Harry Howard v. Hunter First Presbyterian etc., et al, No. 09-2133 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Employment discrimination. Dismissal for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
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 John Goodwin; Pastor Ed Cowan; * [UNPUBLISHED] The Session Worship Committee, * * Appellees.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. 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). § 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. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
