San Antonio UTSA Alpha Tau Omega Hazing: Waterboarding, Hell Week, and the Clock That Is Running Out on Your Right to Sue
If you are reading this, you already know what happened. You were a pledge at Alpha Tau Omega’s Iota Epsilon chapter at the University of Texas at San Antonio, or you love someone who was. In Fall 2022, that fraternity decided that “brotherhood” meant strapping you down and pouring water over your face until your body believed it was drowning. It meant locking you in a dark room for hours with no food, no water, and no phone. It meant forcing you to furnish alcohol to minors and perform unwanted tasks for active members, all under the banner of a “Hell Week” designed to break you so you could be remade.
You may have stayed silent for nearly two years. Most people in your position do. The shame, the fear, the thought that maybe this was just “how it works” — all of it keeps you quiet until one day the weight becomes unbearable and you report it, the way someone finally reported this in May 2024. That report triggered two investigations at UTSA, and the university’s Student Conduct and Community Standards office found Iota Epsilon responsible for hazing. The UTSA Police Department referred the case to the Bexar County District Attorney’s office for criminal review. The fraternity’s president publicly claimed the chapter was “acquitted of all allegations” — but the university’s own Associate Vice President confirmed the organization was sanctioned. Those are not the words of acquittal. They are the words of a finding.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a trial firm that takes Texas cases, and right now we are litigating a $10 million hazing lawsuit against Pi Kappa Phi and the University of Houston in Harris County. Ralph Manginello, our managing partner, is lead counsel in that case. He has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. Lupe Peña, our associate attorney, spent years on the other side — inside a national insurance-defense firm, in the rooms where adjusters and their software decide how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. Now he sits on your side of the table, and he conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
You are not alone in this, and you are not out of time — but the clock is closer to zero than you may realize. Call us at 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911). The consultation is free, and we do not get paid unless we win your case.
What the Allegations Against Alpha Tau Omega at UTSA Actually Describe
The source close to the investigation disclosed what happened during that Fall 2022 pledgeship, and the details matter because they map directly onto specific legal claims — not just “hazing” as a catch-all, but distinct, recognizable torts that carry their own civil liability and, in some cases, their own criminal exposure.
Waterboarding. Pledges were allegedly waterboarded. Waterboarding is not a frat prank. It is a technique widely classified as torture, designed to trigger the mammalian diving reflex and the sensation of drowning. The body believes it is dying. The brain records that belief. The psychological injury — post-traumatic stress disorder, specifically the “fear of impending death” dimension — is substantial and, in many survivors, long-lasting. Under Texas law, this is not “roughhousing.” It is assault and battery: intentional, harmful, offensive physical contact without consent. And consent is not a defense to a hazing charge under the Texas Hazing Act.
Dark-room confinement. Pledges were allegedly held in a dark room for hours, with no food, no water, and no communication devices. That is false imprisonment — intentional confinement without legal justification and without a reasonable means of escape. The deprivation of food and water elevates the severity. The darkness and isolation are psychological weapons designed to disorient and break down resistance, which is precisely why military interrogation training and captivity-survival programs study and replicate these conditions.
Forced alcohol provision to minors. Pledges were allegedly forced to furnish alcohol to minors. This is a separate criminal exposure under Texas law, and it creates additional civil liability — both for the individuals who forced it and potentially for the organization and any property owner who knowingly permitted underage drinking on the premises.
Hell Week. The culmination of pledgeship allegedly included a “Hell Week” — a concentrated period of physical and psychological abuse designed to test endurance and enforce submission. The name itself is an admission that the participants knew the activities were punitive, not educational.
Forced personal servitude. Pledges were allegedly forced to perform unwanted responsibilities and tasks for active members. This is not “pledging.” It is coerced labor under threat of denial of membership — and it is part of the hazing pattern the Texas Hazing Act was written to punish.
