Megan Lee Garza, a former city chauffeur, has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of San Antonio alleging wrongful termination and discrimination. Garza claims she was targeted due to her sexual orientation and penalized for taking legally protected medical leave during her tenure from 2022 to 2026.
The Walker Ranch Pride Decorations and the EEO Administrator's Accusations
The conflict reportedly began in 2023 after Megan Lee Garza spoke out against the removal of Pride decorations at the Walker Ranch Senior Center. According to the lawsuit, this advocacy triggered a series of retaliatory events, including an incident in December 2023 where Garza's personal belongings were allegedly mishandled. When Garza reported the matter to the city's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) administrator, the administrator allegedly responded by accusing Garza of being in a romantic relationship with a female coworker.
This incident reflects a broader,recurring tension in municipal workplaces where the expression of LGBTQ+ identity clashes with administrative boundaries. The legal filings suggest that the City of San Antonio's response shifted from professional oversight to personal scrutiny, creating what Garza describes as a toxic environment. This pattern of targeting employees for their identity often precedes more formal disciplinary actions intended to justify a termination.
The Doris Griffin Senior Center Transfer and Gender-Based Disparity
In June 2024, the City of San Antonio allegedly penalized Garza after she decorated a city-assigned bus for Pride month. although the decorations were approved by her supervisor, the vehicle was later vandalized in a secure yard; rather than investigating the security breach, the city ordered the immediate removal of the markings. Shortly thereafter, the city involuntarily transferred Megan Lee Garza to the Doris Griffin Senior Center, which significantly lengthened her daily commute.
The lawsuit highlights a specific disparity in how these transfers were handled, claiming that a male colleague in a similar position was permitted to decline a similar transfer while Garza was forced to comply. This allegation of a double standard suggests that the City of San Antonio used administrative transfers as a tool for isolation rather than operational necessity .
Chronic Migraines and the Weaponization of FMLA Attendance Points
The legal dispute also centers on the City of San Antonio's handling of Garza's health conditions. Megan Lee Garza suffers from chronic migraine headaches that cause visual impairment, leading her to seek intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). However, the report says the city penalized her for using this protected leave by assigning attendance points and accusing her of exploiting the system.
By May 2025, the city's disciplinary approach escalated, including a five-day suspension for a minor late lunch break. The lawsuit argues that the City of San Antonio was intentionally building a negative personnel file to justify her eventual firing, ignoring onboard video evidence during accusations of dangerous driving in the summer of 2025.
The May 2026 Termination and the Sexual Harassment Report
The final catalyst for the lawsuit occurred in May 2026, when Megan Lee Garza reported a sexual harassment incident involving a colleague. Just one week after filing this report, the City of San Antonio placed Garza on administrative leave and issued a termination letter. This rapid sequence of events is presented in the lawsuit as the culmination of a campaign of discrimination and direct retaliation.
The case now seeks reinstatement, back pay, and damages. It remains to be seen how the City of San Antonio will justify the timing of the termination relative to the harassment report, or why HR representatives allegedly pressured Garza to resign via multiple daily phone calls in April 2026.
The City of San Antonio's Missing Response to the Allegations
A significant gap in the current record is the absence of a formal response from the City of San Antonio or the Department of Human Services. It is currently unknown if the city has internal documentation to refute the claim that video evidence was ignored during the 2025 driving investigations.. Furthermore, the lawsuit's claims regarding the EEO administrator's personal accusations remain unverified by any third-party investigation or city statement.
Comments 0