Case Information
*1 Before B AUER , E ASTERBROOK , and H AMILTON , Circuit Judges .
H AMILTON , Circuit Judge . Davin Hacke was a police of- cer for the City of South Bend. He asserts that the city dis- criminated and retaliated against him in violation of the Uni- formed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq . The district court granted sum- mary judgment in favor of the city. On appeal, Hacke raises a new hostile work environment claim. Because this new argument was forfeited and Hacke fails to confront the grounds for the district court’s decision, we a ffi rm. I. Facts and Procedural History
Because we review a grant of summary judgment, we pre- sent the facts in the light most favorable to Hacke , the non- moving party, but we do not vouch for them. Knopick v. Jayco, Inc. , 895 F.3d 525, 527 (7th Cir. 2018).
A. Facts
Hacke was a patrolman in the South Bend Police Depart- ment from 2006 until his resignation in 2017. During this time, he also served as a military reservist with the Air National Guard and worked with aircraft weapons systems.
In 2014, the police department circulated a job posting for hazardous device technicians on its bomb squad. In addition to listing the duties and responsibilities the position entailed, the notice said that the positions were “probationary and con- tingent upon” training and certi fi cation through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Hazardous Device School. Member- ship on the bomb squad did not constitute a promotion or im- mediately a ect an o ffi cer’s pay, but it could lead to addi- tional work and specialty pay after the o ffi cer completed the certi fi cation process. applied but was not among the three o cers se-
lected for the bomb squad positions. He testi ed that he had a candid discussion about the selection with the city’s director of human resources. She told Hacke that he was the most quali ed candidate but was not selected because of his pend- ing seven-month deployment and future National Guard commitments.
Hacke tt then fi led complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the United States Department of Labor alleging that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his military service. After the Department of La- bor began investigating the claim, the city changed course and o ff ered Hacke tt one of the bomb squad positions. When Hack- e tt joined the bomb squad, however, two of the new members were informed that one would have to give up his position to make room for Hacke tt .
Even after he was assigned to the bomb squad, Hacke tt was never able to participate fully. At his rst practice session, the bomb squad commander—Sergeant Cau ff man—had Hacke tt sit at a desk while others participated in the training. Hacke tt tried to a tt end another session, but the other o ffi cers on the bomb squad drove away when they saw him. Hacke tt called Cau man to con rm the time of the practice, but he re- ceived no response and left. And unlike other o ffi cers who started at the same time he did, Hacke did not receive an o ffi ce key or materials explaining the process for a ending the FBI’s Hazardous Device School. Word had spread that Hack- e was placed on the bomb squad because of his complaints. Other o ffi cers resented the fact that someone had to be re- moved to make room for him. One of the o cers at risk of losing his spot on the bomb squad posted on Facebook that Hacke was a “Blue Falcon,” which we are told is military slang for “buddy f****r.” felt that he was unfairly excluded from bomb
squad training because he stood up for his rights against dis- crimination based on his military service. He voiced these concerns to the human resources department and the chief of police. When the human resources department began investigating, Hacke tt ’s direct supervisor told him that he should not a tt end bomb squad practices while the investiga- tion was pending. Soon thereafter, bomb squad practices were limited to certi fi ed technicians, meaning that Hacke tt would be unable to participate. Hacke tt never a tt ended another bomb squad training.
In 2015, at roughly the same time as the bomb squad con- fl ict, Hacke tt applied for a promotion to patrol sergeant. Hacke tt was deployed with the Air National Guard when ap- plicants were scheduled to interview and submit samples of their “best work.” The police department moved Hacke tt ’s in- terview to accommodate him. Because of his deployment, however, Hacke tt was unable to submit his work sample until several days after the interview. The police department ranked the applicants based on their interviews and work samples, but the ranking was done before Hacke ’s work sample was on le. Hacke was ranked sixth, and only the top three applicants would be recommended for promotion. But two of the candidates ranked above him were disquali- ed , and Hacke would have been among the top three re- maining candidates if his late work sample score had been added to the initial score. Hacke , however, was not among the three candidates recommended to the chief of police for promotion.
B. District Court Proceedings sued the city alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of military status in violation of the Uniformed Ser- vices Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq . He alleged that the city retaliated against him by excluding him from the bomb squad and discriminated against him by failing to promote him to sergeant because of his military deployment.
The city moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim, conclud- ing that the city’s exclusion of Hacke from the bomb squad did not constitute a materially adverse employment action. Exclusion from the bomb squad did not cost Hacke pay, rank, or job duties, and the court found that the future bene ts of membership on the squad were too speculative to support a claim. The district court also granted summary judgment on ’s failure-to-promote claim, concluding that no rea- sonable jury could nd that the promotion process was tainted by any impermissible motive.