The university investigated these allegations through two concurrent processes — one by the UTSA Police Department and one by the Student Conduct and Community Standards office. The Student Conduct investigation concluded that Iota Epsilon, as an organization, was responsible for an individual case of hazing. No individual member was found responsible based on the information gathered — which is not unusual in hazing investigations, where a wall of silence protects individuals while the organization’s collective conduct speaks for itself.
The sanctions UTSA issued — a disciplinary warning, required community service, hazing education training, and risk management and leadership development sessions — are administrative penalties. They are not a substitute for the civil compensation you are entitled to seek. And they do not begin to address the medical bills, the therapy costs, the lost academic progress, the PTSD, and the damage to a young person’s trajectory that follows this kind of abuse.
The “Acquittal” Claim vs. the University’s Finding: Why the Fraternity’s Words Cannot Close Your Case
The chapter’s president released a public statement claiming that “all investigations have been closed, and we were acquitted of all allegations.” That statement is contradicted by the university’s own Associate Vice President for Strategic Communications and External Affairs, who confirmed that the Student Conduct investigation concluded Iota Epsilon was responsible for hazing and that the chapter was sanctioned.
Here is the difference, and it matters in a courtroom:
A criminal acquittal means a prosecutor failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a high bar, and it has nothing to do with whether the civil justice system can hold the fraternity accountable. A university finding of organizational responsibility means the institution’s own investigation, using its own evidence standard, concluded the hazing occurred. That finding is not a verdict, but it is a powerful piece of corroboration — a documented, institutional conclusion that the conduct happened, issued after an investigation by the same university police department that referred the case to the Bexar County District Attorney for criminal review.
The fraternity’s “acquittal” framing is a public-relations strategy, not a legal shield. When the defense tries to use it in a civil case, we respond with the university’s own finding, the witness statements behind it, and the fact that the organization was sanctioned. A civil jury does not need a criminal conviction to find liability. The burden is lower. The standard is different. And the university already did half the work.
The Texas Hazing Act: What the Law Actually Says and How It Protects You
Texas has a specific anti-hazing statute. It is part of the Texas Education Code, and it creates both criminal penalties and the framework for civil liability.
The law defines hazing as any intentional, knowing, or reckless act, occurring on or off the campus of an educational institution, by one person alone or acting with others, directed against a student that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization whose members are or include students at an educational institution.
That definition covers every allegation here — the waterboarding (intentional act endangering physical safety), the dark-room confinement (intentional act endangering mental and physical health), the forced alcohol provision (reckless act endangering health), and the Hell Week regimen (knowing acts directed against a student for the purpose of pledging). The law applies on or off campus, which matters because fraternity hazing frequently occurs at off-campus houses or private residences near UTSA’s Main Campus, particularly in the area surrounding UTSA Boulevard and Babcock Road.
Texas Education Code §§ 37.151 through 37.157 lay out the full regime — the definition, the criminal penalties, the provision that consent is not a defense, the immunity for reporting, and the civil liability framework. Separately, Texas Education Code § 51.936 requires that higher education institutions distribute a report on hazing committed by student organizations on campus. At the federal level, the Clery Act requires universities to report hazing incidents as part of their annual security reports, and Title IX may be implicated if the hazing involved sexual misconduct or created a hostile educational environment based on gender.
The legal theories available to a survivor in this case are not limited to “hazing” as a single claim. They stack:
Negligence per se. Violating the Texas Hazing Act is, itself, evidence of negligence. The Act sets the standard of care. The fraternity’s conduct violated it. That violation is the foundation.
Assault and battery. Waterboarding is intentional, harmful, offensive physical contact without consent. It is a tort. It carries the potential for punitive damages because it is intentional — not merely careless.
False imprisonment. Holding pledges in a dark room for hours without food, water, or communication is intentional confinement without legal justification. It is a tort. It also opens the door to punitive damages.
