BlogLine

Sixth Circuit reiterates employer’s responsive obligations to employee’s complaint(s) of co-worker harassment

2/23/26

By: Nicholas Franos

In Hamm v. Pullman SST, the Sixth Circuit upheld summary judgment for Pullman SST against Kevin Hamm’s complaints of harassment and claim of retaliation. This decision serves as a strong reminder for employers that the implementation and enforcement of anti-discrimination policies are evaluated under standards of good-faith and reasonableness, affording employers meaningful discretion where they act on an honest belief.

Factual Background

Kevin Hamm (“Plaintiff”) reported to Pullman’s (“Defendant’s”) Human Resources Department that coworkers had mocked him for months after learning he was bisexual. HR investigated by interviewing nine coworkers, none of whom confirmed the alleged harassment; instead, they reported concerns about Plaintiff’s job performance. Even though the investigation did not substantiate Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant did not treat the matter as closed.

Despite finding no corroboration, Defendant took several preventive steps, including issuing a warning, requiring anti‑harassment training, reminding all employees of its discrimination policies, offering Plaintiff a transfer, and granting extended medical leave. While on leave, Plaintiff objected to each alternative assignment offered and ultimately refused all available positions. Defendant then concluded that Plaintiff had voluntarily resigned and ended his employment.

Plaintiff sued under Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott‑Larsen Civil Rights Act, claiming he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on sexual orientation and was retaliated against for filing his complaint.

The Sixth Circuit’s Ruling

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Defendant, finding no basis for liability for co-worker harassment or retaliation. The Court sidestepped the question of whether Plaintiff experienced a hostile work environment and instead focused on employer liability. Because the individuals alleged to have harassed Plaintiff were co‑workers, not supervisors with authority to take tangible employment actions, Plaintiff was required to show Defendant acted negligently in responding to his complaint.

Unfortunately for Plaintiff, however, the Court held that he had not and could not do so. This is because Defendant promptly investigated the accusations, issued a warning, required anti‑harassment training, reiterated its anti‑discrimination policies, and offered Plaintiff an opportunity to transfer work assignments. These actions were deemed to be reasonably calculated to stop any potential harassment, even though the investigation did not corroborate the plaintiff’s allegations. The Court emphasized that employers are not required to credit uncorroborated allegations where they have conducted a prompt, good-faith, and reasonable investigation.

The Court also upheld dismissal of the retaliation claim under the “honest belief” rule. Even if Plaintiff disputed declining alternative assignments, Defendant reasonably believed he had refused them, which was enough to defeat the claim of wrongful termination.

Lessons for Employers

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling offers employers several important reassurances, and practical guidance, on handling harassment complaints:

• Good-Faith Investigations Protect Employers: Employers are not required to substantiate every allegation, but they must be able to demonstrate that they responded promptly and conducted a fair, good-faith investigation into the complaint.
• Prompt Reasonable Corrective Action is Enough: Even where an investigation does not corroborate the alleged misconduct, employers satisfy their legal obligations by taking reasonable steps calculated to prevent and address potential harassment.
• “Supervisor” Status is Narrow: When the alleged harassers are coworkers rather than supervisors with authority to take tangible employment actions, employer liability turns on negligence, not strict or vicarious liability.
• The Honest Belief Rule Continues to Protect Employers in Retaliation Cases: An employer’s reasonable, good-faith belief regarding an employee’s conduct or decisions, such as refusing alternative work assignments, can defeat a retaliation claim, even if the employee disputes the underlying facts.
• Policies Still Matter: The Court favorably noted the employer’s anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies, reinforcing that well-drafted and consistently enforced policies remain a critical foundation for defending workplace harassment claims.

For more information, please contact Nicholas Franos at nicholas.franos@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.