Fifth Circuit Holds Qualified Immunity Does Not Protect Public Officials From FLSA Retaliation Suits

Oct 28, 2026 · 6 min read · By Brandon J. Grable

Case: Stramaski v. Lawley, No. 25-20348, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 3215979 (5th Cir. Oct. 27, 2026) (published). Opinion by Judge Don R. Willett, for a panel of Judges Willett, Engelhardt, and Douglas. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, No. 4:20-CV-156. Read the opinion on the Fifth Circuit's website.

The short version

On October 27, 2026, the Fifth Circuit, the federal appeals court covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, decided a question it called "one of first impression in this circuit": "May a public official invoke qualified immunity in an FLSA retaliation suit? The answer is no."

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is the federal wage-and-hour law. It makes it unlawful to fire or otherwise retaliate against an employee for asserting rights under the Act. In this case, the court held that a public-university supervisor who is sued personally for that kind of retaliation cannot use qualified immunity to get the case dismissed. He has to defend the claim on the merits.

What happened

These facts come from the employee's allegations as the court described them. The case was decided at the motion-to-dismiss stage, so none of the allegations has been proven.

Eva Stramaski was an academic advisor at Texas A&M through the university's Engineering Experiment Station. In 2019, after taking medical leave, she was told she needed another doctor's release or her pay would be late. She insisted on being paid on time, and she was.

According to the opinion, her supervisor, Mark Lawley, the head of the Industrial and Systems Engineering department, then called her "aggressive" about the pay issue, sent her home for the day, and gave her a "coaching letter" listing alleged performance problems. She disputed the letter in a memo. A few days later, Lawley fired her.

Stramaski sued Lawley personally under the FLSA, alleging he fired her for asserting her right to timely pay.

How the case got here

This was the second appeal. In the first, Stramaski v. Lawley, 44 F.4th 318 (5th Cir. 2022), the Fifth Circuit held that sovereign immunity did not bar the suit because it was against Lawley personally, not the State. The court did not decide then whether Lawley could claim qualified immunity, and it sent that question back to the district court. On remand, the district court held that qualified immunity does not apply to FLSA retaliation claims. Lawley appealed again.

What the Fifth Circuit decided

The FLSA itself says nothing about qualified immunity. But the court explained that silence does not end the question. Under the Supreme Court's test in Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (1992), a court will recognize an immunity that the statute does not mention only if it is both "so firmly rooted in the common law" and "supported by such strong policy reasons" that Congress would have said so if it meant to abolish it. The court held that Lawley met neither requirement, and that "either failure alone would defeat the defense."

1. History did not protect malicious retaliation. The court looked for the older, common-law claim most like what Stramaski alleged and held that "[r]etaliatory discharge is the closest analogue." As the court put it, adopting the magistrate judge's framing, "wrongful discharge tells us what happened; retaliation tells us why." And at common law, "malice or bad faith defeated immunity." After reviewing the treatises and nineteenth-century cases Lawley relied on, the court concluded that "none of the authorities that Lawley marshals" immunized knowing and willful retaliation against a public employee.

Lawley argued that the modern, objective test for qualified immunity from Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), should apply anyway. The court disagreed. The question was what immunity existed when Congress acted, and every relevant date for the FLSA (1938, 1966, 1974, and 1977, when Congress authorized private retaliation suits) came before Harlow.

2. Immunity would undercut the law's purpose. The court held that the usual policy reasons for qualified immunity do not fit FLSA retaliation claims. The anti-retaliation provision protects employees who complain about violations of the Act. Relying on its earlier decision holding qualified immunity unavailable under the False Claims Act's whistleblower provision, the court quoted that decision's observation that granting officials qualified immunity "would hardly spur reluctant employees to step forward." In response to the concern that officials will be reluctant to make hard personnel decisions, the court said the FLSA "doesn't stand in the way of lawful hiring, firing, or discipline. It forbids retaliation against employees who assert their rights under the Act. Immunizing such actions would thwart the very complaints that § 215(a)(3) protects."

The court affirmed the denial of Lawley's motion to dismiss. As it explained, "Lawley remains free to dispute the allegation that he fired Stramaski for asserting her FLSA rights, but he must do so on the merits."

What the court did not decide

The opinion is limited. The court did not decide the effect of the FLSA's two good-faith provisions, 29 U.S.C. §§ 259 and 260. It also did not change how qualified immunity works in Section 1983 civil rights cases. The court said that Harlow "governs qualified immunity in § 1983 suits, including claims involving improper motive," but that it "does not establish that qualified immunity is available under the FLSA." The opinion does note, though, that Section 1983's text has "no qualified-immunity caveats, carve-outs, or conditions," and that "[y]et judges have grafted qualified immunity onto § 1983."

What this means in Texas

This is a published Fifth Circuit opinion, so it is binding precedent in federal courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, including the federal courts in San Antonio. For public employees, including employees of state universities and local governments, it means that a supervisor sued personally for firing or punishing an employee for raising FLSA pay rights cannot escape the case through qualified immunity, at least under this decision. The supervisor can still contest the facts.

The case is not over. It returns to the district court, and the losing side may seek further review. If you are a public employee and believe you were punished for speaking up about your pay, talking with a lawyer can help you understand your rights and the deadlines that may apply.

Attorney advertising. This post is for general information only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Attorney responsible for content: Brandon J. Grable, Grable PLLC, 12451 Starcrest Dr, Suite 206, San Antonio, Texas.

Topics: Qualified Immunity