Gross negligence. Conduct demonstrating a conscious indifference to the safety and welfare of pledges justifies punitive damages. Waterboarding and depriving people of food and water are not acts of momentary carelessness. They are deliberate, organized, and repeated — and a jury can be asked to punish them.
This is why the defendant stack matters so much — because each theory reaches a different defendant, and each defendant has a different pocket of money behind it.
Who Can Be Sued: The Defendant Stack and the Fraternity Shell Game
A hazing case is rarely one defendant. Alpha Tau Omega is a national organization with approximately 250 active or inactive chapters across the United States and its territories. It was founded at the Virginia Military Institute in 1865. The UTSA chapter, Iota Epsilon, was established in 1988. The structure is layered, and each layer is a separate source of accountability.
Alpha Tau Omega National Fraternity. The national organization charters local chapters, sets policies, collects dues, and maintains risk-management standards. It is vicariously liable for the actions of its chartered chapter and faces direct liability for negligent supervision — the argument that the national knew or should have known about Iota Epsilon’s culture and failed to stop it. The national fraternity also typically carries liability insurance, which is where the real coverage lives.
Alpha Tau Omega — Iota Epsilon Chapter. The local chapter is directly liable for orchestrating and executing the hazing rituals. The chapter is the entity that decided to waterboard pledges, to lock them in dark rooms, and to run Hell Week. Its own conduct — not just the national’s failure to supervise — is the primary source of liability.
Individual fraternity members and officers. The individuals who committed the waterboarding, who locked the doors, who forced the alcohol — they face personal liability for intentional torts. The university’s finding that “no individual member was responsible” was a Student Conduct determination based on the information it gathered; it does not bind a civil court, and it does not prevent us from naming individuals in a civil lawsuit if the evidence supports it. The wall of silence that protected individuals from the university’s investigation does not survive the deposition room.
Property owner. If the hazing occurred at an off-campus fraternity house or private residence — which is the likely scenario given the Babcock Road area near UTSA — the property owner who knowingly permitted illegal hazing activities and alcohol consumption by minors on site faces premises liability. That is another defendant, and potentially another insurance policy.
The coverage reality: a national fraternity like Alpha Tau Omega typically carries a commercial general liability policy, often with a substantial self-insured retention, plus excess layers above. The local chapter may have its own coverage or may be folded into the national’s program. Individual members may have coverage under their families’ homeowner’s policies (though intentional-tort exclusions often apply). Mapping the full coverage tower is one of the first things we do, because the insurance architecture determines where the money actually sits.
This is also where the national fraternity’s own risk-management manuals become evidence. If the national’s policies prohibit exactly the conduct that occurred — and they do, because no fraternity’s published risk-management standards permit waterboarding — the gap between the written policy and the local practice is the proof of negligent supervision. We will demand those manuals in discovery, and we will compare them to what Iota Epsilon actually did.
What Waterboarding and Confinement Do to the Body and the Mind
Waterboarding is not a word to us. It is a mechanism, and we need you to understand what it did to you so you can understand what your case is actually worth.
When water is poured over a person’s face while they are restrained, the body’s mammalian diving reflex activates. The throat closes. The brain receives a signal that it is submerged and drowning — even though the person is not underwater. Carbon dioxide builds up in the blood. The heart rate drops paradoxically. The person experiences what clinicians call the “fear of impending death” — a specific, recognized form of psychological trauma that is among the most powerful triggers for post-traumatic stress disorder.
The injury is not just the moment. It is what follows: nightmares about drowning, panic attacks in enclosed spaces, an inability to tolerate water on the face (which means showers become a trigger), hypervigilance, sleep disruption, and — in many survivors — a persistent sense that death is near. These are not character weaknesses. They are the documented, diagnosable, clinically recognized symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder under the DSM-5.
