KEVIN HAMM v. PULLMAN SST, INC. - Articles

All Content

KEVIN HAMM v. PULLMAN SST, INC.

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Feb 17, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Nanette L. Cortese, THE CORTESE LAW FIRM, PLLC, Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Karel Mazanec, VENABLE LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Nanette L. Cortese, THE CORTESE LAW FIRM, PLLC, Bingham Farms, Michigan, Scott P. Batey, BATEY LAW FIRM, PLLC, Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Karel Mazanec, VENABLE LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Judge(s): GILMAN, GRIFFIN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Kevin Hamm says that his coworkers at Pullman SST, Inc., ridiculed him for months after they learned he was bisexual. When Hamm formally reported this abuse, an HR employee interviewed nine of his coworkers. All nine denied harassing Hamm or witnessing harassment. Although the HR employee could not corroborate Hamm’s claims, she still decided to require all employees to review Pullman’s antidiscrimination policy as a preventative measure. She also agreed to transfer Hamm to a new worksite and allowed him to take medical leave. While on leave, though, Hamm raised concerns with all the alternative assignments offered to him. Pullman thus terminated Hamm. He sued Pullman under Title VII and Michigan law, claiming that the alleged abuse created a hostile work environment and that the termination was in retaliation for his sexual-harassment complaint. The district court rejected both claims at the summary-judgment stage. It correctly held that Hamm could not hold Pullman liable for the abuse because it took proper actions upon learning of his allegations. And it correctly held that Hamm did not present enough evidence to show that Pullman’s reason for ending their relationship (his refusal to accept any other job assignment) was pretext for discrimination. We thus affirm.

Attachments: