Arthur Overby v. Boeing Global Staffing ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                               NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 14-1683
    ___________
    ARTHUR R. OVERBY,
    Appellant
    v.
    BOEING GLOBAL STAFFING; VERIFICATIONS INC
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-13-cv-01540)
    District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    July 3, 2014
    Before: FISHER, JORDAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: July 8, 2014 )
    ___________
    OPINION
    ___________
    PER CURIAM
    Arthur R. Overby appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing his
    complaint with prejudice. We will affirm.
    I.
    On May 24, 2011, Overby received an offer of employment to work at The Boeing
    Company1 beginning at the end of June 2011. However, on July 8, 2011, after he had
    relocated to South Carolina from Pennsylvania for the position, he was notified that he
    would not be hired because of the results of an investigation into his background and
    criminal history. On July 16, 2013, Overby initiated paperwork to file a charge with the
    Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (“EEOC”) alleging that he had been
    discriminated against on the basis of his race. In a notice dated September 11, 2013, the
    EEOC informed Overby that his claim was time-barred because he had waited too long
    after the date of the alleged discrimination to file his charge, but it stated that Overby
    could file a lawsuit based on his charge in federal or state court within 90 days of his
    receipt of the notice.
    On October 24, 2013, Overby filed a complaint in the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Pennsylvania against The Boeing Company and Verifications,
    Inc., the company that had conducted the background check. He alleged discrimination
    in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with
    Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and he sought damages for his travel expenses and lost wages.
    The Boeing Company filed a motion to dismiss, which Verifications, Inc., joined. After
    finding that Overby’s claims were time-barred because he had failed to file a charge with
    1
    According to Appellee Boeing Global Staffing, the proper name for the corporate entity
    2
    the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory action, the District Court granted
    the defendants’ motion and dismissed Overby’s complaint with prejudice. Overby
    appeals.
    II.
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and exercise plenary review
    over the District Court’s dismissal of Overby’s complaint. See Tourscher v.
    McCullough, 
    184 F.3d 236
    , 240 (3d Cir. 1999). To survive a motion to dismiss, a
    plaintiff must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
    Twombly, 
    550 U.S. 544
    , 570 (2007). In conducting our review, we liberally construe
    Overby’s pro se filings. See Higgs v. Att’y Gen., 
    655 F.3d 333
    , 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
    III.
    Overby challenges the District Court’s determination that his claims were time-
    barred. Plaintiffs bringing discrimination claims under Title VII and the ADA must
    exhaust their administrative remedies by filing an administrative charge with the EEOC
    within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Mandel v.
    M & Q Packaging Corp., 
    706 F.3d 157
    , 164-65 (3d Cir. 2013); Churchill v. Star Enters.,
    
    183 F.3d 184
    , 190 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying the administrative procedures of Title VII to
    ADA claims). Overby argues that his complaint was timely because he filed it with the
    District Court within 90 days of receiving notice of the EEOC’s decision to close its file
    being sued is The Boeing Company. We will therefore refer to it by that name.
    3
    on his charge. Regardless of whether his complaint was timely filed, he could not pursue
    his claims in the District Court because he did not properly exhaust them. After The
    Boeing Company informed Overby that he was no longer hired on July 8, 2011, he
    waited until July 16, 2013 to file a charge with the EEOC. As July 13, 2013, was more
    than 300 days after July 8, 2011, we agree with the District Court’s decision to dismiss
    Overby’s complaint. See Watson v. Eastman Kodak Co., 
    235 F.3d 851
    , 854, 857 (3d Cir.
    2000).
    Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment in favor of The Boeing
    Company and Verifications, Inc.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1683

Judges: Fisher, Jordan, Per Curiam, Roth

Filed Date: 7/8/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024