The dark-room confinement adds a second layer. Hours in darkness without food, water, or the ability to communicate produces sensory deprivation, disorientation, and a profound loss of agency. The body’s stress response — elevated cortisol, elevated heart rate, hypervigilance — does not simply turn off when the lights come back on. It persists. The survivor may experience claustrophobia, difficulty being alone, nightmares about being trapped, and a generalized anxiety that follows them into classrooms, into social settings, into every enclosed space for months or years afterward.
The medical proof of these injuries is real, even though the injuries are invisible. A board-certified psychiatrist or psychologist can diagnose PTSD using validated instruments — the CAPS-5 (Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale) and the PCL-5 (PTSD Checklist) are the standard clinical tools. Neuropsychological testing can document cognitive deficits — attention problems, memory disruption, executive-function impairment — that follow severe trauma. The treatment is long: trauma-focused therapy (cognitive processing therapy, prolonged exposure, or EMDR), sometimes medication, often years of weekly sessions. The cost is real, and it is recoverable.
The defense will try to minimize this. They will call it “a prank that went too far.” They will say “he chose to pledge.” They will point to the fact that you did not report it for nearly two years — as if silence after torture is evidence that the torture did not happen. But silence after sexual assault, silence after hazing, silence after any trauma that carries shame and fear of retaliation — that silence is the norm, not the exception. And the law recognizes it: the DSM-5 itself includes a “delayed expression” specifier for PTSD, acknowledging that full criteria may not appear until six months or more after the event.
The lifetime cost of trauma like this is substantial. Federal public-health researchers estimated the lifetime economic burden of a single sexual assault at more than $122,000 per survivor — and that figure only counts medical care, lost productivity, and criminal-justice costs, not the daily human toll. The trauma from waterboarding and confinement is comparable in severity, and in some survivors, more severe, because the “fear of impending death” dimension is acute and immediate. A life-care planner can build the full cost stream — therapy, psychiatric care, medication, lost earning capacity, academic disruption — and a forensic economist reduces it to present value. That number is what we put in front of a jury.
The Evidence Clock: Records That Are Disappearing Right Now
Every hazing case lives or dies on evidence that has an expiration date. Some of that evidence is already gone. Some is dying right now. Here is what exists, who holds it, and how fast it can legally disappear.
GroupMe, Discord, and text-message logs. These are the communications platforms fraternity members use to organize hazing. They contain the instructions, the hierarchy of the ritual, the premeditation. They prove this was not spontaneous — it was planned. These messages can be deleted by individual users. GroupMe allows messages to be deleted. Discord servers can be wiped. Text threads can vanish. This is the single most volatile evidence in the case, and it must be preserved by a litigation-hold letter the day you call us. If the fraternity’s members delete these messages after receiving a preservation demand, that destruction is spoliation — and a judge can instruct the jury to assume the deleted evidence was as damaging as we say it was.
UTSA Student Conduct investigation files. The university’s investigation produced witness statements and an official finding of responsibility. These files are subject to FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), which limits their release — but they are discoverable through a properly scoped subpoena in civil litigation. The university’s finding is already a public fact; the underlying witness statements can be obtained with the right legal process. These files are relatively stable — universities maintain conduct records — but obtaining them requires legal action.
Fraternity National risk-management manuals and disciplinary records. The national fraternity’s own policies — its risk-management handbook, its hazing prohibition, its prior disciplinary actions against other chapters — are the proof of negligent supervision. If the national’s written standards prohibit exactly what Iota Epsilon did, and if the national has a history of chapter disciplinary actions for similar conduct, the gap between policy and practice is the case. These are corporate records, relatively stable, but they require early discovery demands.
Victim psychological evaluations. The earlier a trauma survivor is evaluated by a qualified clinician, the more powerful the documentation. PTSD symptoms can evolve, and the defense will argue that later diagnoses are litigation-driven. An evaluation close to the time of disclosure — May 2024, for this case — is the gold standard. Every month that passes between the trauma and the first clinical documentation gives the defense more room to argue the symptoms are unrelated, exaggerated, or caused by something else. This evidence is time-sensitive in a way that no other evidence in the case is.
