James v. Alorica

── James v. Alorica ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 10, 2026 Category: Civil Rights Case: 25-11149 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED June 10, 2026 No. 25-11149 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Shakka Shaneak James, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Alorica, Incorporated; True Coverage, L.L.C., Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:25-CV-1855 ______________________________ Before Davis, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Plaintiff-Appellant Shakka Shaneak James, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals after the district court dismissed her employment- discrimination claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We AFFIRM. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.  Case: 25-11149 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 No. 25-11149 As relevant to this appeal, James’s governing complaint asserts discrimination claims against her former employers, Alorica Inc. and True Coverage LLC.1 It alleges True Coverage violated Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)2 and that Alorica violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The complaint concedes James did not administratively exhaust the Title VII and ADEA claims but contends, without corroborating allegations, that equitable tolling applies. A magistrate judge screened the complaint3 and recommended that its employment claims be dismissed for failure to exhaust and to satisfy federal pleading standards. James timely objected but the district judge adopted the R&R and dismissed Alorica and True Coverage from the case.4 James timely appealed. We apply the de novo standard of review that applies to dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6).5 We first address the claims against True Coverage. An employee asserting Title VII or ADEA claims must exhaust administrative remedies before suing in federal court. That means James had to file “a timely charge with the EEOC”6 within 300 days of the adverse employment actions she _____________________ 1 The complaint also asserts retaliation claims against the former employers, but James forfeited those claims by failing to brief them on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The complaint also asserts non- employment claims against Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC. After Alorica and True Coverage were dismissed and the claims against Fidelity narrowed in the district court, James voluntarily dismissed her suit without prejudice to refile in state court. 2 See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–634. 3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). 4 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 5 See Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).