II. Analysis
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Gates v. Board of Educ. , 916 F.3d 631, 635 (7th Cir. 2019). Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a ma er of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In reviewing a grant of summary judg- ment, “we construe all facts, and draw all reasonable infer- ences from those facts, in favor of the nonmoving party.” Gates , 916 F.3d at 636, quoting Whi aker v. Northern Illinois University , 424 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (alterations omit- ted).
The refrains of summary judgment are familiar: “a court may not make credibility determinations, weigh the evidence, or decide which inferences to draw from the facts.” Johnson v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp. , 892 F.3d 887, 893 (7th Cir. 2018), quoting Payne v. Pauley , 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003). But this standard is easier to recite than to apply. In fact-in- tensive cases, credibility traps abound, and courts must be alert to avoid them. Id. at 894. We not only allow but expect jurors to draw on prior experience in drawing inferences from the facts. Arreola v. Choudry , 533 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2008), citing United States v. O ʹ Brien , 14 F.3d 703, 708 (1st Cir. 1994). We must consider generously the full range of possible infer- ences, and we a rm the district court only when no reason- able jury could have found for the plainti s. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
A. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act is the current version of a long line of federal stat- utes that have protected uniformed service members from employment discrimination. See Crews v. City of Mt. Vernon , 567 F.3d 860, 864 (7th Cir. 2009), citing the Veterans’ Reemployment Rights Act of 1974; see also 20 C.F.R. § 1002.2 (tracing lineage of veterans’ employment protection statutes back to Selective Training and Service Act of 1940). This case involves three distinct varieties of claims under the Act: (1) discrimination based on service obligation; (2) retaliation for invoking rights provided by the Act; and (3) hostile work environment based on protected status.
The Act’s antidiscrimination provision provides in rele- vant part: “A person who … has an obligation to perform ser- vice in a uniformed service shall not be denied … any bene fi t of employment by an employer on the basis of that … obliga- tion.” 38 U.S.C. § 4311(a). A “bene t of employment” includes “the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, includ- ing any advantage, pro t, privilege, gain, status, account, or interest … that accrues by reason of an employment contract or agreement or an employer policy … .” § 4303(2). The em- ployee bears the burden of proving that the employer’s action was motivated at least in part by the employee’s service or obligations, at which point the burden shifts to the employer to show that the action would have been taken anyway. § 4311(c)(1).
Like most employment discrimination statutes, the Act also expressly protects employees from retaliation from their employers for invoking the Act’s protections: “an employer may not discriminate in employment or take any adverse em- ployment action against any person because such person ... has taken an action to enforce a protection … or has exercised a right” provided by the Act. 38 U.S.C. § 4311(b). We have in- terpreted the term “adverse employment action” in parallel with that term’s meaning in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq . See Crews , 567 F.3d at 869. “Ma- terially adverse actions include termination, demotion accom- panied by a decrease in pay, or a material loss of bene ts or responsibilities, but do not include ‘everything that makes an employee unhappy.’” Id. , quoting Lapka v. Cherto ff , 517 F.3d 974, 986 (7th Cir. 2008). In the context of retaliation claims, an employment action may be considered “materially adverse” if it “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White , 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006) (quotation marks omi ed) (applying Title VII retaliation pro- vision), quoting Rochon v. Gonzales , 438 F.3d 1211, 1219 (D.C. Cir. 2006), in turn quoting Washington v. Illinois Dep’t of Reve- nue , 420 F.3d 658, 662 (7th Cir. 2005). A plainti must also show that the retaliatory action was motivated at least in part by his or her invocation of rights and protections provided by the Act, at which point the burden shifts to the employer to prove that it would have taken the adverse employment ac- tion anyway. 38 U.S.C. § 4311(c)(2).
We have not decided whether hostile work environment claims are cognizable under the Act, but we assume for the purpose of this appeal that they are. As described above, the Act states that a “bene t of employment” includes “the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Id. § 4303(2). This is the same language used in Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. , that provides the textual basis for hostile work environment claims under those statutes. See Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson , 477 U.S. 57, 64 (1986) (hostile work environment claims cognizable un- der Title VII); Ford v. Marion Cty. Sheri ffʹ s O ffi ce , 942 F.3d 839, 852 (7th Cir. 2019) (hostile work environment claims cogniza- ble under ADA). Congress speci cally added this language to the Act just months after the Fifth Circuit had held that hostile work environment claims were not cognizable precisely be- cause the Act lacked this exact term. Compare Pub. L. No. 112- 56, § 251, 125 Stat. 711, 729 (2011) (amending 38 U.S.C. § 4303(2)), with Carder v. Continental Airlines, Inc. , 636 F.3d 172, 178–79 (5th Cir. 2011).
