, and cultural groups, all of which contribute to a dynamic social scene that, at times, struggles with the issue of hazing under the guise of “tradition.” Students from City of Coppell are part of this rich, yet sometimes challenging, environment.

5.3.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels

UT Austin maintains a rigorous anti-hazing policy, strictly prohibiting both on- and off-campus hazing activities. The university defines hazing in line with Texas Education Code and emphasizes its commitment to student safety. UT is notably proactive in its transparency, publishing a comprehensive Hazing Violations webpage (hazing.utexas.edu). This public database lists organizations, the nature of their violations, and the sanctions imposed through disciplinary action. Reporting channels include the Dean of Students, the Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, and the University of Texas Police Department (UTPD), as well as anonymous reporting options.

5.3.3 Selected documented incidents & responses

UT Austin’s public Hazing Violations page (hazing.utexas.edu) provides invaluable insight into the ongoing nature of hazing. Cases include:

• Pi Kappa Alpha (2023): The chapter was found responsible for hazing after new members were directed to consume excessive milk and forced to perform strenuous calisthenics. This resulted in the chapter being placed on probation and required to implement enhanced hazing-prevention education.
• Texas Wranglers (2022): This spirit organization faced disciplinary action for hazing violations that included alcohol misuse, forced exercises, and other activities designed to humiliate and degrade new members.
• Other Greek and student groups: The public log frequently details various fraternities, sororities, and other student organizations disciplined for alcohol-related hazing, forced physical activity, and social segregation. The consistent presence of repeat offenders on this list highlights that even with transparency, hazing remains a persistent problem at UT.

5.3.4 How a UT Austin hazing case might proceed for City of Coppell families

For City of Coppell families, a hazing case at UT Austin would involve investigations by UTPD and/or the Austin Police Department (APD), given the university’s location in Travis County. Civil lawsuits would typically be filed in Travis County courts. Potential defendants would include individual students, the local chapter, the national organization, and the University of Texas System. Like UH, UT Austin, as a public university, may assert defenses related to sovereign immunity, though exceptions for gross negligence and Title IX are critical considerations. The existence of UT’s public hazing log is a powerful tool for plaintiffs, providing verifiable pattern evidence and demonstrating the university’s knowledge of prior hazing incidents.

5.3.5 What UT Austin students & parents from City of Coppell should do

If you are a student or parent from City of Coppell dealing with hazing at UT Austin:

• Immediately secure evidence: Given the prevalence of digital hazing, securing chat logs, photos, and videos is paramount.
• Consult UT’s Hazing Violations page: This resource is invaluable for identifying prior incidents related to the organization in question (hazing.utexas.edu).
• Report through UTPD or Dean of Students: Formal reports trigger investigations.
• Document all communications: Keep precise records of interactions with university officials.
• Engage with Attorney911 without delay: Our firm, with an office in Austin, has first-hand experience with the Travis County legal system and with leveraging UT Austin’s publicly available data to strengthen cases. We serve families from City of Coppell seeking to hold institutions accountable in the capital city.

5.4 Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University, with its unique traditions and strong sense of community, is a prominent choice for many students across Texas, including those from City of Coppell and the surrounding Dallas County area. The university’s distinctive culture, which includes the renowned Corps of Cadets, means that hazing incidents here often take on particular forms.

5.4.1 Campus & culture snapshot (with City of Coppell connection)

Texas A&M in College Station is rich in military tradition, expressed most prominently through its Corps of Cadets. Alongside a large Greek system, the university fosters a culture of loyalty and pride that, while positive in many ways, can also create an environment where hazing is justified as “tradition” or “discipline.” Students from City of Coppell are drawn to A&M for its engineering, agriculture, and business programs, and for the Aggie spirit. This unique culture requires a nuanced understanding when addressing hazing allegations.

5.4.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels

Texas A&M maintains a strict anti-hazing policy, aligning with the Texas Education Code, that prohibits all forms of hazing within university-affiliated organizations. The university’s Division of Student Affairs, through its Student Conduct Office and Fraternity and Sorority Life office, is responsible for enforcing these policies. Reporting channels include the Student Conduct Office, the Texas A&M University Police Department (UPD), and a dedicated anonymous reporting hotline. Transparency regarding specific hazing incidents at A&M has historically been more limited compared to UT Austin’s public database, often requiring more intensive discovery in legal cases.

5.4.3 Selected documented incidents & responses

Hazing at Texas A&M has involved both Greek life and the Corps of Cadets, illustrating the pervasive nature of the problem:

• Sigma Alpha Epsilon chemical burns (2021): Two pledges alleged they were subjected to extreme physical activity and had various substances, including industrial-strength cleaner, raw eggs, and spit, poured on them. This resulted in severe chemical burns requiring skin graft surgeries. The pledges sued the fraternity for $1 million. The chapter was suspended by the university for two years. This case highlights a disturbing evolution in physical hazing tactics.
• Corps of Cadets hazing (2023): A former cadet filed a lawsuit alleging degrading hazing over time, including simulated sexual acts and being bound between beds in a “roasted pig” position with an apple in his mouth. This sensitive case, which sought over $1 million in damages, underscored that hazing traditions can persist even within highly structured, ostensibly disciplined organizations. The university responded by stating it handled the matter under its rules, an action that often leads to calls for greater public accountability.
• Kappa Sigma (2023, ongoing): Allegations surfaced of hazing resulting in severe injuries, specifically rhabdomyolysis—a serious condition caused by extreme muscle breakdown, often from intense, forced physical exertion. This case is currently undergoing litigation, demanding specialized legal representation focused on this particular type of injury.