The 3-year and 6-month federal clocks. If any of the hazing activities involved commercial vehicles (unlikely here, but worth noting in any case), federal retention rules apply. More relevantly, if any law-enforcement investigation generated records — UTSAPD reports, DA’s office files — those have their own retention schedules. The UTSA Police Department’s case referral to the Bexar County DA is a live record, but criminal investigative files have their own lifecycle.
The preservation letter — a formal demand that the fraternity, its national organization, its individual members, and any property owner freeze all relevant records — goes out the day you hire us. Not the week. Not the month. The day. Because the GroupMe messages do not wait for your grief to subside before they get deleted.
The Fraternity’s Insurance Playbook: What They Will Try and How We Counter
Lupe Peña sat in the rooms where these plays are designed. He was an insurance-defense attorney at a national firm. He knows how adjusters set reserves in the first 48 hours, how they engineer recorded statements, and how the valuation software works. Here is what the fraternity’s insurance team will try — and what we do about each play.
Play 1: “The pledge consented.” The fraternity’s first defense will be that pledges voluntarily submitted to the rituals — that “Hell Week” is a known tradition and anyone who joins accepts the risk. We counter with the Texas Hazing Act, which explicitly provides that consent is not a defense to hazing. The law recognizes what common sense does: a 19-year-old who wants to belong cannot meaningfully consent to being waterboarded. The power imbalance between active members and pledges, the social pressure, the threat of being blackballed — all of it negates consent as a legal shield. This is not our argument. It is the statute.
Play 2: “The university found no individual responsible.” The defense will lean on the Student Conduct finding that no individual member was responsible, framing it as an exoneration. We counter by explaining the difference between an organizational finding and an individual finding — the university found the chapter responsible, which is actually more powerful for a civil case against the organization. The absence of individual findings reflects the wall of silence, not the absence of individual wrongdoing. In a civil deposition, under oath, with the threat of perjury, that wall cracks.
Play 3: “The acquittal.” The chapter president’s public claim of acquittal will be deployed as a narrative that the case was already decided. We counter with the university’s own statement, which contradicts the fraternity’s. The Associate Vice President confirmed sanctions. The case was referred to the Bexar County DA. The “acquittal” framing is a press release, not a legal finding. A civil jury will hear the difference.
Play 4: The quick check with a release. The fraternity’s insurer may offer a fast settlement — modest money, a release printed on the back, designed to close the file before the full scope of the psychological injury is documented. This is the oldest play in the adjuster’s playbook, and Lupe saw it deployed from the inside. The counter is simple: do not sign anything. Do not accept a check. Do not give a recorded statement. The first offer is always a fraction of what the case is worth, and the release they hand you is designed to make sure you can never come back for more — even if your PTSD lasts a lifetime.
Play 5: Social-media surveillance. The fraternity’s defense team will monitor your social media for any post that contradicts a claim of mental anguish — a photo at a party, a joke about the fraternity, a comment about feeling fine. The counter is to stay off social media about the case entirely. Assume everything you post is being read by defense counsel. Talk to us, not to your followers, about what happened.
Play 6: The “tradition” defense. The fraternity will frame the hazing as a long-standing tradition — as if longevity legitimizes abuse. We counter by noting that every tradition that harms people was, at some point, a tradition that someone was afraid to challenge. The Texas Hazing Act was written precisely because “tradition” is the shield that abusive organizations use. The law stripped that shield away. We will not let the defense put it back.
The Statute of Limitations: Why Time Is the Single Most Important Fact in Your Case
Texas has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. The clock generally starts running from the date the injury occurred — which, in this case, was Fall 2022.
If the hazing occurred in, for example, October 2022, the two-year deadline would expire in October 2024. If it occurred in December 2022, the deadline would be December 2024. The incident was not reported until May 2024 — meaning that by the time the university investigation began, the clock may have already been close to running out, or may have already expired if measured from the date of the hazing itself.
