The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the termination of Lucy Abajian-Salon, a probationary police officer with the San Antonio Police Department who was fired following an off-duty incident involving construction workers in her neighborhood.
In a per curiam opinion filed Feb. 5, 2026, the three-judge panel affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the City of San Antonio. The case, *Abajian-Salon v. San Antonio* (5th Cir. 2026), involved allegations that the former officer confronted construction workers about noise levels and caused damage to their property during the off-duty encounter.
The San Antonio Police Department conducted an internal investigation following the incident and determined that Abajian-Salon's involvement violated department rules and regulations. Based on these findings, the department terminated her employment while she was still serving in a probationary capacity.
Abajian-Salon subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against the City of San Antonio, alleging discrimination under multiple civil rights statutes. Her complaint included claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Texas Labor Code. These statutes provide various protections against employment discrimination based on race, color, and other protected characteristics.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, where the city moved for dismissal of the claims. The district court granted the city's motion, prompting Abajian-Salon to appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
The appellate panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Haynes, Duncan, and Ramirez, reviewed the lower court's decision and found no error in the dismissal of Abajian-Salon's claims. The court's opinion was issued as an unpublished per curiam decision, indicating the judges were in agreement on the outcome.
The case highlights the limited employment protections available to probationary police officers, who typically serve under different standards than tenured officers with civil service protections. During probationary periods, which can last six months to two years depending on the jurisdiction, officers can generally be terminated with greater ease than their permanent counterparts.
Police departments routinely conduct internal affairs investigations when officers are involved in incidents that may violate department policies, whether on-duty or off-duty. The scope of these investigations often extends to off-duty conduct that could reflect poorly on the department or interfere with an officer's ability to perform their duties effectively.
The construction worker incident that led to Abajian-Salon's termination involved allegations of both confrontational behavior and property damage. While the specific details of the encounter were not fully detailed in the available court documents, the SAPD's internal investigation concluded that her actions were contrary to departmental standards.
Neighborhood disputes involving noise complaints are common civil matters, but when they involve law enforcement officers, they can take on additional significance due to the officer's position of public trust and authority. Police departments often have specific policies governing off-duty conduct and interactions with civilians.
The Fifth Circuit's decision to affirm the lower court ruling suggests that Abajian-Salon was unable to establish sufficient evidence to support her discrimination claims under the various civil rights statutes she cited. Title VII protects against workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, while Section 1981 provides broader protections against racial discrimination in employment.
For the lawsuit to succeed, Abajian-Salon would have needed to demonstrate that her termination was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than legitimate concerns about her conduct during the construction worker incident. The appellate court's affirmance indicates that the evidence did not support such a finding.
The case also underscores the challenges faced by probationary employees in challenging termination decisions. Unlike tenured officers who may have access to civil service appeals processes or union grievance procedures, probationary officers typically have fewer procedural protections and must rely primarily on federal civil rights laws if they believe their termination was discriminatory.
The Fifth Circuit's unpublished opinion means the decision will have limited precedential value, though it reflects the court's application of established employment discrimination principles to the law enforcement context. The ruling joins a body of case law examining the intersection of police officer employment rights and departmental disciplinary authority.
For police departments, the decision reinforces their ability to maintain disciplinary standards for probationary officers, particularly when off-duty conduct raises questions about an officer's judgment or adherence to departmental values. The case serves as a reminder that law enforcement careers can be affected by actions taken outside the scope of official duties.