Full Opinion

Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-50975 November 5, 2026 ____________ Thomas B. Plunkett, III Clerk Jameka Eleazer, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Oracle America, Incorporated, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:24-CV-777 ______________________________ Before Willett, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jameka Eleazer brought Title VII claims against Oracle America, her former employer, after she was terminated. Eleazer alleged racial discrimination and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Oracle, concluding that Eleazer had failed to state a prima facie case of racial discrimination and that, separately, she had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies regarding retaliation. We affirm. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 25-50975 I. A. Plaintiff-Appellant Jameka Eleazer, a black woman, was hired by Oracle America (Oracle) in February 2019. Eleazer began her employment as a Business Development Consultant (BDC), an entry-level position which, though labeled a sales job, did “not have responsibility for booking or closing any actual sales.” The main role of a BDC was to find sales opportunities and share them with Oracle team members responsible for closing deals. Eleazer was promoted to the position of Application Sales Representative (ASR) in July 2020. As an ASR, her role shifted from merely identifying sales opportunities for her team to selling new products and product expansions to existing Oracle clients. Concurrently, Eleazer became responsible for satisfying sales attainment and sales pipeline generation quotas, as well as meeting key performance indicators (KPIs) regarding phone calls made, emails sent, meetings scheduled and attended, and product demonstrations given. As an ASR, Eleazer reported to Mike Miezo until he left Oracle in 2022. Thereafter, she reported to Nicole Levitt—Eleazer’s “Area Manager” and second-level supervisor—for the remainder of the 2022 Fiscal Year, which ran from June 1 to May 31. Levitt completed Eleazer’s Fiscal Year 2022 performance review. Levitt gave Eleazer “needs improvement” ratings in the review’s three categories, labeled “overall summary,” “performance goals,” and “competencies.” In the “overall summary” category, Levitt noted that Eleazer had met 62% of her annual sales attainment quota in FY22 and that, in FY23, Eleazer should take “a more proactive approach to engagement and developing a compelling event that may not already exist.” In the 2 Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 25-50975 “performance goals” category, Levitt remarked that Eleazer “understands that lack of urgency and reactiveness . . . resulted in deals being left on the table” during the fiscal year. Eleazer’s self-assessment, included in the FY22 review, painted a rosier picture. While acknowledging that she “did not meet 100% of [her quota]” for the year, Eleazer gave herself an “exceeds expectations” score in the review’s three categories. Eleazer remarked that she had “fostered great relationships” and spoke broadly of her growth. Eleazer closed by stating that she was “better equipped to engage in a more efficient way” in FY23 and that she was “excited to share [her] progress” moving forward. Garrett Miller, a Regional Sales Manager, replaced Levitt as Eleazer’s first-level supervisor in June 2022. Eleazer’s performance continued to suffer. Miller documented Eleazer’s performance deficiencies in a performance management log. Miller noted that Eleazer “lack[ed] a sense of urgency,” “regularly missed various deadlines,” and “failed to complete tasks in a timely manner.” He stated that Eleazer “lacked the ability to drive her own sales without relying on significant assistance,” either from Miller or her assigned field team. For her part, Eleazer contended that Miller interfered with her work by micromanaging her, changing aspects of her deals without permission, and revising sales opportunities she had forecasted without permission. Eleazer stated that Miller was “unprofessional” and “unethical.” At one point, she equated Miller’s status as her supervisor to a form of “[w]hite supremacy.” Miller began formally to address Eleazer’s performance deficiencies in Fall 2022, when he approached Levitt (who had resumed her role as Eleazer’s second-level supervisor) and Denise Choi (the designated Human Resources Business Partner for Miller’s sales area) for advice. Thereafter, Miller held regular “performance sync” meetings with Eleazer that escalated into his issuing Eleazer a performance improvement plan (PIP) when her 3 Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 25-50975 performance continued to drag. Miller sent the PIP to Eleazer on March 29, 2023. It flagged a “[l]ack of overall attainment,” “[p]ipeline and forecasting issues,” and a “[l]ack of urgency to complete day-to-day tasks,” and it warned that Eleazer’s failure to improve could lead to her termination. Eleazer subsequently disputed the PIP in meetings with both Levitt and Choi. But Choi ultimately determined that Eleazer had not identified “anything improper” with the PIP or Miller’s handling of the situation. Levitt and Miller terminated Eleazer from her role at Oracle effective June 1, 2023, following the completion of FY23 and Eleazer’s failure to improve significantly. Eleazer’s sales quota and sales attainment metrics were then among the worst on her team, as demonstrated by the following table: Table 1 - FY23 Sales Quota Metrics for Garrett Miller’s Direct Reports Name FY23 Sales Attainment FY23 Pipeline Generation AH FY Total: 133% FY Total 62% Q1: 93%; Q2: 8%; Q3: 