Hackman v. InductEV: The Third Circuit Reinforces Evidentiary Specificity and Record-Citation Duties in Pro Se Employment Discrimination Appeals

1. Introduction

Assata Acey Hackman, a former technician at InductEV (previously Momentum Dynamics Corporation), brought a twenty-count employment-discrimination suit alleging race- and sex-based disparate treatment, a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). After partial dismissal and a full round of discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment for InductEV on the remaining claims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a non-precedential opinion, affirmed.

Although labeled “not precedential,” the decision clarifies two recurring procedural and substantive points:

The obligation — even for pro se appellants — to support appellate arguments with precise citations to the record (Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 28.3(c)).
The sufficiency of an employer’s good-faith belief in a mediated settlement as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination, absent evidence of pretext.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Applying de novo review, the Third Circuit concluded that Hackman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on three groups of claims:

Racial Discrimination / Failure to Promote. Hackman did not demonstrate she was qualified for the Senior Technician position nor show pretext for InductEV’s refusal to “reclassify” or promote her.
Hostile Work Environment (Race & Sex). The record lacked evidence of intentional, severe, or pervasive harassment attributable to race or sex.
Retaliation. InductEV’s decision not to allow her return to work stemmed from its reasonable belief that the parties had settled and Hackman had resigned during mediation — a legitimate reason unrefuted by contrary evidence.

The appellate court criticized Hackman’s brief for sparse and often non-existent record citations, effectively forfeiting several issues. Consequently, the District Court’s judgment was affirmed in full.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) – Provided the familiar three-stage burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims. The District Court, adopted by the Third Circuit, relied on McDonnell Douglas to assess prima facie proof, the employer’s legitimate reason, and the absence of pretext.
Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2008) – Articulated the specific prima facie elements in failure-to-promote cases within the Circuit and clarified that qualification is part of the plaintiff’s initial burden.
Huston v. Procter & Gamble Paper Prods. Corp., 568 F.3d 100 (3d Cir. 2009) – Set forth the five-part hostile-environment test, mirrored under the PHRA.
Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331 (3d Cir. 2006) – Supplied the elements for a Title VII retaliation claim and emphasized causation analysis.
Jutrowski v. Township of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2018) & Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2006) – Confirmed the de novo standard for summary-judgment review and the obligation to view evidence favorably to the non-movant.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) – Cited for the rule that pro se filings are liberally construed; however, liberal construction does not excuse non-compliance with procedural rules.
In re Wettach, 811 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2016) – Applied to deem arguments absent from the opening brief as forfeited.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Third Circuit’s opinion proceeds claim-by-claim:

Disparate Treatment.
- Hackman could not satisfy the qualification prong because undisputed evaluation records and testimony showed she lacked the requisite credentialing and experience for “Senior Technician.”
- Even if the prima facie case were met, InductEV advanced a legitimate reason (lack of qualification) which Hackman failed to rebut with evidence of pretext.
Hostile Environment.
- The court dissected each alleged incident and found no evidence tying workplace slights to race or sex.
- The incidents, in any event, were neither severe nor pervasive from the perspective of a reasonable employee.
Retaliation.
- Temporal proximity between protected activity and termination was blunted by the intervening mediation that culminated in Hackman’s oral resignation.
- InductEV’s reliance on the settlement terms constituted a facially valid motive; Hackman produced no contradiction beyond speculation.

Crucially, the Third Circuit underscored Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 and Local Appellate Rule 28.3(c): arguments must be tethered to “specific parts of the record.” Hackman’s scattershot citations — many inaccurate or lacking context — doomed her evidentiary showing and forfeited several complaints.

3.3 Potential Impact

Pro Se Litigation. The case signals that while courts extend some latitude to unrepresented parties, that indulgence does not relieve them from pinpoint citation duties. Future pro se appellants in the Third Circuit may face easier dismissals if they ignore citation rules.
Mediation & Settlement Dynamics. Employers relying on a good-faith belief that an employee resigned under settlement terms may have a strong defense to retaliation claims, provided they can document the settlement discussions.
Qualification Evidence. Plaintiffs alleging discriminatory failure to promote must marshal objective proof of meeting the position’s criteria; subjective self-assessments will not suffice at summary judgment.
Appellate Practice. The opinion serves as a primer on issue forfeiture: undeveloped or unmentioned district-court rulings will not be revisited on appeal.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56): A pre-trial mechanism allowing a court to decide a case when no real factual disputes remain. If the moving party shows it is entitled to judgment under the law and the non-movant offers no contradictory evidence, the court rules without a full trial.
Prima Facie Case: The initial evidence a plaintiff must produce to raise a presumption of unlawful conduct (e.g., discrimination).
Pretext: A false reason offered by an employer to hide its actual (unlawful) motive. Demonstrating pretext typically requires evidence that the proffered reason is factually untrue or that discriminatory animus more likely motivated the decision.
Hostile Work Environment: A form of discrimination where workplace harassment is so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment.
Respondeat Superior: Latin for “let the master answer.” In employment law, it means an employer can be held liable for discriminatory acts of its employees if the employer knew or should have known and failed to correct them.
Forfeiture vs. Waiver: “Forfeiture” occurs when a party inadvertently fails to raise an argument; “waiver” is intentional relinquishment. Both preclude later review, but forfeiture can sometimes be cured if raised timely on appeal. Hackman’s omissions were treated as forfeiture.

5. Conclusion

Hackman v. InductEV does not create binding precedent, yet it offers significant guidance. The Third Circuit reiterates that:

Rule-compliant record citations are indispensable, even for pro se litigants.
A plaintiff’s inability to prove job qualification or to present evidence of discriminatory intent or pretext is fatal at the summary-judgment stage.
Employers may rely on an objectively reasonable belief in a negotiated resignation as a legitimate cause for termination.

Practitioners should view the decision as a cautionary tale: the pathway to appellate relief is paved with meticulous record management and persuasive evidentiary presentation. For employment-law defendants, the ruling affirms that thorough documentation of mediation and settlement processes can serve as a powerful shield against subsequent retaliation claims.