Gregory Hickman v. Amazon Fullfilment, 662 F. App'x 176

In Sept. 2015 Gregory Hickman (and nominally Parry Kennedy) filed a three‑sentence complaint against Amazon Fulfillment asserting unclear claims potentially invoking Title VII, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and state law related to workplace injury and discrimination.
Amazon moved to dismiss; the District Court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under EEOC/PHRC requirements.
Hickman filed an Amended Complaint in Jan. 2016 describing temporary employment via Kelly Services and an earlier foot injury, but still did not allege filing a charge with the EEOC or PHRC or attach any administrative exhaustion documents.
Amazon moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to exhaust and failure to state a claim; Hickman submitted an informal response referencing employer internal reports and vague discrimination facts.
The District Court dismissed the Amended Complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and denied further leave to amend as futile because Hickman had multiple chances and did not cure the exhaustion defect.
Hickman appealed; the Third Circuit affirmed, finding waiver of any developed appellate argument and, on the merits, agreeing that exhaustion was not pled and amending further would be futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hickman satisfied administrative‑exhaustion prerequisite for federal/state discrimination claims	Hickman contended (vaguely) he had exhausted remedies but did not identify EEOC/PHRC filings or provide supporting documents	Amazon argued Hickman never alleged or produced any EEOC/PHRC charge or evidence of exhaustion	Court: Hickman failed to allege or show exhaustion; dismissal for failure to exhaust affirmed
Whether leave to amend should be granted after dismissal without prejudice	Hickman did not present a cogent request or show how amendment would cure exhaustion defect	Amazon argued further amendment would be futile given repeated notice and failure to cure	Court: Denial of further leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion; further amendment would be futile

Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 1993) (appellate briefing standards and waiver)
Inst. for Sci. Info., Inc. v. Gordon & Breach, Sci. Publishers, Inc., 931 F.2d 1002 (3d Cir. 1991) (appellate waiver for inadequate briefing)
Al‑Ra’Id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28 (5th Cir. 1995) (pro se litigants not exempt from briefing requirements)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Anjelino v. N.Y. Times Co., 200 F.3d 73 (3d Cir. 1999) (standards for employment discrimination litigation)
Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013) (Title VII and PHRA exhaustion requirements)
Churchill v. Star Enters., 183 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 1999) (ADA exhaustion requirement)
Spence v. Straw, 54 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 1995) (Rehabilitation Act exhaustion requirement)
In re Adams Golf, Inc. Secs. Litig., 381 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2004) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for denial of leave to amend)
Mayview State Hosp. v. ???, 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (internal employer reports do not substitute for EEOC/PHRC exhaustion)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (standards for granting leave to amend)