45%; Q4: 3% Q1: 143%; Q2: 28%; Q3: 25%; Q4: 50% AS FY Total: 110% FY Total: 98% Q1: 0%; Q2: 124%; Q3: 49%; Q4: 183% Q1: 134%; Q2: 178%; Q3: 40%; Q4: 40% AW FY Total: 66% FY Total: 64% Q1: 336%; Q2: 0%; Q3: 0%; Q4: 48% Q1: 85%; Q2: 73%; Q3: 67%; Q4: 20% JW FY Total: 64% FY Total: 120% Q1: 0%; Q2; 68%; Q3: 26%; Q4: 112% Q1: 242%; Q2: 48%; Q3: 130%; Q4: 61% JL FY Total: 41% FY Total: 62% Q1: 0%; Q2: 161%; Q3: 0%; Q4: 18% Q1: 88%; Q2: 59%; Q3: 42%; Q4: 60% Eleazer FY Total: 37% FY Total: 24% Q1: 154%; Q2 12%; Q3: 49%; Q4: 0% 1 Q1: 22%; Q2: 20%; Q3: 28%; Q4: 26% _____________________ 1 Eleazer contends that her Q4 FY23 sales attainment figure (0%) was manipulated because Levitt and Miller terminated her hours before one of her deals closed. Oracle demurs that, even were Eleazer retained until the deal closed, her FY23 attainment total would have been 50% (the second lowest on her team), and her FY23 pipeline generation total would have remained at 24%, a distant last place. 4 Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 25-50975 B. Shortly after her termination, Eleazer sought administrative redress for alleged discrimination. In June 2023, she submitted an initial inquiry form to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On the form, Eleazer stated her “reason(s) for [the] claim” as: “Race, Sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity), Retaliation—I complained to my employer about job discrimination.” On September 17, 2023, Eleazer filed a formal charge of discrimination against Oracle with the EEOC and the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division. It alleged racial discrimination, stating that “other [ASRs] who did not meet [Miller’s] expectations . . . were not discharged as a result,” nor were they “constantly presented with unprofessionalism by Garrett Miller or informally put on” PIPs for failing to meet expectations. The charge also stated that all ASRs “under the Regional Manager are non-black.” Eleazer did not mention retaliation or sex-based discrimination in the charge. Eleazer sued Oracle 2 in Texas state court on June 12, 2024, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. Eleazer alleged that Oracle committed disparate treatment racial discrimination by treating her less favorably than non-black _____________________ 2 At all relevant times, Oracle America, Inc., the defendant named in this case, was a subsidiary of (and thus distinct from) Oracle Corp., the entity named in Eleazer’s charge of discrimination. E.g., Oracle Corp., Annual Report (Form 10-K), at 114, Ex. 21.01 (June 21, 2022). Though this distinction might have been relevant for purposes of analyzing administrative exhaustion at the outset of this case, Oracle forfeited the issue by failing to raise it in the district court. See Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541, 551–53 (2019) (describing Title VII’s charge-filing requirements as non-jurisdictional and therefore forfeitable if not timely raised). Therefore, we do not analyze the issue here. 5 Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 25-50975 employees and ultimately terminating her employment. Eleazer also alleged retaliation stemming from her opposition to that discrimination. Oracle removed to federal district court and moved for summary judgment on both Eleazer’s federal and state claims. The district court granted Oracle’s motion. It held that Eleazer had not presented competent summary judgment evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she had failed to identify a non-black comparator who was treated more favorably for nearly identical conduct under nearly identical circumstances. And the court held that Eleazer had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for purposes of her retaliation claim. Eleazer timely appealed. II. The district court had jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. We have appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s grant of summary judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Gulf & Miss. River Transp. Co. v. BP Oil Pipeline Co., 730 F.3d 484, 488 (5th Cir. 2013). “‘Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A fact is material if it ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,’ and a dispute is genuine if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Clark v. Champion Nat’l Sec., Inc., 952 F.3d 570, 578 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). 6 Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 25-50975 At summary judgment,“[e]vidence is construed ‘in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and we draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.’” R & L Inv. Prop., L.L.C. v. Hamm, 715 F.3d 145, 149 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Griffin v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 661 F.3d 216, 221 (5th Cir. 2011)). However, a non-movant cannot defeat summary judgment with “speculation, improbable inferences, or unsubstantiated assertions.” Moon v. Olivarez, 26 F.4th 220, 226 (5th Cir. 2022). And “‘where the non- movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant may merely point to an absence of evidence,’ which ‘shifts to the non-movant the burden of demonstrating by competent summary judgment proof that there is an issue of material fact warranting trial.’” Stelly v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. La. State, 149 F.4th 516, 521 (5th Cir. 2025) (quoting Lindsey v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 16 F.3d 616, 618 (5th Cir. 1994)). III. We first (A) consider whether Eleazer established a prima facie case of racial discrimination. We conclude that she did not because she failed to establish a cognizable comparator. Oracle is therefore entitled to summary judgment on that claim. We then (B) hold that Eleazer failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to her retaliation claim, such that Oracle is entitled to summary judgment on that point, too. A. 1. Eleazer brings her race discrimination claims under Title VII and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. Title VII prohibits an employer from “discharg[ing] any individual, or [discriminating] against any individual with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of [her] race . