Employers often ask: What steps should we take when an employee files a harassment complaint?
A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit offers a clearer answer and good news for employers who act quickly and take complaints seriously.
In Hamm v. Pullman SST, Inc., 167 F.4th 382 (6th Cir. 2026), the appellate court affirmed dismissal of the employee’s case in favor of the employer on both hostile work environment and retaliation claims. The decision gives employers a helpful roadmap, showing how employers can protect themselves and their employees by maintaining strong anti-harassment policies, conducting thorough investigations and documenting good-faith decision-making.
The plaintiff in Hamm worked for Pullman SST, Inc. and filed a formal internal complaint to the company’s Human Resources department, alleging he had been harassed for months on the basis of his sexual orientation after disclosing to a coworker that he was bisexual. The employee had previously raised informal complaints, but the issue persisted, prompting him to escalate the matter formally.
As soon as the employee filed his formal complaint, members of the Human Resources Department launched an investigation and appointed an investigator. The investigator interviewed the complaining employee and nine of his coworkers. Although the investigation was largely unable to corroborate the employee’s specific allegations of sexual orientation-based harassment, one coworker admitted to using inappropriate and expletive language toward the complaining employee. That language was unrelated to his sexual orientation.
Notably, despite the lack of corroborating evidence, the company still took meaningful preventative steps. Specifically, the company issued a written warning to the harassing employee who admitted to using expletive language, required all field supervisors to attend in-person anti-harassment training and mandated that all employees reread and re-sign the company’s anti-harassment policy. The company also reviewed the investigation findings with the complaining employee and agreed to reassign him to a new job site following his medical leave.
After failed attempts to complete the reassignment, the company accepted the employee’s voluntary resignation when he did not return to work. The employee subsequently filed suit.
The Court’s Analysis: Hostile Work Environment Claim
The appellate court found several compelling factors in issuing its ruling for the employer on the hostile work environment claim. Specifically, the court found the company’s pre-existing anti-discrimination policy with a clear reporting procedure, immediate investigation following the formal complaint, and follow-up meeting with the complaining employee regarding the findings of the investigation very favorable for the employer.
Importantly, the appellate court found that despite the investigation’s lack of corroborative findings, the company still took preventative measures to discourage any future harassment not only with other employees, but also with the complaining employee by allowing reassignment and granting medical leave.
The Court’s Analysis: Retaliation Claim
The employer said it fired the employee for a nondiscriminatory reason: he refused to accept any of the reassignment options offered to him. The appellate court agreed this reason was legitimate. In doing so, the appellate court relied on what is known as the “honest belief” doctrine.
Under this doctrine, an employer has a strong defense against a retaliation claim if it genuinely and honestly believed the reason it gave for firing the employee—even if that belief later turns out to be a mistake. The employee argued that the employer’s stated reason was really just “pretext,” meaning a false excuse covering up the real, retaliatory motive. The appellate court found no evidence to support that argument.
Key Takeaways for Employers
This decision reinforces several best practices that employers should implement—or review and strengthen—to protect their organizations:
- Maintain robust anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies. The existence of a written policy with a clear reporting procedure was a significant factor in the appellate court’s analysis. Ensure your policies are current, accessible and distributed to all employees.
- Investigate promptly and thoroughly. The company’s immediate investigation following the formal complaint was central to the court’s finding. Develop and follow a standardized investigation protocol that ensures complaints are addressed without delay.
- Take preventative action, even when evidence is inconclusive. The appellate court favorably noted that the company issued discipline, mandated training and refreshed its policy acknowledgments even though the investigation could not fully corroborate the complaint. Proactive measures demonstrate good faith.
Hamm v. Pullman SST, Inc. is a welcome reminder that employers who respond to harassment complaints swiftly and in good faith are well-positioned to defend against subsequent litigation. The appellate court’s decision underscores that courts look favorably on employers who do not wait for conclusive proof of wrongdoing before acting, but instead take meaningful, preventative steps to protect their workforce.