Lizette Lucio, et al. v Brownsville Independent School District, et al.

Houston, Texas personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who sued the Defendants on civil rights violation theories.

Coach and teacher Marc Lucio refused to shake the hands of several
Brownsville Independent School District (BISD) board members and
employees during a meeting he was invited to attend to celebrate the
successes of a team he coached. He claims his actions were motivated both
by his personal dislike for the BISD board members and employees—
stemming from their handling of a prior incident involving his son—as well
as his desire not to appear to endorse them politically. Mr. Lucio alleges that,
as a result of the handshake incident, the district retaliated against him by
transferring him to a position at another school.

Mr. Lucio and his wife, Lizette Lucio, individually and on behalf of
their minor son M.A.L. (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed suit against the BISD
as well as numerous BISD employees and board members (collectively, the
Defendants), alleging that the Defendants violated their First, Fourth, and
Fifth Amendment rights as well as rights secured by the Texas Constitution
and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.



* * *

The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S.
Const. amend. V (emphasis added). Accordingly, in Chavez, the Supreme
Court held that “the mere use of compulsive questioning” did not violate the
Constitution. 538 U.S. at 767. There, the Court explained that the plaintiff
could not allege a violation of the Fifth Amendment without showing he was
prosecuted for a crime and “compelled to be a witness against himself in a
criminal case.” 538 U.S. at 766. The Court explicitly excluded “the entire
criminal investigatory process,” including interrogations, from the definition
of “criminal case.” Id. We have applied Chavez to limit the scope of Fifth
Amendment claims brought under § 1983 to those who allege that an
involuntary confession was used against them at trial. See Murray v. Earle,
405 F.3d 278, 285 (5th Cir. 2005) (“The Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination is a fundamental trial right which can be violated only at
trial . . . .”) (emphasis in original).

* * *

To properly state a claim for First Amendment retaliation, a plaintiff
“(1) must suffer an adverse employment decision; (2) the speech must involve a matter of public concern; (3) his interest in commenting on matters
of public concern must outweigh the Defendants’ interest in promoting
efficiency; and (4) the plaintiff’s speech must have motivated the
Defendants’ action.” Lowery v. Mills, 157 F.4th 729, 741 (5th Cir. 2025)
(internal quotations omitted) (quoting Breaux v. City of Garland, 205 F.3d
150 (5th Cir. 2000)).

Dismissed.

Affirmed

Editor's Note: It is very hard to win a civil rights case.