In this Title VII employment discrimination action, Harry Howard appeals from the order of the District Court 1 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. § 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 fifteen-employee 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, 117 S.Ct. 1694, 137 L.Ed.2d 821 (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 plaintiffs allegations carry no presumption of truthfulness).

Accordingly, we affirm.