Perla Dominguez SAPD SWAT Lawsuit, Officer Alleges Hazing, Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Against the City of San Antonio

San Antonio Police Department (SAPD) officer Perla Dominguez, who made history in 2018 as the first woman to complete the department’s formal SWAT selection process, has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of San Antonio. She alleges years of sex-based harassment, degrading hazing and retaliation inside the specialized unit.

She filed the lawsuit on October 30, 2026. She alleges that after joining SWAT in December 2018 she faced repeated harassment over access to a women’s restroom, pressure to join a sexually degrading initiation ritual, a used condom found in her locker, derogatory comments about LGBTQ people, and an unfavorable performance evaluation after she complained. She says the hostile environment led her to request reassignment to the police academy in February 2022, which she says cost her SWAT-related pay.

The City of San Antonio disputes the merits of her claims, says it tried to address her complaints, and says it will defend the lawsuit. None of the allegations has been proven in court. The case is at its earliest stage.

Quick Facts: Perla Dominguez v. City of San Antonio

Detail	Information
Plaintiff	Perla Dominguez
Defendant	City of San Antonio, Texas
Case type	Federal employment-discrimination lawsuit
Date filed	October 30, 2026
Court and case number	Federal court; division and case number not independently confirmed
Department	San Antonio Police Department
Joined SAPD	March 2012
Joined SWAT	December 2018
Main allegations	Sex-based harassment, hostile work environment, hazing, retaliation
First EEOC charge	July 2022 (right-to-sue notice January 2026)
Second EEOC charge	September 2025 (right-to-sue notice late March 2026)
Tolling agreement	Spring 2026; terminated by the city, effective October 2026
Reassignment	February 2022, to the SAPD training academy
Relief requested	Back pay, attorney fees, reinstatement to a SWAT assignment
City’s position	Disputes the merits; will defend
Settlement	None publicly confirmed
Trial date	Not reported
Class action	No; individual employment case

Who Is Perla Dominguez, the SAPD Officer Suing San Antonio?

Dominguez joined SAPD in March 2012 and is described in reporting as a veteran of roughly 14 years. According to reporting based on the lawsuit, she previously worked in the DWI unit and is a competitive powerlifter. In December 2018 she became the first woman to complete the department’s formal SWAT tryout process and be selected under standardized requirements. Earlier women had joined the unit under different selection standards, and at the time she was the second woman on the roughly 25-member team. SAPD Chief William McManus and then-City Manager Sheryl Sculley publicly recognized her selection. The department had formalized the SWAT physical requirements in 1996.

She remains an SAPD officer but is no longer assigned to SWAT.

What Happened in the SAPD SWAT Women’s Restroom Dispute?

Dominguez alleges she was expected to change in the SWAT headquarters women’s restroom, which male team members had used routinely because no women had been assigned before. She says she asked them to stop, and they kept using it.

February 2019: Alleged Restroom Intrusion

In February 2019, a male SWAT member allegedly walked into the restroom while she was changing and saw her partially undressed. She reported it, and supervisors gave her a key so she could lock the door. The lawsuit alleges that a supervisor then questioned, in front of other SWAT members, why she needed her own restroom, and that another officer threatened to defecate in the sink if she left the door unlocked.

January 2020: Pressure to Give Up the Key

The lawsuit alleges that in January 2020, SWAT Captain Miles Earwood told Dominguez to keep the key somewhere in her locker where male members could not reach it, and to reconsider because most of the team was unhappy about the arrangement. She refused, saying she kept personal belongings in the restroom.

What Is the Alleged SAPD SWAT Initiation Ritual Dominguez Refused?

The complaint says SWAT members traditionally received a lightning-bolt tattoo on the outer leg as a sign of membership and loyalty. It alleges that getting the tattoo involved a sexually degrading ritual in which new members were held down and bitten on the buttocks. Dominguez considered it degrading and refused to take part or help restrain anyone.

• Summer 2021: The lawsuit alleges Officers Salvador Hernandez and Marshall Davis pressured her to participate, saying her refusal raised questions about her loyalty and was delaying another member’s initiation.
• March 2022: At leadership training, Captain Jamie Trevino allegedly said the tattoo represented loyalty and trust. Dominguez understood this as a reference to her earlier refusal.

