Jones v. City of Dallas (5th Cir. 2025): Forfeiture of Appellate Issues, Specific EEOC-Facts Requirement for ADA Retaliation, and the “Nearly Identical” Comparator Rule in Title VII Pay Claims

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (unpublished, Rule 47.5.4) | Date: August 29, 2025 | No.: 24-10803

Introduction

This appeal arises from a long-running employment dispute between Jacqueline Jones, an African-American female and disabled veteran, and the City of Dallas. After nearly two decades of service, Jones was terminated following a federal funding expenditure shortfall in grants she helped manage. She filed an EEOC charge and sued alleging Title VII race discrimination (unequal pay), Title VII retaliation (including retaliation linked to her prior lawsuit, “Jones I”), and ADA claims for both failure to accommodate and retaliation for seeking accommodations.

The district court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding that Jones failed to exhaust her administrative remedies on all claims except Title VII unequal pay; and on the exhausted unequal pay claim, she failed to establish a prima facie case because her proffered comparator (a white colleague, Lori Davidson) was not “nearly identical.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Although unpublished, the decision offers a clear roadmap on three recurring issues in employment litigation in the Fifth Circuit:

• Preservation and forfeiture when a party fails to raise arguments before the magistrate judge and only raises them in objections.
• What is required in an EEOC charge to exhaust an ADA retaliation claim—mere generalities are insufficient.
• The strict “nearly identical” comparator requirement in Title VII pay-disparity cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City on all claims. The court’s central holdings are:

• Forfeiture/Preservation: Jones forfeited appellate review of exhaustion arguments for her Title VII claims (other than unequal pay) and her ADA failure-to-accommodate claim because she failed to brief exhaustion in response to the City’s summary judgment motion and attempted to raise those arguments for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s report. Under Fifth Circuit law, that is too late.
• ADA Retaliation (Exhaustion): Although the City did not raise exhaustion on ADA retaliation, the magistrate judge did so sua sponte. The magistrate’s report provided notice and an opportunity to object; Jones’s objection was non-specific and did not address ADA retaliation. The Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error and found none. Even on the merits, the EEOC charge lacked the factual specificity needed to exhaust an ADA retaliation claim.
• Title VII Unequal Pay (Merits): Jones failed to make a prima facie case of pay discrimination because her comparator, Davidson, was not “nearly identical.” Davidson’s advanced credentials (CPA and law degree), subject-matter expertise, broader responsibilities (including staffing boards/commissions, longer work hours), and grant-funded status materially distinguished her from Jones.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Shambaugh & Son, L.P. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 91 F.4th 364 (5th Cir. 2024): A linchpin on preservation. When a party fails to present an argument to the magistrate judge and raises it for the first time in objections, the issue is forfeited—period—even on appeal. The panel relied on Shambaugh to hold Jones forfeited exhaustion arguments she never briefed in response to summary judgment but attempted to raise only in objections.
• Freeman v. County of Bexar, 142 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1998): Parties may not use a magistrate as a “sounding board” for testing arguments. Reinforces the procedural discipline the court applied in affirming forfeiture.
• Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2015): If a party fails to object to findings in a magistrate’s report, the district court reviews for clear error, and the appellate court reviews for plain error. Used to measure Jones’s failure to lodge specific objections (Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)).
• Sneed v. Austin ISD, 50 F.4th 483 (5th Cir. 2022): If a party does not argue plain error on appeal where required, the issue is forfeited. The panel noted Jones’s failure to mount a proper plain-error challenge.
• Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338 (5th Cir. 1994): Issues not raised in the opening brief are abandoned. The court used this to underscore that Jones did not adequately attack certain exhaustion rulings on appeal.
• Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2021): A court may dismiss sua sponte only after notice and an opportunity to respond. The magistrate’s report provided that notice; Jones had the chance to object.
• Magouirk v. Phillips, 144 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 1998): Confirms that a magistrate judge’s report functions as sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard before a sua sponte dismissal is adopted.
• Melgar v. T.B. Butler Publ’g Co., Inc., 931 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2019); Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1970); McClain v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 519 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2008); Ayorinde v. Team Indus. Servs., Inc., 121 F.4th 500 (5th Cir. 2024); Jennings v. Towers Watson, 11 F.4th 335 (5th Cir. 2021):
  • Collectively set out the scope-of-charge doctrine for administrative exhaustion. Courts examine the factual statement in an EEOC charge, construing it broadly and looking slightly beyond labels to substance, but the charge must still provide enough facts to trigger investigation and conciliation.
  • Applied here to hold that Jones’s ADA retaliation references were too generalized—no specifics on what accommodation, when, or to whom—to exhaust that claim.
• Williams v. Tarrant County College Dist., 717 F. App’x 440 (5th Cir. 2018): An example where an ADA retaliation claim was exhausted: the employee identified dates, decision-makers, and supporting documentation. Used to contrast Jones’s sparse charge.
• Taylor v. UPS, 554 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2008); Badgerow v. REJ Props., Inc., 974 F.3d 610 (5th Cir. 2020); Mitchell v. Mills, 895 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2018); McElroy v. PHM Corp., 622 F. App’x 388 (5th Cir. 2015); Jackson v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 601 F. App’x 280 (5th Cir. 2015):
  • These govern the McDonnell Douglas framework and, crucially, the stringent “nearly identical” comparator rule for Title VII pay claims.
  • Badgerow emphasizes assessing actual responsibilities and conditions, not job titles. McElroy, Jackson, and Taylor underscore that differing responsibilities, credentials, and contexts defeat comparator status and thus the prima facie case.
• Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243 (5th Cir. 2017): If the district court conducts de novo review despite no objections, the appellate court may do so as well. The panel noted the point but found that the unequal pay claim failed even under de novo review.
• Clark v. Champion Nat’l Sec., Inc., 952 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2020): Courts need not reach steps two and three of McDonnell Douglas if the plaintiff fails to make a prima facie showing.