There is a legal doctrine called the “discovery rule” that can, in some cases, delay the start of the clock until the injured person discovered, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury and its cause. For trauma survivors who suppressed the memory or who did not connect their psychological symptoms to the hazing until later, this doctrine may provide a path — but it is a legal argument, not a guarantee, and it depends on the specific facts and the specific Texas court’s interpretation.
Here is the honest truth: we cannot tell you, on a website, whether your deadline has passed. That determination depends on the exact date of the hazing, the specific injuries, when you first connected the harm to what happened, and the controlling Texas law as applied to your facts. What we can tell you is this: every day you wait is a day closer to a deadline that, if missed, permanently closes the courthouse door. No extension. No second chance. The case is over.
This is why the consultation is free and the call is 24/7. We need to hear your facts, check the clock, and tell you honestly whether you still have time. If you do, we move immediately. If you do not, we will tell you — because we would rather lose a potential client than give a false promise.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911). The call costs nothing. Not calling could cost everything.
What Your Hazing Case May Be Worth
Case value in hazing litigation depends on the severity of the conduct, the documented injuries, the defendant’s assets and insurance, and the venue. Here is an honest frame, based on the allegations in this case.
Low end: approximately $150,000. This assumes documented psychological injury (PTSD diagnosis, therapy records), some academic disruption, and a defendant with moderate insurance coverage. This is a case where the hazing was severe but the survivor’s symptoms are resolving with treatment and the defense has some leverage (delayed reporting, social-media activity, etc.).
High end: $1,500,000 or more. This is the case where waterboarding is proven, where PTSD is severe and long-lasting, where the academic and career impact is documented, where the national fraternity’s negligent supervision is established through discovery, and where punitive damages are on the table because the conduct was intentional and grossly negligent. Waterboarding is not a “frat prank” to a jury. It is torture. And the “yuck factor” — the visceral reaction a Bexar County jury will have to the image of a restrained pledge being waterboarded — is a damages multiplier that no defense lawyer can talk away.
The Bexar County jury pool — drawn from San Antonio’s military communities, its academic population, and its working families — tends to disfavor “wild” fraternity behavior. This is a jurisdiction where institutional accountability resonates. A San Antonio jury that hears evidence of waterboarding and dark-room confinement is not going to be sympathetic to the argument that “it was tradition.”
Punitive damages are highly probable in this case because the conduct — waterboarding, food and water deprivation, confinement — demonstrates malice or gross negligence. Texas does not cap non-economic damages in these types of torts (unlike medical-malpractice cases), which means the full human cost of what was done to you is on the table.
A Stowers demand — a formal settlement demand to the fraternity’s liability carrier that sets up the insurer’s bad-faith exposure if it refuses to pay a reasonable amount and a jury later awards more — should be issued as soon as the full scope of the mental anguish is documented. That is a strategic move, not a desperation move, and it is one Lupe understands from the inside because he used to be the person deciding whether to accept or reject one.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do Right Now
If you are a survivor of the Alpha Tau Omega hazing at UTSA, or if you are the parent of one, here is what the first 72 hours should look like.
Hour 1: Call us. 1-888-ATTY-911. The consultation is free. We will ask you what happened, when it happened, what you are experiencing now, and whether you have spoken to anyone at UTSA, UTSAPD, or the DA’s office. We will tell you, honestly, whether you still have time to file and what the next steps are.
Hour 1-24: Medical and psychological evaluation. If you have not already been seen by a mental-health professional, we will help you get there. The sooner a qualified clinician documents your symptoms, the stronger your case. PTSD that is diagnosed close to the time of disclosure is far more powerful than PTSD diagnosed a year later, after the defense has had time to argue it was caused by something else.