Whether the ritual happened as described, and whether supervisors encouraged or tolerated it, has not been established.

What Is the November 2021 Used Condom Incident in Dominguez’s SWAT Locker?

On November 4, 2021, shortly after she told coworkers she and her wife were expecting twin boys, Dominguez allegedly found a used condom in her locker in the SWAT ready room. According to the complaint, several officers saw it, and Officer Roland Ortegon allegedly threw it in a trash can in the men’s restroom. The trash was later retrieved so crime scene investigators could collect evidence.

Dominguez alleges the department never gave her the forensic results and that investigators could not identify anyone for discipline. The complaint does not establish who put the item in the locker.

Alleged Derogatory Comments About LGBTQ People

After the incident, two coworkers allegedly made derogatory remarks about a nonbinary public figure. Dominguez, who identifies as part of the LGBTQ community, says the remarks were meant to provoke her, and she raised concerns with supervisors.

Did Dominguez’s February 2022 SAPD Performance Evaluation Change?

The lawsuit alleges she received an evaluation rating her below expectations overall and calling her annoyed, and suggesting psychological services, even though it reportedly marked her as meeting expectations in every individual category. She refused to sign it. She says a revised version later changed the overall rating to meets expectations and removed the psychological-services reference. The lawsuit presents this as unfair treatment after she objected to the conduct. Whether it reflected legitimate management concerns or retaliation will depend on the original documents and testimony.

Why Did Perla Dominguez Leave the SAPD SWAT Unit?

In February 2022, Dominguez requested a temporary assignment to the San Antonio Police Academy, which the department granted. She says she made the request because of the harassment and hostility on the SWAT team, and that leaving cost her additional pay tied to the SWAT assignment. Reporting describes a reassignment, not a firing or resignation from the department.

What Are the Two EEOC Charges and the Tolling Agreement in the Dominguez Case?

Federal employment-discrimination suits generally require an employee to file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge first.

• July 2022: Dominguez filed a charge against the City of San Antonio alleging sex discrimination and retaliation. The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue in January 2026.
• September 2025: She filed a second charge and received another right-to-sue notice in late March 2026.
• Spring 2026: Dominguez and the city entered a tolling agreement, a written arrangement pausing or extending specified legal deadlines, reportedly while settlement discussions continued.
• October 2026: The city gave written notice terminating the agreement, and the termination took effect in October. Dominguez sued on October 30, 2026.

A right-to-sue notice allows a person to sue. It is not a finding that discrimination occurred. The agreement’s exact terms have not been made public. The timing makes them important: a federal lawsuit is generally due within 90 days of a right-to-sue notice, and the notices here were issued in January and late March 2026. The city could raise timeliness as a defense, and the agreement may bear on that question.

For another recent case involving an EEOC process and sexual-harassment allegations, see Camalyn Turner V. MSCS Lawsuit, Marie Feagins Allegations.

What Is Perla Dominguez Asking the Court to Award?

According to the San Antonio Express-News, she seeks:

1. Back pay for income she says she lost after leaving SWAT, including the extra compensation tied to the assignment.
2. Attorney fees and costs.
3. Reinstatement to a SWAT assignment. This is a request, not an agreement by the department.

No total damages figure has been confirmed. This is an individual lawsuit, not a class action, so there is no public claims process and other SAPD employees cannot claim compensation through it.

How Has the City of San Antonio Responded to the Dominguez Lawsuit?

The City Attorney’s Office said the city and SAPD take harassment allegations seriously, that the city tried to address Dominguez’s complaints and give her opportunities to succeed, and that it would defend against the lawsuit. As of November 6, 2026, no formal answer, ruling or trial outcome had been reported.

What Laws Apply to the Perla Dominguez SAPD SWAT Lawsuit?

