Opinion
No. 19-1192
10-08-2019
NANCY MASSENBURG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. INNOVATIVE TALENT SOLUTIONS, INC.; LEE AIR CONDITIONERS, INC., Defendants - Appellees, and ASHLEY HUNT, d/b/a Innovative Talent Solutions; UNNAMED CLIENT DISCRIMINATORY HIRING POLICY, enforced for, by Ashley; KIM KORANDO, ITS, Inc. legal representation, Defendants.
Nancy Massenburg, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Marie Barber-Jones, HARTZOG LAW GROUP, Cary, North Carolina; Katie Weaver Hartzog, Katie Terry Jefferson, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Dieter Mauch, HEDRICK MURRAY BRYSON KENNETT & MAUCH, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:16-cv-00957-D) Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nancy Massenburg, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Marie Barber-Jones, HARTZOG LAW GROUP, Cary, North Carolina; Katie Weaver Hartzog, Katie Terry Jefferson, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Dieter Mauch, HEDRICK MURRAY BRYSON KENNETT & MAUCH, PLLC, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Nancy Massenburg appeals the district court's order granting Innovative Talent Solutions, Inc.'s ("ITS") motion for summary judgment, granting Lee Air Conditioners, Inc.'s ("Lee Air") motion to dismiss, granting in part ITS's motion to strike Massenburg's second amended complaint, dismissing as moot Massenburg's motion to compel, striking Massenburg's supplemental claims, dismissing as moot Defendants' remaining motions, and denying Massenburg's remaining motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Massenburg v. Innovative Talent Sols., Inc., No. 5:16-cv-00957-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
The fact that Massenburg filed her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge against Lee Air after she added Lee Air as a Defendant in the civil action was not a sufficient ground on which to dismiss the discrimination claim brought against Lee Air pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2018). See Henderson v. E. Freight Ways, Inc., 460 F.2d 258, 260 (4th Cir. 1972) (providing that, when right-to-sue letter is issued prior to dismissal of case, it "validate[s] the pending action"). However, we conclude that any error was harmless because Massenburg's Title VII claim against Lee Air is time-barred. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e)(1). --------
AFFIRMED