Legal Reasoning

1. Preservation and Forfeiture Before the Magistrate Judge
   • The City’s summary judgment motion squarely argued exhaustion on most claims. Jones’s response brief did not address exhaustion at all. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment on non-exhaustion.
   • Jones then attempted to argue exhaustion for the first time in her objections to the report. Under Shambaugh, issues not raised before the magistrate are forfeited—objections cannot rescue them; appellate review is foreclosed.
   • This reasoning disposed of all claims except Title VII unequal pay and ADA retaliation (for the latter, the City hadn’t raised exhaustion).
2. ADA Retaliation: Sua Sponte Exhaustion and Specific Objections
   • For ADA retaliation, the magistrate judge sua sponte found non-exhaustion. That was permissible because the report gave notice and Jones had the chance to object. She did, but her objection was a single paragraph that discussed ADA exhaustion only in general terms and did not mention retaliation specifically.
   • Rule 72(b)(2) requires “specific” objections. The district court adopted the recommendation; the Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error and found none. On appeal, Jones again failed to distinctly challenge the ADA retaliation ruling, further abandoning it under Cinel.
   • Even if reached, the panel concluded the EEOC charge did not exhaust ADA retaliation. Although Jones said she requested accommodations and was fired, she did not specify the nature of the accommodations, timing, who denied them, or any connecting facts. By contrast, charges deemed sufficient (e.g., Williams) identify decision-makers, dates, and supporting documentation.
3. Title VII Unequal Pay: No Prima Facie Case Without a “Nearly Identical” Comparator
   • Under McDonnell Douglas, a Title VII pay plaintiff must first show she is in a protected class and paid less than a similarly situated comparator outside the class for substantially the same work and responsibility.
   • Although Jones and Davidson had the same title (Contract Solutions Specialist), titles are not determinative. The court examined responsibilities, qualifications, and work conditions.
   • Davidson’s CPA license and law degree, her designation as a subject-matter expert, her broader responsibilities (including staffing boards and commissions), her longer workdays (often 12 hours), superior performance history with higher merit increases, and the fact that her role was grant-funded (which typically paid more) collectively made her not “nearly identical” to Jones.
   • Because comparator evidence failed at step one, the court did not reach the City’s proffered non-discriminatory reasons or pretext.