5.4.4 How a Texas A&M hazing case might proceed for City of Coppell families

For City of Coppell families, a hazing case stemming from Texas A&M would involve investigations by UPD and local police in Brazos County (where College Station is located). Civil lawsuits would typically be filed in Brazos County courts. Potential defendants would include individual students, the local chapter, the national organization, and the Texas A&M University System. As a public university system, A&M, like UH and UT, may assert sovereign immunity, necessitating legal strategies to overcome such defenses by demonstrating gross negligence or other exceptions. Our firm has extensive experience navigating the legal landscape against large public university systems throughout Texas.

5.4.5 What Texas A&M students & parents from City of Coppell should do

If you are a student or parent from City of Coppell concerned about hazing at Texas A&M:

• Document with precision: Given the often-tight-lipped culture, comprehensive documentation of all incidents, injuries, and communications is paramount.
• Report through official A&M channels: Utilize the Student Conduct Office and anonymous reporting options, but be prepared for a possibly less transparent process compared to some other Texas universities.
• Seek expert medical care: Any physical symptoms, especially those indicative of rhabdomyolysis (muscle pain, weakness, dark urine) or chemical burns, require immediate, specialized medical attention and meticulous documentation.
• Consult Attorney911 immediately: Our firm is adept at investigating hazing incidents at institutions with strong traditions like A&M. We understand the nuances of both Greek life and Corps hazing and know how to pursue accountability against all responsible parties, including the university system, for families from City of Coppell.

5.5 Baylor University

Baylor University, a private Christian university in Waco, is another significant educational institution in Texas that draws students from communities like City of Coppell, seeking its unique academic and faith-based environment. Baylor’s history, particularly its prominent controversies involving sexual assault and related institutional oversight, adds a specific lens through which hazing incidents must be viewed.

5.5.1 Campus & culture snapshot (with City of Coppell connection)

Baylor University is known for its strong Christian identity, its rigorous academic programs, and its passionate athletic fan base. It attracts students from across the state, including many from City of Coppell who value its conservative values and close-knit community feel. While Greek life is active, Baylor also has numerous faith-based, athletic, and spirit organizations that are integral to campus life. The university’s past struggles with institutional accountability, particularly regarding sexual assault cases, have placed a heightened focus on student safety and oversight across all campus activities, including hazing prevention.

5.5.2 Official hazing policy & reporting channels

Baylor University has a robust anti-hazing policy that emphasizes its commitment to student well-being and a safe, respectful campus environment. The policy strictly prohibits all forms of hazing, both on and off campus, and outlines significant consequences for individuals and organizations found in violation. Reporting channels include the Department of Student Activities, the Title IX Office (especially if incidents involve gender-based harassment or sexual misconduct), and the Baylor University Police Department (BUPD), as well as anonymous reporting via the university’s ethics and compliance hotline. In the wake of past controversies, Baylor has implemented more rigorous training and reporting requirements for student organizations.

5.5.3 Selected documented incidents & responses

Baylor University has faced hazing incidents, particularly within its athletics programs, which highlight the ongoing challenges even with strong policies in place:

• Baylor baseball hazing (2020): An investigation into hazing allegations within the Baylor baseball program led to the suspension of 14 players. The suspensions were staggered across the early season, impacting team performance. While specific details of the hazing were not fully disclosed, the university’s swift disciplinary action underscored its commitment to enforcing anti-hazing policies, especially in high-profile athletic programs following its prior institutional accountability challenges.
• The broader context of Baylor’s institutional oversight challenges following the sexual assault scandal means that any hazing incident now faces intense scrutiny. The “zero tolerance” posture announced by the university implies a lower threshold for disciplinary action.

5.1.4 How a Baylor hazing case might proceed for City of Coppell families

For City of Coppell families, a hazing case at Baylor University would typically involve investigations by BUPD and/or local police in McLennan County (where Waco is located). Civil lawsuits would generally be filed in McLennan County courts. Potential defendants would include individual students, the local chapter, the national organization, and Baylor University itself. As a private university, Baylor does not have sovereign immunity, which can simplify some aspects of litigation compared to public institutions. However, Baylor’s past legal battles have made it highly sophisticated in defense strategies, necessitating experienced legal counsel to navigate.

5.1.5 What Baylor students & parents from City of Coppell should do

If you are a student or parent from City of Coppell concerned about hazing at Baylor:

• Record and document meticulously: Given Baylor’s unique institutional history, thorough documentation of every detail, including digital conversations and any physical evidence, is crucial.
• Report to the appropriate Baylor office: Depending on the nature of the hazing, this might be Student Activities, the Title IX Office, or BUPD. Ensure you keep copies of all communications.
• Seek prompt medical and psychological care: Document all physical and emotional injuries immediately and thoroughly.
• Consult Attorney911 without delay: Our experience with complex institutional accountability cases, similar to those that have arisen at Baylor, uniquely positions us to represent families from City of Coppell. We understand the specific nuances of private university litigation and are committed to ensuring justice and accountability at Baylor.

6. FRATERNITIES & SORORITIES: CAMPUS-SPECIFIC + NATIONAL HISTORIES

For City of Coppell families, understanding the long organizational histories—both nationally and locally—of fraternities and sororities is critical. When a chapter at UH, Texas A&M, UT, SMU, or Baylor engages in hazing, it is rarely an isolated incident. Instead, it often reflects a pattern of behavior seen across other chapters of the same national organization, a pattern that legally establishes foreseeability and strengthens arguments for institutional accountability.

