Davin Hackett v. City of South Bend, 956 F.3d 504

Davin Hackett, a South Bend police officer and Air National Guard reservist, applied for bomb squad technician positions in 2014 but was initially not selected because of a pending seven‑month deployment.
After Hackett filed EEOC and Department of Labor complaints, the city offered him a bomb‑squad slot that displaced another officer, generating resentment among squad members.
Once assigned, Hackett was largely excluded from training: he was asked to sit out, colleagues avoided sessions when he arrived, he lacked an office key and training materials, and a colleague disparaged him on social media.
Human Resources investigated; Hackett’s supervisor told him not to attend practices while the probe continued, and practices became limited to certified technicians, precluding his participation.
Separately, Hackett applied for promotion to patrol sergeant while deployed. The department moved his interview but his work sample arrived late and rankings (done before his sample was added) left him out of the top three recommendations despite later disqualifications of higher‑ranked candidates.
The district court granted summary judgment for the city on (1) Hackett’s USERRA retaliation claim (no materially adverse employment action) and (2) his failure‑to‑promote claim (no evidence the process was tainted). On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Hackett forfeited a new hostile‑work‑environment theory and failed to engage the district court’s reasoning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion from the bomb squad and related treatment constituted USERRA retaliation (a "materially adverse" employment action)	Hackett: exclusion from training and practical exclusion from squad participation deterred him from asserting USERRA rights and constituted an adverse action	City: no loss of pay, rank, or duties; future benefits speculative; conduct not materially adverse	Affirmed for city: district court’s conclusion stands; Hackett did not meaningfully engage the court’s reasoning on appeal
Whether failure to promote to sergeant was discriminatory under USERRA	Hackett: deployment and the department’s handling of his late work sample caused an improper denial of promotion	City: promotion process was not tainted by impermissible motive; scoring and rankings explained	Affirmed for city: no reasonable jury could find the promotion decision motivated in part by military service
Whether hostile work environment claim may be considered on appeal	Hackett: (on appeal) asserts hostile‑work‑environment based on exclusion, harassment, and ostracism	City: claim was not raised below and thus forfeited	Forfeited: Seventh Circuit refused to consider the newly raised hostile‑environment theory

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation: materially adverse standard for dissuading a reasonable worker)
Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (hostile work environment cognizable under Title VII)
Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon, 567 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2009) (USERRA protections and interpretation)
Gates v. Board of Educ., 916 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2019) (de novo review of summary judgment)
Luckie v. Ameritech Corp., 389 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2004) (elements of hostile work environment claim)