Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02133/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02133-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Lewis M. Blanton, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2133

___________

Harry Howard, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Hunter First Presbyterian Church; *

Rev. John Goodwin; Pastor Ed Cowan; * [UNPUBLISHED]

The Session Worship Committee, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 14, 2010

Filed: April 23, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this Title VII employment discrimination action, Harry Howard appeals from

the order of the District Court1

 dismissing his complaint for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction. Upon careful de novo review, see Hastings v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055,

1058 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review), we find no reversible error, see 42 U.S.C.

Appellate Case: 09-2133 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2010 Entry ID: 3657806
-2-

§ 2000e(b) (defining “employer” as a person "who has fifteen or more employees for

each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or

preceding calendar year"); Daggitt v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l

Union, Local 304A, 245 F.3d 981, 986 (8th Cir. 2001) (treating Title VII’s fifteenemployee requirement as a jurisdictional prerequisite); Devine v. Stone, Leyton &

Gershman, P.C., 100 F.3d 78, 82 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that a plaintiff has the burden

to prove federal jurisdiction), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1211 (1997); Osborn v. United

States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 n.6, 730 (8th Cir. 1990) (explaining that in a factual attack

on subject-matter jurisdiction, the court considers matters outside the pleadings and

the plaintiff’s allegations carry no presumption of truthfulness).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2133 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2010 Entry ID: 3657806