6.1 Why national histories matter

Many fraternities and sororities present on Texas campuses are part of larger, national organizations like Pi Kappa Alpha (Pike), Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE), Phi Delta Theta, Pi Kappa Phi, Beta Theta Pi, Kappa Alpha Order, Sigma Chi, and Omega Psi Phi, among countless others. These national headquarters often:

• Possess detailed anti-hazing manuals and extensive risk management policies, created specifically because their organizations have faced deaths, catastrophic injuries, and multi-million-dollar lawsuits in the past.
• Are acutely aware of the recurring hazing scripts: forced drinking nights, “Big/Little” alcohol consumption, physical endurance tests, paddling traditions, and psychologically degrading rituals.
• Through decades of litigation, settlements, and internal investigations, they have accumulated vast institutional knowledge about the dangers their chapters pose.

Therefore, when a local chapter in Houston, College Station, Austin, Dallas, or Waco repeats a dangerous hazing scenario that has already resulted in injury or death at another chapter in a different state, it provides crucial evidence of foreseeability. This demonstrates that the national organization knew, or should have known, about the specific risks and had a duty to prevent them. This pattern of knowledge can significantly strengthen negligence arguments and open the door to seeking punitive damages against national entities.

6.2 Organization mapping (synthesized)

While an exhaustive list of every chapter and incident is beyond the scope of this guide, here we connect some of the major fraternities and sororities, prevalent at the Texas universities mentioned, with their well-documented national hazing histories. This helps illuminate the patterns of risk that a City of Coppell family might face.

• Pi Kappa Alpha (ΠΚΑ / Pike):

  • Identity: A prominent IFC fraternity with chapters at UH, Texas A&M, and UT Austin. Known for active social calendars.
  • National Incidents:
    • Stone Foltz (Bowling Green State University, 2021): Fatal alcohol poisoning after forced consumption of a bottle of whiskey during “Big/Little” night. Resulted in a $10 million settlement and multiple criminal convictions. The chapter president was personally ordered to pay $6.5 million.
    • David Bogenberger (Northern Illinois University, 2012): Died from alcohol poisoning during a fraternity event, leading to a $14 million settlement for his family.
  • Pattern: A clear history of forced, excessive alcohol consumption, particularly during “Big/Little” rituals, leading to severe injuries and deaths.

• Sigma Alpha Epsilon (ΣΑΕ / SAE):

  • Identity: A large, historic IFC fraternity, with chapters at UH, Texas A&M, and SMU often involved in high-profile campus social scenes.
  • National Incidents: Has been associated with multiple hazing-related deaths and severe injuries nationwide over several decades, prompting the national organization to (temporarily) ban pledging and implement new member education changes in 2014.
    • University of Alabama (2023): Lawsuit filed alleging a pledge suffered a traumatic brain injury during hazing rituals.
    • Texas A&M University (2021): Two pledges alleged chemical burns from industrial-strength cleaner, eggs, and spit during forced activities, requiring skin graft surgeries. Pledges sued for $1 million.
    • University of Texas at Austin (2024): Lawsuit filed by an Australian exchange student alleging assault by members at a party, resulting in severe bone fractures and dislocations, while the chapter was already under suspension.
  • Pattern: A recurring pattern of alcohol abuse, physical abuse, and general endangerment with a history of severe and sometimes fatal outcomes.

• Phi Delta Theta (ΦΔΘ):

  • Identity: A well-established IFC fraternity with chapters at UH, Texas A&M, SMU, and Baylor.
  • National Incidents:
    • Max Gruver (Louisiana State University, 2017): Died from extreme alcohol poisoning during a “Bible study” drinking game, where pledges were forced to drink heavily for incorrect answers. Led to the Max Gruver Act in Louisiana (felony hazing statute) and a $6.1 million verdict.
  • Pattern: Clear evidence of forced alcohol consumption games designed to induce severe intoxication.

• Pi Kappa Phi (ΠΚΦ):

  • Identity: An IFC fraternity with chapters at UH and UT Austin, known for its philanthropy.
  • National Incidents:
    • Andrew Coffey (Florida State University, 2017): Died from acute alcohol poisoning during a “Big Brother Night” event involving mandatory hard liquor consumption. This resulted in criminal prosecutions and a temporary suspension of all Greek life at FSU.
  • Pattern: Forced alcohol consumption at ritualistic “big/little” events leading to dangerous intoxication and death.

• Beta Theta Pi (ΒΘΠ):

  • Identity: A historic IFC fraternity with chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor.
  • National Incidents:
    • Timothy Piazza (Penn State University, 2017): Died after egregious delays in medical care following severe falls and traumatic brain injuries during an alcohol-fueled bid acceptance event. Led to major criminal charges and the Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law in Pennsylvania.
  • Pattern: Extreme alcohol consumption at events, combined with failures to seek prompt medical attention for injured pledges.

• Sigma Chi (ΣΧ):

  • Identity: A prominent IFC fraternity with chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, and Baylor.
  • National Incidents:
    • College of Charleston (2024): A family received more than $10 million in damages for physical beatings, forced consumption of drugs/alcohol, and psychological torment during hazing.
    • University of Texas at Arlington (2020): A pledge was hospitalized with alcohol poisoning during hazing, leading to a lawsuit claiming negligent supervision.
  • Pattern: Recurrent physical abuse, forced substance use, and severe psychological torment resulting in significant financial penalties.

• Kappa Sigma (ΚΣ):

  • Identity: One of the largest IFC fraternities in the country, with chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, and Baylor.
  • National Incidents:
    • Chad Meredith (University of Miami, 2001): An 18-year-old freshman drowned after being coerced to swim across a lake, with a BAC of 0.13. His parents were awarded a $12.6 million verdict, leading to criminalized hazing in Florida.
    • Texas Christian University (2018): A member was arrested for hazing pledges, showing ongoing enforcement actions.
    • Texas A&M University (2023, ongoing): Allegations of hazing leading to rhabdomyolysis (severe muscle breakdown from extreme physical exertion).
  • Pattern: Historically linked to dangerous physical challenges and alcohol-related incidents, with recent cases involving severe physiological damage.