A plainti bringing a hostile work environment claim must prove that: (1) he was subject to unwelcome harassment; (2) the harassment was based on his protected status; (3) the harassment was su ciently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive atmosphere; and (4) there is a basis for employer lia- bility. Luckie v. Ameritech Corp. , 389 F.3d 708, 713 (7th Cir. 2004) (Title VII), citing Williams v. Waste Mgmt. of Ill. , 361 F.3d 1021, 1029 (7th Cir. 2004).
B. Forfeiture of the Hostile Work Environment Claim The only claim Hacke tt raises in his appellate brief is one he did not raise in the district court. Hacke tt argues on appeal that he was subjected to a hostile work environment. But by failing to bring this argument before the district court, Hack- e has forfeited it. Gates , 916 F.3d at 641. In his brief opposing summary judgment, Hacke asserted only two claims: (1) a retaliation claim based on his invocation of his rights under the Act and his e ff ective exclusion from the bomb squad; and (2) a discrimination claim based on the failure of the city to promote him to sergeant.
The conduct underlying Hacke ’s newly raised hostile work environment claim is the same as that underlying his retaliation claim, but these are legally distinct theories with di ff erent elements. At summary judgment, though not neces- sarily in a complaint, a plainti ff needs to spell out these dis- tinct theories separately, at least to the extent that the brief gives the district judge fair notice that the theory is being as- serted. See id. (reversing summary judgment on Title VII hos- tile environment claim but holding that retaliation claim based on the hostile conduct was waived); Pu ff er v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 675 F.3d 709, 719–20 (7th Cir. 2012) (a rming summary judgment; plainti presenting Title VII claim on pa ern-or- practice theory could not pursue new disparate-impact the- ory on appeal). Because the hostile work environment claim was not raised in the district court, we will not consider it on appeal.
C. Forfeiture of Arguments for Reversing Summary Judgment ’s brief on appeal does not actually engage with the district court’s stated reasons for granting summary judgment on his retaliation and discrimination claims. A few headings make passing references to retaliation and the fail- ure to promote. But Hacke does not tell us what constituted an “adverse employment action” or describe how the speci c measures taken against him might rise to the level of adverse action. Hacke does not mention Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White , 548 U.S. 53 (2006), or otherwise ad- dress the district court’s reasoning that, in the absence of ef- fects on pay, bene ts, or immediate job prospects, Hacke could not show any materially adverse employment action. [1] Indeed, neither the word “retaliation” nor any variant of it ap- pears in the body of the brief’s argument section. Nor does address the causal relationship between his military service and the police department’s decision not to promote him to sergeant. He does not tell us how a reasonable jury could conclude that the alleged scoring error was motivated at least in part by his military service, as he must to prevail. See Velazquez-Garcia v. Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc. , 473 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir. 2007).
An appellant who does not address the rulings and rea- soning of the district court forfeits any arguments he might have that those rulings were wrong. Webster v. CDI Indiana, LLC , 917 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 2019); Klein v. O ʹ Brien , 884 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2018) (“[A]n appellate brief that does not even try to engage the reasons the appellant lost has no pro- spect of success.”); see also Ulrey v. Reichhart , 941 F.3d 255, 260 (7th Cir. 2019). It is not enough for Hacke to tell us that he is “advancing the same arguments he made in the district court.” Appellant’s Br. at 16. For us to consider those argu- ments, he needed to present them, not just gesture at them.
In short, on appeal Hacke relies on an entirely new hos- tile environment theory, and on the claims he presented to the district court, he has failed to engage with the district court’s reasoning, let alone shown there was any reversible error. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
[1] The material-adversity standard articulated by the district court— focusing exclusively on rank, pay, and immediate job opportunities—may well have been too narrow as applied to retaliation claims. Recall that for retaliation claims, an employment action can be “materially adverse” if it “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or support- ing a charge of discrimination.” White , 548 U.S. at 68 (quotation marks omitted) (applying Title VII retaliation provision). Determining whether an action has the power to persuade requires sensitivity to the particular circumstances of the employee. See Washington v. Illinois Dep ʹ t of Revenue , 420 F.3d 658, 662 (7th Cir. 2005). And the Act’s discrimination provision— which the retaliation serves to protect—covers service members regarding “benefits of employment,” defined broadly to include any “advantage, profit, privilege, gain, status, account, or interest.” 38 U.S.C. § 4303(2).