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Chapter 21 prohibits an employer from “discharg[ing] any individual, or 7 Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 25-50975 discriminat[ing] in any other manner against an individual in connection with compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” “because of race . . . .” Tex. Lab. Code § 21.051. The substantive law governing claims under Title VII and Chapter 21 is “identical.” German v. Verizon Wireless Tex., L.L.C., 753 F.3d 165, 170 (5th Cir. 2014). Therefore, we analyze Eleazer’s Title VII and Chapter 21 claims together. See Allen v. Radio One of Tex. II, L.L.C., 515 F. App’x 295, 297 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court granted Oracle’s motion for summary judgment after concluding that Eleazer had failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. To establish a prima facie case, Eleazer must show that she: (1) is a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for the position at issue; (3) was discharged or suffered some adverse employment action by the employer; and (4) was replaced by someone outside [her] protected group or was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees outside the protected group. Ernst v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 1 F.4th 333, 339 (5th Cir. 2021). The parties do not dispute that Eleazer has satisfied the first three elements. They disagree about whether she satisfies the fourth. Eleazer was not replaced by a non-black employee. So, to satisfy the fourth element, Eleazer must demonstrate that a “similarly situated” non-black employee, i.e., a “comparator,” was treated more favorably than she. Id. at 340. To substantiate a “similarly situated” comparator, Eleazer must show that another individual at her job “was treated more favorably . . . under nearly identical circumstances.” Rogers v. Pearland Ind. Sch. Dist., 827 F.3d 403, 410 (5th Cir. 2016) (emphasis added). To do so, she must show that the comparator “held the same job or responsibilities, shared the same supervisor or had their employment status determined by the same person, and [had] essentially comparable violation histories.” Shahrashoob v. Texas 8 Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 25-50975 A&M Univ., 125 F.4th 641, 651 (5th Cir. 2025) (quoting Harville v. City of Houston, 945 F.3d 870, 875 (5th Cir. 2019)). Additionally, the conduct which drew the adverse employment action must have been “nearly identical.” Lee v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 574 F. 3d 253, 260 (5th Cir. 2009). If the “difference between the conduct and [that of the employee] alleged to be similarly situated accounts for the difference in treatment received from the employer,” the comparator is not similarly situated for the purposes of an employment discrimination analysis. Id. (internal citation omitted). 2. Eleazer proffers her entire former team (i.e., the five other employees overseen by Garrett Miller, shown in Table 1, supra) as potential comparators. But, while there is no dispute that these former colleagues are white, Eleazer provides no competent summary judgment evidence that they were otherwise similarly situated in terms conduct or circumstances. If anything, the record suggests that Eleazer’s conduct was worse than, not “nearly identical” to, that of her former colleagues. Oracle documented four areas in which Eleazer’s performance was subpar: (1) her sales attainment numbers; (2) her sales pipeline numbers; (3) her KPI, or sales generating, activities (e.g., making phone calls, sending emails); and (4) her general sense of urgency and proactivity. Oracle’s evidence demonstrates that Eleazer had the worst FY23 sales attainment and pipeline numbers on her team, at 37% and 24% of the annual quotas, respectively. The evidence is similar with regard to Eleazer’s KPIs and general lack of proactivity: Eleazer had averaged 56 calls and 20 emails per week between Q1 and Q3 FY23, well below the 100 calls and 25 emails per week expected of ASRs. And Oracle offers that Eleazer was flagged for lack of proactivity as early as her FY22 annual evaluation—about a year before her termination. 9 Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 25-50975 Eleazer has not provided competent evidence that any one of her colleagues performed as poorly as she did in any of these conduct areas, let alone multiple. She offers no evidence whatsoever to suggest that her KPI performance was similar to that of her colleagues, or that her overall proactivity was comparable to any of her coworkers. And even looking past those problems, Eleazer fails to show similar attainment and pipeline metrics. As to her sales attainment, Eleazer argues that she would have been “in the middle of the pack” had Oracle not terminated her hours before a sale closed in Q4 FY23. But crediting Eleazer for that sale, her FY23 attainment would still have been the second lowest on her team (and fourteen percentage points behind fourth place) at 50% attainment. As to her sales