Background
The plaintiff, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appealed a district court dismissal of her employment discrimination claims against Alorica, Incorporated and True Coverage, L.L.C. The district court had adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to meet federal pleading standards.
The court’s reasoning
The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against True Coverage because the plaintiff conceded she did not file a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court explained that equitable tolling extends a deadline but does not replace the requirement to file a charge. Regarding the claim against Alorica under Section one thousand nine hundred eighty-one, the court found the complaint failed to allege facts showing that the adverse employment actions were caused by race discrimination. The court noted that the complaint’s mention of race discrimination was too conclusory to be credited.
What it means going forward
Employment discrimination plaintiffs must strictly adhere to administrative exhaustion requirements and plead specific facts linking adverse actions to protected characteristics to survive a motion to dismiss.