• Omega Psi Phi (ΩΨΦ):

  • Identity: A historically Black fraternity (NPHC) with chapters at UH, Texas A&M, UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor.
  • National Incidents: Black fraternities, particularly NPHC, often face a unique set of hazing traditions centered around “Divine Nine” rituals and often involving paddling, which is universally prohibited but persists.
    • University of Southern Mississippi (2023): A federal lawsuit was filed alleging severe physical beatings with a wooden paddle during “Hell Night,” leading to extensive injuries and emergency surgery.
    • Joseph Snell (Bowie State University, 1997): Endured severe beatings and burns over a four-week period, ultimately winning a $375,000 verdict, establishing precedent for national organization liability by seizing fraternity bank assets.
  • Pattern: Persistent allegations of physical beatings, paddling, and other forms of physical and psychological abuse, often in rituals that have been explicitly banned by national organizations.

These examples underscore that the names of the fraternities and sororities may change, but the dangerous “scripts” of hazing often persist, demonstrating a clear pattern of knowledge and, often, a failure to adequately intervene by the national organizations.

6.3 Tie back to legal strategy

The recurring nature of hazing, especially within the same national organizations, is not merely a journalistic observation; it forms a critical component of legal strategy in civil lawsuits. When we investigate a hazing incident for a City of Coppell family, we examine:

• Pattern Evidence: Have other chapters of the same national organization been involved in similar acts of forced alcohol consumption, physical abuse, or psychological torment? If so, this demonstrates that the national entity had foreseeable notice of dangerous behaviors within its own structure.
• Institutional Knowledge: Did the national organization receive prior warnings, incident reports, or lawsuits concerning these specific hazing practices? Their possession of anti-hazing policies and risk management programs in response to past tragedies implies an awareness of specific dangers.
• Failure to Enforce: Did the national organization meaningfully enforce its own anti-hazing policies, or were they mere “paper policies”? Evidence of minimal punishment for previous violations (e.g., brief suspensions, probation without real oversight) strengthens arguments of negligent supervision.

These factors can profoundly impact:

• Settlement Leverage: A strong case built on pattern evidence often pressures national organizations and their insurers to settle for higher amounts given the risk of a jury trial.
• Insurance Coverage Disputes: Insurers often try to deny coverage by claiming that hazing is an “intentional act” or “criminal” and thus excluded from policies. However, by demonstrating negligent supervision by the national organization, coverage can often be compelled.
• Potential for Punitive Damages: In instances where there is clear evidence of gross negligence, reckless disregard for student safety, or conscious indifference to known patterns of hazing, punitive damages (designed to punish and deter) may be sought, depending on Texas law.

For families from City of Coppell, understanding these dynamics means that a hazing incident is not just about isolated bad actors, but about holding powerful, well-resourced institutions accountable for systemic failures rooted in their past.

7. BUILDING A CASE: EVIDENCE, DAMAGES, STRATEGY

Building a compelling hazing case requires a sophisticated approach to evidence collection, a thorough understanding of compensable damages, and a strategic legal plan. For families in City of Coppell who may feel overwhelmed by the complexity of confronting universities and national organizations, our firm’s expertise in these areas is crucial. We know what evidence matters, how to get it, and how to use it to secure justice.

7.1 Evidence

In the digital age, evidence is abundant but also fleeting. Our approach focuses on rapidly identifying, preserving, and analyzing all possible sources of proof.

• Digital communications: This is the most critical category of evidence in modern hazing cases.

  • Group Messaging Apps: Chats from platforms like GroupMe, WhatsApp, iMessage, Discord, Remind, and even fraternity-specific apps are invaluable. They often contain direct commands, planning discussions, humiliating directives, and evidence of coercion. We meticulously preserve full threads with timestamps, usernames, and context.
  • Social Media Evidence: Instagram (stories, posts, DMs), Snapchat (snaps, stories that disappear), TikTok (videos, comments), Facebook, and Twitter/X can reveal hazing acts, locations, participants, and the general atmosphere. We screenshot entire profiles and posts, noting location tags, captions, and comments.
  • Text Messages / DMs: Direct messages provide a paper trail of communication about hazing. We work to save entire conversations, noting phone numbers or usernames and timestamps.
  • Deleted Messages and Data Recovery: Even seemingly deleted messages can often be recovered through sophisticated digital forensics. It’s crucial not to tamper with phones or computers until legal counsel advises on data preservation.

• Photos & videos: Visual evidence is incredibly powerful.

  • Content filmed by members: Many hazing incidents are filmed by the perpetrators themselves, either for entertainment, to report to higher-ups, or for bragging rights. This content, if secured before deletion, can be irrefutable proof.
  • Security camera footage: Surveillance cameras at campus buildings, off-campus houses, local bars, or businesses near where hazing occurred can provide crucial objective evidence. (Such footage is often overwritten rapidly, making quick action essential.)
  • Injury Photos: Detailed, dated photographs of any injuries (bruises, burns, lacerations) from multiple angles, showing progression over time, are essential medical evidence.

• Internal organization documents: These shed light on the organization’s mindset and its knowledge of hazing.

  • Pledge Manuals/Initiation Scripts: While officially “haze-free,” these can sometimes contain coded language or instructions that, when combined with other evidence, reveal a hazing blueprint.
  • Internal Communications: Emails or texts among officers planning “new member activities,” even if couched in euphemisms, can be critical.
  • National Policies: The national organization’s anti-hazing policies, risk management guidelines, and training materials are used to assess whether they adhered to their own rules.

• University records: These show the institution’s awareness and response.