The full complaint was not retrieved, so the exact counts pleaded should be confirmed against the filing. The laws below are the principal standards relevant to the reported claims.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Sex Discrimination and Hostile Work Environment

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, prohibits sex discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment. It covers state and local government employers such as a city (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)–(b)). A hostile-work-environment claim generally requires unwelcome conduct severe or pervasive enough to alter working conditions and create an abusive environment that is both objectively and subjectively hostile. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993). Courts weigh frequency, severity, whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it interfered with job performance. One unpleasant incident usually is not enough, but a pattern considered together can be.

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002), holds that a hostile-environment claim can reach acts outside the charge-filing period if they are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within it. That matters because some incidents date to 2019 and 2020.

Employer Liability for Supervisor and Coworker Harassment

Under Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), an employer can be liable for supervisor harassment, subject to an affirmative defense when no tangible employment action was taken. For coworker harassment, liability generally turns on whether the employer knew or should have known and failed to take prompt, appropriate corrective action. Dominguez’s reports to supervisors and Internal Affairs, and the city’s response, will be central.

Sexual Orientation and Title VII

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), held that firing someone for being gay or transgender is sex discrimination under Title VII. Dominguez’s allegations about comments directed at LGBTQ people may be relevant to the hostile-environment analysis, though the filed counts should be checked.

Title VII Retaliation: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)

An employee generally must show protected activity, a materially adverse action and a causal link. Under Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), an action is materially adverse if it might dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining. Dominguez points to her evaluation and the loss of SWAT pay. One key fact is that she asked for the reassignment herself. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), the Supreme Court held that a transfer claim under Title VII requires only “some harm” to a term or condition of employment, not a “significant” one. The court may have to decide whether the reassignment and lost pay qualify. Because she was not terminated, constructive-discharge law (Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (2004)) does not appear to be at issue, though that depends on the pleaded claims.

The EEOC explains these requirements in its Retaliation and Related Issues guidance.

Texas Labor Code Chapter 21

Texas Labor Code § 21.051 prohibits sex discrimination in employment, and § 21.055 prohibits retaliation. Texas added a sexual-harassment subchapter effective September 1, 2021 (§§ 21.141 and 21.142), under which an employer is responsible when it, or its agents or supervisors, knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. The effective date matters because some alleged incidents date to 2019 and 2020 and others to 2021 and 2022. Chapter 21 treats political subdivisions such as cities as employers, and Texas courts have addressed when governmental immunity is waived for Chapter 21 claims, including in Mission Consolidated ISD v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012).

Filing Deadlines and Procedure

• EEOC charge: Generally 180 days, extended to 300 days in a deferral state such as Texas where a state or local agency can address the same discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).
• Texas state charge: Texas Labor Code § 21.202 sets a 180-day period to file with the Texas Workforce Commission. A state-law suit also has its own deadline after a right-to-sue notice (§ 21.254).
• Federal suit: Generally within 90 days after a right-to-sue notice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
• Answer: The city’s response is generally due 21 days after service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). It may instead move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

Remedies Available Under Title VII

Title VII allows back pay, reinstatement and other equitable relief (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)) and reasonable attorney’s fees (§ 2000e-5(k)). Compensatory damages are capped by employer size under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3), at $300,000 for employers with more than 500 employees, and punitive damages are not available against a government entity (§ 1981a(b)(1)). No damages figure has been reported here.

Civil Service Context

San Antonio police officers are generally covered by the Texas Local Government Code Chapter 143 civil-service framework for assignments and discipline. Whether it affects any claim here would depend on the facts and the pleaded counts.

Official legal sources:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (EEOC)
• EEOC: Filing a Lawsuit and Right-to-Sue Requirements
• Texas Labor Code Chapter 21

What Happens Next in the Perla Dominguez Lawsuit?

1. The city’s response. The City of San Antonio may answer the complaint or move to dismiss claims, including on timeliness.
2. Discovery. Likely evidence includes SWAT restroom and facility records, Internal Affairs files, forensic records on the locker incident, both versions of the February 2022 evaluation, internal messages, the EEOC and tolling-agreement records, and compensation records showing the pay effect of leaving SWAT.
3. Pretrial motions. The city could seek summary judgment on some or all claims.
4. Settlement talks. None has been announced.
5. Trial. If claims survive and the case does not settle, a trial could decide liability and relief. No trial date has been reported.

