The Clean House Defense: LSU Sticks to Its Story
LSU maintained that Lewis’ termination wasn’t personal—it was practical. The school argued she was one of over 40 staff members let go during a massive shake-up prompted by Kelly’s arrival. The panel agreed, citing “ample” evidence that Lewis was simply swept up in the tidal wave of change brought on by the university’s football leadership overhaul.
Kelly himself testified that he had no knowledge of Lewis’ complaints at the time of the staff changes. Multiple witnesses confirmed that such clean-slate transitions are common when a new coach takes the reins, making Lewis’ departure more a casualty of restructuring than retaliation.
“This evidence and the numerous witness testimonies support the jury’s verdict that Lewis’s termination was not in retaliation for her Title IX reports,” the court wrote.
“Capture and Kill” Theory Fails to Convince
In a bold assertion, Lewis claimed LSU ran a “capture and kill” scheme, diverting Title IX complaints away from the proper channels—specifically routing them to athletics officials rather than the Title IX coordinator. But the court said this only illuminated systemic flaws in LSU’s reporting procedures and did not link her firing to her protected complaints.
Further, although Lewis pointed out that several athletic department officials were aware of her reports, the court said she still lacked direct evidence that her termination was triggered by her speaking out.