  • Prior Conduct Files: Disciplinary records for the specific chapter, including past probations, suspensions, or warnings related to hazing or alcohol violations.
  • Incident Reports: Reports filed with campus police or student conduct offices.
  • Clery Reports: Annual crime statistics that can reveal patterns of alcohol offenses, assaults, or other crimes related to hazing.
  • Internal Emails/Memos: Communications among university administrators discussing Greek life, hazing, or specific chapter concerns. (These are typically obtained through discovery in a lawsuit.)

• Medical and psychological records: These document the full extent of harm.

  • Emergency Room/Hospital Records: Immediate documentation of physical injuries, toxicology reports (for alcohol/drug levels), and any diagnoses.
  • Ongoing Treatment Records: Notes from surgeons, physical therapists, neurologists, or specialists if there are long-term injuries.
  • Psychological Evaluations: Records from therapists or psychiatrists documenting PTSD, depression, anxiety, or other mental health impacts resulting from hazing. These are crucial for non-economic damages.

• Witness testimony: First-hand accounts are vital.

  • Pledges and Members: Other new members who experienced the hazing, or current/former members who can corroborate details.
  • Bystanders: Roommates, RAs, coaches, trainers, or independent witnesses who observed the hazing or its aftermath.
  • Whistleblowers: Former members who left the organization or were expelled can be powerful witnesses, often willing to speak out against the patterns they witnessed.

7.2 Damages

When pursuing a civil hazing lawsuit, the goal is to recover full and fair compensation for all losses stemming from the harm. This encompasses both tangible, quantifiable costs and profound, subjective suffering. For City of Coppell families, understanding these categories is essential, as hazing often causes a wide range of damages.

• Medical bills & future care:

  • Past Medical Expenses: This includes all costs incurred from the immediate aftermath of the hazing: ambulance transport, emergency room visits, hospital stays (including ICU), surgeries, medications, and medical equipment.
  • Future Medical Expenses: For serious injuries, costs can extend far into the future, covering ongoing therapy (physical, occupational, speech), psychiatric care for conditions like PTSD, future surgeries, and specialized medical equipment. In catastrophic cases, such as brain injuries, life care plans are developed to project the immense costs of 24/7 care for the rest of a victim’s life.

• Lost earnings / educational impact:

  • Lost Wages: If the hazing victim (or a parent who must care for them) missed work due to injury or recovery.
  • Lost Educational Opportunities: This includes tuition and fees for missed semesters, lost academic or athletic scholarships, and the delayed entry into the workforce due to medical withdrawal or transfer.
  • Diminished Future Earning Capacity: If the hazing causes permanent physical or psychological disability that affects a student’s ability to work in their chosen field, expert economists calculate the projected lifetime earnings loss.

• Non-economic damages: These compensate for pain and suffering that does not have a direct bill but profoundly impacts a victim’s life.

  • Physical Pain and Suffering: This covers the acute pain from injuries, chronic pain from lasting damage, and the loss of physical abilities (e.g., inability to play sports or engage in hobbies).
  • Emotional Distress & Psychological Harm: This includes diagnosed conditions like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), severe depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and, tragically, suicidal ideation. It also encompasses deep humiliation, shame, loss of dignity, fear, nightmares, flashbacks, and the profound loss of trust.
  • Loss of Enjoyment of Life: This compensates for the inability to participate in activities, hobbies, or social interactions the victim once enjoyed, and the overall reduced quality of life due to their injuries.

• Wrongful death damages (for families): When hazing results in a fatality, eligible surviving family members (typically parents, children, and a spouse, in Texas) can recover extensive damages.

  • Funeral and Burial Costs: Direct expenses related to the death.
  • Loss of Financial Support: If the deceased would have contributed financially to the family.
  • Loss of Companionship, Love, and Society: This compensates for the invaluable emotional support, guidance, and daily presence lost by the family.
  • Grief and Emotional Suffering: The profound sorrow and mental anguish experienced by family members.

While we diligently calculate and pursue all categories of damages, we do not promise or predict specific dollar amounts for any individual case. Each outcome rests on its unique facts, the severity of the harm, and the legal merits.

7.3 Role of different defendants and insurance coverage

Hazing lawsuits often involve a complex web of defendants and a contentious battle over insurance coverage. Powerful national fraternities, well-endowed universities, and their insurers will often employ sophisticated legal tactics to minimize their liability.

• Insurance Policies: National fraternities, local chapters, and universities typically carry multiple layers of insurance (general liability, excess, umbrella policies) that may be triggered by a hazing incident. These policies are designed to protect them financially against claims of negligence, injury, and wrongful death. However, insurers often employ strategies to deny coverage.

• Exclusions and Intentional Acts: A common tactic by insurers is to argue that hazing or assault constitutes “intentional conduct” or “criminal acts,” which are often explicitly excluded from coverage under their policies. They may also claim that the policy does not cover certain defendants or that proper notice was not given.

• Navigating Disputes: Our experienced hazing attorneys are adept at dissecting policy language, identifying all potential sources of coverage, and challenging unfair denials. We argue that even if the hazing involved intentional acts by individuals, the national organization’s or university’s failure to supervise, enforce policies, or conduct proper risk management was itself a proximate cause of negligence, which may be covered by insurance regardless of the intentional actions of students. We also trace coverage through multiple layers of policies, including homeowner’s policies of individual members, and chapter, national, and university umbrella policies.

• Accountability: Successfully navigating these insurance coverage disputes is crucial because it ensures there are sufficient financial resources to truly compensate victims for their extensive damages. It prevents institutions from simply shedding blame and accountability onto individual “rogue” students, ensuring that the organizations that tacitly or negligently permitted hazing also bear the financial consequences. This complex process requires specialized knowledge to force insurers to fulfill their obligations.

