Court reveals what HR must do when alleged harassers and coworkers deny the claims
A construction company that thoroughly investigated harassment claims it couldn't corroborate won dismissal of a lawsuit, offering a roadmap for HR teams facing similar complaints.
In its decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled February 12 that Pullman SST, Inc. took proper action when responding to Kevin Hamm's allegations of workplace harassment, even though the company's investigation turned up no supporting evidence.
Hamm, a construction worker specializing in gunite concrete application, told coworkers in late 2020 that he was bisexual. What happened next became the subject of sharply conflicting accounts. According to Hamm, his superintendent and crew members at the Michigan Central Station project spent five months calling him homophobic slurs and comparing him to a murdered man with a similar name. The coworkers denied everything.
The case offers lessons for HR departments navigating the gray zone between taking employee complaints seriously and making decisions when witnesses contradict the complaining employee.
Hamm first mentioned problems to his construction manager Chad Ruff in February 2021, though he declined to name names because he did not want anyone getting in trouble. Ruff spoke with the crew. When Hamm called again in March with similar concerns, Ruff promised to handle it. But Hamm said the situation continued.
On April 29, 2021, following a heated exchange with his superintendent, Hamm filed a formal complaint with human resources. Senior HR manager Grace Jacob moved quickly. She interviewed Hamm the next morning, then spoke with nine employees he identified as harassers or witnesses.
The interviews contradicted Hamm's account across the board. The superintendent admitted using profanity when Hamm left work but denied homophobic language. No one remembered the alleged nickname or slurs. Several coworkers questioned whether Hamm wanted to continue working there at all.
Jacob found herself unable to confirm what happened. Rather than dismissing the complaint, Pullman took action anyway. The company gave the superintendent a written warning for inappropriate language, sent all Detroit field supervisors to in-person antiharassment training, and required every employee to review and sign the anti-harassment policy again. Jacob also arranged to transfer Hamm to a different worksite.
Hamm went on medical leave for anxiety, extending it three times over three weeks. During that period, Ruff called repeatedly with job assignments. Hamm expressed concerns about each one. The Toledo and Cincinnati sites seemed too far from his home in Howell, Michigan. A caulking job required working at heights, which scared him. Overhead demolition hurt his shoulders. A second-shift position conflicted with doctor's appointments.
When Hamm texted in late May asking whether he still had a job, Jacob replied that his repeated refusals to accept available work amounted to resignation. Hamm sued for harassment and retaliation.
The appeals court sided with Pullman on both claims. On harassment, the judges found the company's investigation and preventative steps reasonable under the circumstances. Employers conducting good-faith investigations do not have to believe uncorroborated allegations, the court said. The fact that Pullman took corrective measures despite finding no proof showed appropriate caution.
The court also examined Ruff's earlier informal responses to Hamm's complaints. Those seemed adequate given what Hamm disclosed at the time. He had not identified himself as bisexual to Ruff, making the complaints sound more like personality conflicts than harassment based on sexual orientation.
On retaliation, the court applied what it called the honest belief rule. The question was not whether Hamm actually refused the jobs, but whether Ruff and Jacob reasonably believed he did. His responses expressing reluctance about each assignment supported their interpretation, even if Hamm never said no outright.
The February decision reinforces that prompt, thorough investigations protect companies even when the facts remain murky. Documentation matters enormously. So does taking preventative action regardless of what an investigation concludes.