pipeline numbers, Eleazer asserts that they were lower than her colleagues’ because Miller adjusted them downward while she was employed . Again crediting Eleazer’s assertion, she provides no competent summary judgment evidence to suggest that Miller did not do the same for Eleazer’s former colleagues. It is therefore difficult to discern whether such adjustments imply distinct treatment of Eleazer. Either way, Garrett’s pipeline adjustments would not offset Eleazer’s poor performance in the other areas discussed above. Taken together, the record demonstrates that Eleazer performed worse than her teammates across multiple evaluation metrics, and Eleazer provided insufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. Nor were Eleazer’s employment circumstances “nearly identical” to those of her former colleagues. Eleazer’s violation history is dispositive on this point. While Oracle provides evidence that Eleazer was placed on a PIP prior to her termination, Eleazer does not provide evidence that any of her former colleagues were placed on similar PIPs. Indeed, the record demonstrates that Garrett Miller had not previously placed anyone else on a PIP. That none of Eleazer’s former colleagues were placed on a PIP is enough to conclude that her circumstances were not “essentially 10 Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 25-50975 comparable” to those of her former colleagues. See Alkhawaldeh v. Dow Chem. Co., 851 F.3d 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2017) (plaintiff’s proffered comparators were not similarly situated because, unlike plaintiff, they had not been placed on PIPs following poor performance). The only Oracle employee mentioned in the record with the same PIP violation history—a Hispanic individual nicknamed “VP”—ultimately suffered the same outcome as Eleazer. That is, VP was terminated. Eleazer has no response to this point, other than the argument that VP’s termination should be interpreted as further proof of Oracle’s prejudice toward racial minorities. But even ignoring the fact that such a contention is the type of “unsubstantiated assertion” that we do not credit at the summary judgment stage, Moon, 26 F.4th at 226, it is irrelevant to the prima facie Title VII racial discrimination standard, which requires Eleazer to advance a comparator treated “less favorably” than she was—not equally (dis)favorably. See Ernst, 1 F.4th at 339. Thus, Eleazer failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. B. Eleazer did not exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing her retaliation claim against Oracle. Therefore, this claim fails, too. A plaintiff seeking to bring a claim under Title VII must first file a timely charge with the EEOC and receive a notice of the right to sue to satisfy exhaustion requirements. Id. at 337; see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–5(b), (e)(1). Administrative exhaustion requirements are not jurisdictional. Fort Bend Cnty., 587 U.S. at 551–53. But they are nevertheless a “mainstay of proper enforcement of Title VII remedies” and exist to “facilitate the EEOC’s investigation and conciliatory functions and to recognize its role as primary enforcer of anti-discrimination laws.” Ernst, 1 F.4th at 337 (internal citation omitted). 11 Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 25-50975 A claim must generally arise out of a plaintiff’s EEOC charge to qualify as administratively exhausted. Id. (citing Filer v. Donley, 690 F.3d 643, 647 (5th Cir. 2012)). But a claim need not always arise from the EEOC charge form to qualify as a charge for purposes of exhaustion. Id. In some circumstances, statements made in other documents can qualify as a charge. Id. They must, however, satisfy the EEOC’s charge-filing requirements. Id. (citing EEOC v. Vantage Energy Servs., Inc., 954 F.3d 749, 753–54 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam)). One requirement is that such statements are signed and verified before a notary, an EEOC representative or other authorized person, or under penalty of perjury. Id. at 338; see also 29 C.F.R §§ 1601.3, 1601.9. Eleazer’s retaliation claim wholly fails to satisfy these exhaustion requirements. To start, it is undisputed that Eleazer did not select the box for “retaliation” on her charge of discrimination form. Nor did Eleazer mention retaliation anywhere on the charge or describe protected activity that would have provoked retaliation. So her retaliation claim was not administratively exhausted by the formal charge itself. Eleazer’s hope for satisfying exhaustion thus rests on her unsigned, unverified intake form (which mentioned retaliation)—and on our treating it like a charge, or as if it were incorporated into the formal charge form we discuss above. See Patton v. Jacobs Eng. Group, Inc., 874 F.3d 437, 443 (5th Cir. 2017). But an unverified intake questionnaire “cannot be deemed a charge” by itself. Ernst, 1 F.4th at 338 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Patton, 874 F.3d at 443). Moreover, the record does not suggest that Eleazer appended the unverified intake form to the formal charge of discrimination she ultimately submitted; the inquiry form thus cannot be considered part of the charge either. See Patton, 874 F.3d at 443. Therefore, Eleazer’s intake questionnaire does not carry the weight of a formal charge, and no genuine dispute of 12 Case: 25-50975 Document: 62-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 No. 25-50975 material fact exists on that issue. Eleazer did not administratively exhaust her retaliation claim. IV. For the reasons stated, the district court properly granted Oracle summary judgment. AFFIRMED. 13