8. PRACTICAL GUIDES & FAQS

For families in City of Coppell, particularly if your child attends a university with active Greek life or student organizations, having practical, actionable advice is essential. This section provides immediate guidance for parents, students, and even former members who may feel caught in the web of hazing.

8.1 For parents

As a parent from City of Coppell, your role is often to serve as your child’s first line of defense and advocate. Recognizing the signs and knowing how to respond can make all the difference.

• Warning signs of hazing: Be vigilant for a sudden onset of these indicators:

  • Physical Indicators: Unexplained bruises, burns, cuts, or other injuries, especially if your child’s explanations are vague or inconsistent. Look for extreme fatigue, weight loss, or persistent illness.
  • Behavioral & Emotional Changes: A sudden increase in secrecy about organizational activities (“I can’t talk about it,” “It’s classified”), withdrawal from friends or family, increased anxiety, stress, irritability, or depression. They might become defensive when asked about the group.
  • Academic Decline: A sudden drop in grades, missed classes, or inability to focus due to lack of sleep or mandatory activities.
  • Financial Red Flags: Unexpected or excessive requests for money, vague explanations for expenditures, or sudden buying of alcohol or other items for older members.
  • Digital Obsession: Constant monitoring of group chats, anxiety when the phone pings, or deleting messages and social media posts.

• How to talk to your child: Approach the conversation with empathy, not accusation.

  • Ask open-ended questions: “How are things really going with the fraternity/sorority?”
  • Emphasize their safety and well-being over loyalty to any group. Reassure them that you will support them regardless of what they disclose.
  • Use phrases like: “Is there anything happening that makes you uncomfortable or that you wish you didn’t have to do?”

• If your child is hurt:

  • Seek Medical Care Immediately: Prioritize their physical and mental health. Take them to an urgent care facility, student health center, or emergency room. Insist that the medical staff document that the injuries were a result of hazing or forced activities.
  • Document Everything Relentlessly: Take detailed photos of any visible injuries, noting dates and times. Screenshot all digital communications (texts, group chats, social media). Write down everything your child tells you while it’s fresh in your memory. Save any physical evidence.

• Dealing with the university:

  • Document All Communications: Keep a precise record of every email, phone call, or meeting with university administrators, including dates, times, names, and what was discussed.
  • Ask Directed Questions: Specifically inquire about any prior hazing incidents involving the same organization and what disciplinary actions, if any, were taken.
  • Do NOT Relinquish Rights: Be wary of university settlement or release forms. Do not sign anything without consulting an attorney first.

• When to talk to a lawyer:

  • If your child has suffered significant physical injuries, emotional trauma, or academic setbacks due to hazing.
  • If you feel the university or the organization is minimizing, stonewalling, or attempting to cover up what happened.
  • The sooner you involve legal counsel, the better equipped you will be to preserve evidence and protect your child’s rights.

8.2 For students / pledges

If you are a student from City of Coppell pledging a fraternity or sorority, or participating in any organization in Texas, and you’re reading this, you are likely questioning your experience. Your instincts are valid.

• Is this hazing or just tradition? Ask yourself these questions:

  • Does this activity make me feel unsafe, humiliated, or coerced?
  • Am I being forced to drink against my will or consume substances?
  • Does it involve pain, physical discomfort, or extreme exercise?
  • Am I being told to keep this activity a secret from outsiders, parents, or university officials?
  • Would older members of the organization do this activity themselves? If not, why are new members subjected to it?
  • If you answered yes to any of these, it is hazing. “Tradition” is not a legal or moral defense for abuse.

• Why “consent” isn’t the end of the story: You might have “agreed” to participate to fit in, to gain acceptance, or out of fear of exclusion. However, Texas Education Code § 37.155 explicitly states that consent is not a defense to hazing. The law recognizes the immense peer pressure and power dynamics at play, understanding that “consent” under such duress is not truly voluntary. You are not to blame for being hazed.

• Exiting and reporting safely:

  • Prioritize Your Safety: If you are in immediate danger, remove yourself from the situation and call 911.
  • Tell a Trusted Adult: Reach out to a parent, a resident advisor (RA), a trusted professor, or a non-affiliated friend first.
  • Leave Discreetly: You have the right to de-pledge or exit any organization at any time. You do not need to attend a “final meeting” where members might pressure or intimidate you. An email or text to leadership stating your resignation is sufficient.
  • Reporting Options: Utilize your university’s Dean of Students office, Office of Student Conduct, Title IX office, or campus police. Consider anonymous hotlines like 1-888-NOT-HAZE (1-888-668-4293).

• Good-faith reporting and amnesty: Many schools and Texas law provide amnesty for students who seek help in a medical emergency, even if underage drinking or other violations were involved. Your safety and the safety of others is the priority. You are typically protected from disciplinary action for seeking help in good faith.

8.3 For former members / witnesses

If you are a former member, a current member who has stepped away, or a witness to hazing, you may be experiencing a complex mix of guilt, fear, and a desire to do the right thing—especially if the incident involved a student from City of Coppell.

• Your Role in Prevention: Your unique perspective and knowledge can be instrumental in preventing future harm and holding negligent parties accountable. Standing up now can save lives and reshape organizational culture.
• Seeking Legal Advice: You may have personal legal exposure, especially if you participated directly in hazing. It is prudent to seek your own confidential legal advice from an attorney regarding your rights and potential liabilities.
• Cooperation and Impact: While the decision to cooperate is difficult, providing testimony or evidence can be an empowering step toward accountability. Experienced attorneys can help navigate your role as a witness, including potential protections, and ensure your story is heard effectively without undue personal risk.