For another discrimination and retaliation dispute involving a public employer, see Kansas City Approves $900,000 April Leonard Settlement Over Harrison Butker Post.

Perla Dominguez SAPD SWAT Lawsuit: Frequently Asked Questions

Did Perla Dominguez sue the San Antonio Police Department?

She sued the City of San Antonio in federal court on October 30, 2026. The suit concerns her time on the SAPD SWAT unit.

Why is Perla Dominguez suing the City of San Antonio?

She alleges sex-based harassment, a hostile work environment, hazing and retaliation. Her allegations include restroom-related humiliation, pressure to join an initiation ritual and an incident involving a used condom in her locker. She also alleges that her complaints were followed by an unfavorable evaluation and lost SWAT pay.

Was Perla Dominguez the first woman in SAPD SWAT?

She was the first woman to complete the department’s formal SWAT tryout process. At the time she was the second woman on the roughly 25-member team, and earlier women had joined under different standards.

What was the alleged SWAT initiation ritual?

The lawsuit alleges new members were held down and bitten on the buttocks before receiving a lightning-bolt tattoo. Dominguez refused to take part. Whether the ritual occurred as described has not been established.

What happened with the used condom found in her locker?

She alleges she found one on November 4, 2021, and that another officer threw it away before it was retrieved for evidence. She says she never received the forensic results. Who put it there has not been established.

Was Perla Dominguez fired from SAPD?

No firing has been reported. She requested reassignment to the police academy in February 2022 and remains an SAPD officer, though no longer on SWAT.

How much money is Dominguez seeking?

She seeks back pay, attorney fees and reinstatement to a SWAT assignment. No total damages figure has been confirmed.

What did the City of San Antonio say about the lawsuit?

The City Attorney’s Office disputes the merits, says it tried to address her complaints, and says it will defend the case.

Did the EEOC find that SAPD discriminated against Dominguez?

No such finding has been reported. She received right-to-sue notices after her EEOC charges, which only permit her to sue.

What is the tolling agreement in the Dominguez case?

It was a spring 2026 agreement pausing or extending certain legal deadlines. The city terminated it in writing, effective October 2026, and she sued on October 30. Its exact terms have not been made public.

Is the Dominguez case a class action?

No. It is an individual employment case, and there is no public claim form.

When will the Dominguez lawsuit be decided?

No trial date or resolution has been reported. The case was filed on October 30, 2026.

The Bottom Line on the Perla Dominguez SAPD SWAT Lawsuit

Dominguez alleges that after earning a place on SAPD’s SWAT team through the formal selection process, she faced repeated harassment, a degrading initiation ritual and retaliation after complaining. The City of San Antonio disputes her claims. The allegations remain unproven, and the court will decide whether the evidence supports a finding of unlawful harassment or retaliation and whether she is entitled to back pay, attorney fees or a return to SWAT.

Sources and References

1. KSAT Investigates, November 5, 2026: Female SAPD SWAT veteran sues city, claims she was hazed and discriminated against
2. San Antonio Express-News, November 5, 2026: Former SWAT officer sues city, alleges harassment, hazing, retaliation
3. Spectrum News, December 5, 2018: First Female Officer Passes SWAT Tryouts, Makes SAPD SWAT Unit
4. City of San Antonio, December 6, 2018: City Council meeting minutes
5. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (EEOC)
6. EEOC: Filing a Lawsuit and Right-to-Sue Requirements
7. EEOC: Questions and Answers on Retaliation and Related Issues
8. Texas Labor Code Chapter 21
9. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993); National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002); Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998); Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020); Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006); Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024).

Research note: The October 30, 2026 complaint and its docket number were not retrieved. The allegations come from KSAT Investigates and the San Antonio Express-News, which reviewed the filing. No unverified case number, damages figure, ruling or settlement is presented as fact.

Disclaimer: This article is legal information, not legal advice, and AllAboutLawyer.com is not a law firm. The allegations have not been proven in court.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against published reporting from KSAT Investigates and the San Antonio Express-News, the EEOC’s published guidance and the Texas Labor Code, as of November 6, 2026. Last Updated: November 6, 2026.