Hour 24-48: The preservation letter goes out. We send formal litigation-hold letters to the fraternity (national and local), to UTSA, to any property owner, and to any communication-platform provider. These letters demand that all GroupMe messages, Discord logs, text threads, surveillance footage, incident reports, witness statements, risk-management manuals, conduct files, and medical records be preserved. Once the letter is on file, any subsequent destruction is spoliation — and the legal consequences of spoliation are severe.
Hour 48-72: Do not sign, do not post, do not talk. Do not sign anything from the fraternity, its insurer, or anyone offering you money. Do not post about the case on social media. Do not discuss the case with fraternity members or anyone connected to the organization. Talk to us. Talk to your therapist. Talk to your family. That is the circle. Everything else is a risk.
Do not destroy your own evidence. Keep every text message, every screenshot, every email, every GroupMe notification. Do not delete your social-media history. Do not throw away any physical items related to the hazing. Your own records are the most important evidence in the case, and the defense will scrutinize anything you have removed.
Why This Firm: Ralph Manginello and Lupe Peña
We are not a firm that stumbled into a hazing case. We are a firm that chose to take them on.
Ralph Manginello has been licensed in Texas since November 6, 1998 — 27-plus years of trial practice, including admission to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He is the lead counsel in the active $10 million hazing lawsuit against Pi Kappa Phi and the University of Houston, filed in Harris County — a case we are litigating right now. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he knows how to find the story the evidence tells — and how to tell it to a jury. He is Italian-American, born in New York, raised in Houston, and he does not lose cases because he failed to prepare.
Lupe Peña has been licensed in Texas since December 6, 2012 — 13-plus years. He is a former insurance-defense attorney who worked inside a national defense firm, where he learned how insurers value claims, how they select defense doctors for independent medical examinations, how they conduct surveillance, and how they use delay tactics to push plaintiffs past the statute of limitations. He now uses that knowledge for injured clients. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. He is a third-generation Texan with family roots to the King Ranch.
We work on contingency. The fee is 33.33% if the case settles before trial, 40% if it goes to trial. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free, it is confidential, and it is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — we have live staff, not an answering service.
Our practice areas span personal injury, wrongful death, and catastrophic-injury litigation across Texas. We know hazing law because we are actively litigating it — not studying it from the sidelines.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue a fraternity for hazing me?
Yes. Texas law provides a civil cause of action for hazing. The Texas Hazing Act, found in the Texas Education Code, prohibits hazing and creates the framework for civil liability. A fraternity — both the national organization and the local chapter — can be held responsible for the harm its hazing rituals caused. Individual members who committed the acts can also be held personally liable for intentional torts like assault, battery, and false imprisonment.
The fraternity says they were “acquitted.” Does that mean I cannot sue?
No. The chapter president’s claim of “acquittal” is contradicted by the university’s own statement. UTSA’s Associate Vice President confirmed that the Student Conduct investigation found Iota Epsilon responsible for hazing and that the chapter was sanctioned. A criminal acquittal (which has not occurred here — the DA’s review is pending) would not prevent a civil lawsuit. Civil cases have a lower burden of proof than criminal cases. The university’s finding of organizational responsibility is powerful evidence that supports a civil claim.
I did not report the hazing until almost two years later. Is it too late to sue?
It may not be too late, but the clock is a serious concern. Texas has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury. The incident occurred in Fall 2022, and the clock generally runs from the date of the injury. However, the “discovery rule” may, depending on the specific facts and the controlling Texas law, delay the start of the clock until you discovered or should have discovered the connection between your injuries and the hazing. Whether this applies to your situation is a legal question that depends on your specific facts. You need to call us immediately so we can evaluate the deadline. Do not assume it is too late without asking.
The university found the organization responsible but said no individual member was responsible. Can I still sue individual members?
The university’s Student Conduct finding that “no individual member was responsible” was based on the information the university gathered during its investigation. It does not bind a civil court, and it does not prevent us from naming individuals in a civil lawsuit if the evidence supports it. Hazing investigations frequently encounter a wall of silence that protects individuals. In a civil deposition, under oath, with the threat of perjury and the leverage of a preservation demand, that wall often cracks. The absence of individual findings by the university reflects the limits of its investigation, not the absence of individual wrongdoing.