8.4 Critical mistakes that can destroy your case

Families in City of Coppell, and throughout Texas, must avoid common pitfalls that can severely damage a hazing claim. These mistakes often stem from a natural desire to protect a child or avoid conflict, but they can inadvertently undermine a pursuit of 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” or “I want to protect their privacy.”
   • Why it’s wrong: This can be seen as attempting to conceal evidence, which looks like a cover-up and can weaken your entire case, potentially even leading to legal implications. Digital evidence, once deleted, is incredibly difficult, often impossible, for forensic experts to recover fully.
   • What to do instead: PRESERVE EVERYTHING IMMEDIATELY, even seemingly embarrassing or incriminating content. Screen-record conversations, screenshot threads, and save all digital communications. Watch Attorney911’s video on using your cellphone to document a legal case for practical tips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbpzrmogTs

2. Confronting the fraternity/sorority directly:

   • What parents think: “I’m going to give them a piece of my mind.”
   • Why it’s wrong: This immediately alerts the organization to a potential legal threat. They will then “lawyer up,” destroy evidence, coach witnesses on what to say (or not say), and prepare comprehensive defenses designed to protect them, not your child.
   • What to do instead: Document everything you know privately, then IMMEDIATELY CALL A LAWYER FROM ATTORNEY911 before any direct confrontation or communication with the organization.

3. Signing university “release” or “resolution” forms:

   • What universities do: Often pressure families to sign waivers or “internal resolution” agreements that promise “closure” or “moving forward.”
   • Why it’s wrong: You may inadvertently waive your legal right to sue or compromise future claims for compensation. These internal settlements are typically far below the true value of your case and prioritize the university’s public image over true justice.
   • What to do instead: DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING from the university, an organization, or an insurance company without having an experienced attorney review it first.

4. Posting details on social media before talking to a lawyer:

   • What families think: “I want people to know what happened” or “I want to warn others.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Everything you post can and will be used against you by defense attorneys. Inconsistent statements, emotional outbursts, or even seemingly innocent details can hurt your credibility, waive legal privileges, and complicate your case significantly.
   • What to do instead: Document privately and allow your lawyer to control any public messaging, if appropriate.

5. Letting your child go back to “one last meeting” or “talk it out”:

   • What fraternities/sororities say: “Just come talk to us before you do anything drastic”; “Let’s resolve this internally.”
   • Why it’s wrong: These meetings are often designed to pressure, intimidate, or trick your child into making statements that hurt their case, or to secure a confidential agreement that leaves them with little recourse.
   • What to do instead: Once you are considering legal action, all communication with the organization should cease and go through your lawyer.

6. Waiting “to see how the university handles it”:

   • What universities promise: “We’re investigating, let us handle this internally; we have a zero-tolerance policy.”
   • Why it’s wrong: While the university process can run concurrently, it often aims to protect the institution first. Evidence disappears quickly, witnesses graduate and scatter, internal university investigations can be slow or biased, and the statute of limitations continues to run on your civil claims. The university’s disciplinary process is fundamentally different from pursuing civil justice.
   • What to do instead: Preserve evidence NOW, consult Attorney911 immediately, and let your lawyer explain how to navigate the university’s internal process without jeopardizing your independent civil case. The university’s process is NOT a substitute for real accountability through litigation.

7. Talking to insurance adjusters without a lawyer:

   • What adjusters say: “We just need your statement to process the claim quickly and fairly.”
   • Why it’s wrong: Insurance adjusters work for the insurance company, not for you. Recorded statements are admissible in court and are often used against claimants. Early settlement offers are typically lowball attempts to resolve cases cheaply before the full extent of damages is understood.
   • What to do instead: Politely decline to provide any statement or sign any release, and inform them, “My attorney will contact you.” Understand that this step is critical; you can learn more by watching Attorney911’s video on client mistakes that can ruin your case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3IYsoxOSxY.

8.5 Short FAQ

• “Can I sue a university for hazing in Texas?”
  Yes, under certain circumstances. Public universities like the University of Houston, Texas A&M, and UT Austin have some sovereign immunity protections, but exceptions exist for gross negligence, certain tort claims, and violations of federal laws like Title IX. Private universities such as SMU and Baylor typically have fewer immunity protections. Every case is highly fact-dependent; contacting Attorney911 at 1-888-ATTY-911 for a case-specific analysis is highly recommended for families in City of Coppell.

• “Is hazing a felony in Texas?”
  Yes, it can be. Texas law classifies hazing as a Class B misdemeanor by default, carrying potential jail time and fines. However, it escalates to a state jail felony if the hazing causes serious bodily injury or death. Additionally, individuals in leadership positions who know about hazing and fail to report it can face criminal charges.

• “Can my child bring a case if they ‘agreed’ to the initiation?”
  Yes. Texas Education Code § 37.155 explicitly states that consent is not a defense to prosecution for hazing. Courts and juries understand the immense pressure, fear of social exclusion, and power imbalances at play, recognizing that “agreement” under such circumstances is not true 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 for personal injury claims. However, the “discovery rule” may extend this period if the harm or its cause wasn’t immediately known. In cases involving cover-ups or fraud, the statute may be “tolled” (paused). Time is absolutely critical in hazing cases because evidence disappears, witnesses’ memories fade, and organizations destroy records. Call 1-888-ATTY-911 immediately to discuss your specific timeline. For more information, you can watch our video on the statute of limitations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRHwg8tV02c.

• “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/sororities can still be liable based on their sponsorship, control, knowledge of dangerous patterns, and foreseeability of hazing activities, even if they occur off-campus. Many significant hazing cases, including the Pi Delta Psi retreat case (Michael Deng) and the Sigma Pi “unofficial” house case (Collin Wiant), occurred off-campus and still resulted in multi-million-dollar judgments and convictions.