Impact

While unpublished and nonprecedential under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4, the decision is a cautionary and practical guide for employment litigants and counsel in the Fifth Circuit:

• Preservation discipline is decisive. Parties must address every dispositive ground raised in a summary judgment motion before the magistrate judge. Arguments raised for the first time in objections are forfeited. Practically:
  • Respond to exhaustion, timeliness, jurisdiction, and all procedural defenses in the initial opposition.
  • When objecting to a magistrate’s report, state claim-by-claim, issue-by-issue, with pinpointed citations, how and why the report is wrong.
• EEOC charges must include factual specifics for ADA retaliation. Checking a box or making general assertions that one asked for accommodations and was fired is insufficient. Provide:
  • What accommodation was requested, when, and to whom it was sent.
  • Any documentation (e.g., medical notes) and the employer’s response.
  • How the adverse action connects temporally or causally to the request.
• Comparator selection in pay claims is make-or-break. In the Fifth Circuit, “nearly identical” means more than the same title. Counsel should:
  • Match education, licensure, certifications, specialized expertise, and supervisory or collateral duties.
  • Account for funding sources (grant-funded vs. general fund), performance histories, and work hours/assignments.
  • Expect courts to treat material differences as fatal at the prima facie stage.
• Magistrate-judge practice matters. A magistrate’s report is notice. If it raises issues sua sponte, parties must object specifically or face plain-error review and likely affirmance.
• Strategic litigation planning. The decision illustrates that even meritorious-sounding narratives can fail because of procedural missteps (non-exhaustion, inadequate objections) and weak comparators. Front-load the record with detail at the administrative and summary judgment stages.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Before suing under Title VII or the ADA, an employee must file an EEOC charge describing the discriminatory acts. Only claims reasonably expected to grow out of the facts stated are “exhausted” and can proceed in court.
• EEOC Charge Specificity for ADA Retaliation: Retaliation claims based on seeking accommodations need more than broad statements. The charge should specify what was requested, when, to whom, the employer’s response, and how the request relates to the adverse action.
• Preservation/Forfeiture (Magistrate Context): If a party doesn’t raise an argument before the magistrate judge but later tries to inject it via objections, the Fifth Circuit treats the argument as forfeited for appeal. Objections must be “specific” under Rule 72(b)(2).
• Plain Error Review: A stringent appellate standard applied when a party fails to properly object below. The appellant must show a clear, obvious error that affected substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness of the proceedings.
• McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting: A three-step framework: (1) employee makes a prima facie case; (2) employer articulates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason; (3) employee shows pretext. If step (1) fails, the claim fails without reaching steps (2) and (3).
• “Nearly Identical” Comparator (Title VII Pay Claims): A comparator must be truly similar in qualifications, responsibilities, and conditions. Courts look past job titles to actual duties, credentials, performance trajectory, and structural context (like funding sources).
• Sua Sponte: When a court raises an issue on its own. It may do so if it provides notice and an opportunity to respond—here, via the magistrate’s report.

Additional Observations

• Context undermining discriminatory inference: The record showed a third Contract Solutions Specialist (an African-American woman) earning less than Jones. While not dispositive, such facts can blunt an inference of race-based salary disparity when the central comparator has materially different credentials and duties.
• Performance-based compounding. The opinion notes that Davidson’s consistently higher performance ratings generated larger compounding merit increases over time—another non-discriminatory differentiator courts credit at the prima facie stage.
• Scope of the ruling. The panel expressly did not reach whether the City’s articulated reasons were pretextual, because the comparator failure ended the analysis at step one of McDonnell Douglas.
• Nonprecedential status. The court designated the opinion as unpublished under Rule 47.5.4. While not binding, it is persuasive and aligns with established Fifth Circuit doctrine.

Conclusion

Jones v. City of Dallas underscores three core lessons in Fifth Circuit employment litigation. First, preservation is paramount: arguments not raised before the magistrate judge are forfeited, and non-specific objections are inadequate under Rule 72(b)(2). Second, ADA retaliation claims must be specifically exhausted at the EEOC stage; generalized allegations that accommodations were requested and later denied or followed by termination will not suffice. Third, Title VII pay claims live or die at the comparator stage: “nearly identical” demands close alignment across qualifications, responsibilities, performance history, and structural factors like funding sources.

For practitioners, the decision delivers practical guideposts: draft detailed EEOC charges, select comparators with rigorous care, and litigate preservation issues proactively at the magistrate stage. Substantively, the ruling reflects the Fifth Circuit’s consistent approach to exhaustion and comparator analyses. Procedurally, it is a stark reminder that appellate success often hinges less on the ultimate merits than on careful adherence to the rules that govern how those merits are presented to the court.