What is waterboarding, and why does it matter legally?
Waterboarding is a technique that involves pouring water over a restrained person’s face to trigger the sensation of drowning. It is widely classified as torture. It activates the mammalian diving reflex, causes the throat to close, and produces an intense, immediate fear of death. Legally, it is assault and battery — intentional, harmful, offensive physical contact without consent. The psychological injury it causes — particularly post-traumatic stress disorder and the “fear of impending death” dimension — is substantial and, in many survivors, long-lasting. A jury that hears evidence of waterboarding does not hear “a prank.” It hears “torture.” And the damages reflect that.
Will the fraternity’s insurance cover what happened to me?
It depends on the specific policies and the specific claims. National fraternities typically carry commercial general liability insurance, often with substantial self-insured retentions and excess layers above. However, many CGL policies contain exclusions for intentional torts, assault, and battery — which means the insurer may argue that waterboarding is excluded because it is intentional. This is a coverage fight, not a case-ender. We pursue the claims against the organization (negligent supervision, negligent hiring/retention of members, organizational failure to prevent hazing) that may trigger coverage even when intentional-tort exclusions apply. We also look at the national fraternity’s excess policies, the local chapter’s coverage, individual members’ homeowner’s policies, and any property-owner coverage. Mapping the coverage tower is one of our first jobs.
What if I was forced to do things I am ashamed of during the hazing?
Almost every hazing survivor was forced to do things they are ashamed of. That is the design of hazing — to degrade, to strip agency, to make the survivor complicit in their own humiliation so they will not report it. The shame you feel is evidence of the harm, not evidence of your fault. Texas law recognizes that consent obtained through coercion, power imbalance, and threat of social exclusion is not meaningful consent. The Texas Hazing Act explicitly provides that consent is not a defense to hazing. You did not consent. You survived. And the law is built to protect you, not to punish you for what was done to you.
How much does it cost to hire a hazing lawyer?
Nothing up front. We work on contingency. The fee is 33.33% of the recovery if the case settles before trial, and 40% if it goes to trial. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free, confidential, and available 24/7. Call 1-888-ATTY-911.
I am a parent of a UTSA student who was hazed. Can I file a lawsuit on my child’s behalf?
Yes. If your child is a minor, you can file on their behalf. If your child is an adult (18 or older), they will need to be the named plaintiff, but you can support them through the process and, in many cases, help manage the legal relationship. Parents are often the first people to recognize that their child’s symptoms — the withdrawal, the anxiety, the sleep disruption, the academic decline — are connected to what happened at the fraternity. If you are seeing these signs, call us. We will talk to you and, with your child’s permission, to them.
Is what happened at Alpha Tau Omega a crime, or just a school violation?
It may be both. The UTSA Police Department referred the case to the Bexar County District Attorney’s office for criminal review. Under the Texas Hazing Act, hazing that causes serious bodily injury is a criminal offense. Waterboarding and prolonged confinement without food or water can constitute serious bodily injury. Forced provision of alcohol to minors is a separate criminal offense. The DA’s review is pending — we do not yet know whether criminal charges will be filed. A civil lawsuit does not depend on criminal charges being filed. You can pursue civil compensation regardless of the criminal outcome.
Contact Us Today
If you were hazed at Alpha Tau Omega’s Iota Epsilon chapter at UTSA — if you were waterboarded, confined, deprived, or forced to participate in Hell Week — the law is on your side. The university found the fraternity responsible. The police referred the case for criminal review. The statute of limitations clock is running, and it may be close to zero.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911). The consultation is free. We do not get paid unless we win your case. We have live staff 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — not an answering service.
Hablamos Español. Lupe Peña conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. Call today — the evidence is disappearing, the clock is running, and the fraternity is counting on you to stay silent.