• “Will this be confidential, or will my child’s name be in the news?”
  While some high-profile hazing cases make headlines, most civil lawsuits, especially those involving injury rather than death, settle confidentially before trial. Confidentiality agreements can be a key part of negotiations. We prioritize your family’s privacy and work to minimize public exposure while diligently pursuing accountability.

9. ABOUT THE MANGINELLO LAW FIRM + CALL TO ACTION

When your family faces the profound challenge of a hazing incident, you need more than just a general personal injury lawyer. You need attorneys who intimately understand how powerful institutions — like national fraternities, well-endowed universities, and their sophisticated defense teams — fight back, and who possess the unique experience and aggressive strategy required to win anyway. This is where The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC, operating as Attorney911, the Legal Emergency Lawyers™, stands apart.

From our primary office in Houston, we serve families throughout Texas, including those in City of Coppell, Dallas, Fort Worth, and across the Dallas County region. We understand that hazing at major Texas universities, from UH and Texas A&M to UT Austin, SMU, and Baylor, deeply affects families in City of Coppell and across North Texas.

Our firm’s unique qualifications make us exceptionally equipped to handle hazing cases:

• Insurance Insider Advantage with Lupe Peña: Associate Attorney Lupe Peña brings invaluable, direct experience as a former insurance defense attorney at a national firm (https://attorney911.com/attorneys/lupe-pena/). She knows exactly how fraternity and university insurance companies value (and often undervalue) hazing claims. Lupe understands their delay tactics, their typical coverage exclusion arguments (e.g., claiming hazing is an “intentional act”), and their precise settlement strategies. Simply put, “We know their playbook because we used to run it,” which is a distinct advantage in forcing accountability.

• Complex Litigation Against Massive Institutions with Ralph Manginello: Our managing partner, Ralph Manginello (https://attorney911.com/attorneys/ralph-manginello/), possesses a quarter-century of legal expertise. He was one of the few Texas firms involved in the historic BP Texas City explosion litigation, taking on a multi-billion-dollar corporation. This federal court experience (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas) means we are not intimidated by national fraternities, universities, or their formidable defense teams. “We’ve taken on billion-dollar corporations and won. We know how to fight powerful defendants.”

• Multi-Million-Dollar Wrongful Death and Catastrophic Injury Experience: Our firm has a proven track record in complex wrongful death cases, having recovered millions for families who lost loved ones due to negligence (https://attorney911.com/law-practice-areas/wrongful-death-claim-lawyer/). We collaborate with leading economists to value loss of life and have extensive experience valuing the lifetime care needs for victims with catastrophic injuries, such as brain damage or permanent disability. “We don’t settle cheap. We build cases that force accountability.”

• Dual Criminal and Civil Hazing Expertise: Ralph’s membership in the Harris County Criminal Lawyers Association (HCCLA) provides us with deep insight into how criminal hazing charges interact with civil litigation. We can advise witnesses, former members, and victims facing dual exposure, ensuring a comprehensive legal strategy.

• Unmatched Investigative Depth: We draw upon a vast network of experts, including medical professionals, digital forensics specialists, economists, and psychologists. Our experience in complex industrial accidents has honed our ability to uncover hidden evidence—from deleted group chats and social media content to national fraternity records and internal university files. “We investigate like your child’s life depends on it—because it does.”

We understand the intricate dynamics of how fraternities, sororities, Corps programs, and athletic departments truly operate behind closed doors. We specialize in investigating modern hazing, including obtaining elusive digital evidence and uncovering patterns of prior incidents. What makes hazing cases distinct is the challenge of confronting powerful institutional defendants, navigating complex insurance coverage disputes, and balancing victim privacy with the critical need for public accountability. We also understand the nuanced cultural aspects of Greek life and how to prove coercion effectively in court.

We know this is one of the hardest things a family can face. Our job is to get you answers, hold the right people accountable, and help prevent this from happening to another family. We are committed to thorough investigation and securing real accountability, never settling for bravado or quick, undervalued settlements.

Call to action (City of Coppell-Customized)

If you or your child, whether from City of Coppell, Dallas, or across Texas, experienced hazing at any Texas campus, we want to hear from you. Families in City of Coppell and throughout the surrounding Dallas County region have the right to answers, accountability, and justice when their children are harmed by dangerous and illegal practices.

Contact The Manginello Law Firm for a confidential, no-obligation consultation. We will listen to what happened, explain your legal options clearly, and help you decide on the best path forward.

What to expect in your free consultation:

• We will listen to your story with compassion and without judgment.
• We will review any evidence you have, such as photos, texts, or medical records.
• We will explain your legal options, discussing whether a criminal report, a civil lawsuit, both, or neither is appropriate for your situation.
• We will provide realistic timelines and explain what to expect during the legal process.
• We will answer your questions about legal fees, explaining our contingency fee basis – which means we don’t get paid unless we win your case. For more details, watch our video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upcI_j6F7Nc.
• There is no pressure to hire us on the spot; you will have the time to make an informed decision.
• Everything you tell us is strictly confidential.

Provide clear contact information:

• 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

Spanish-language services:

• Hablamos Español – Contact Lupe Peña at lupe@atty911.com for a consultation in Spanish. We are dedicated to providing accessible legal services to all in Texas.

Reading this article does not create an attorney–client relationship. Every hazing case is unique, and we cannot guarantee specific outcomes. An experienced attorney can review your specific facts, explain your rights under Texas law, and help you understand your options.

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

Legal Disclaimer

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

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

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

The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC / Attorney911
Houston, Austin, and Beaumont, Texas
Call: 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911)
Direct: (713) 528-9070 | Cell: (713) 443-4781
Website: https://attorney911.com
Email: ralph@atty910.com