2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-8-2014

Arthur Overby v. Boeing Global Staffing

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-1683

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Arthur Overby v. Boeing Global Staffing" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 679.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/679
NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
2

I.

On May 24, 2011, Overby received an offer of employment to work at The Boeing 

Company1beginning 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 
3

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. 
4

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.