Arthur Overby v. Boeing Global Staffing, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: FISHER, JORDAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 4.

Case: 14-1683

Document: 003111672437

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/08/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

Case: 14-1683

Document: 003111672437

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/08/2014

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

Case: 14-1683

Document: 003111672437

Page: 3

Date Filed: 07/08/2014

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 timebarred. 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

Case: 14-1683

Document: 003111672437

Page: 4

Date Filed: 07/08/2014

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