The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a published decision February 12 in *Kevin Hamm v. Pullman SST, Inc.*, an employment discrimination case that centers on allegations of workplace harassment based on sexual orientation. The decision, recommended for publication under Sixth Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 32.1(b), indicates the court viewed the case as establishing important precedent in employment law.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where District Judge David M. Lawson presided over the initial proceedings. Kevin Hamm, the plaintiff-appellant, filed suit against his former employer Pullman SST, Inc., alleging that coworkers subjected him to months of ridicule after they learned he was bisexual.
According to court documents, Hamm formally reported the alleged harassment to his employer's human resources department. The company's HR employee conducted a thorough investigation, interviewing nine of Hamm's coworkers about the allegations. All nine employees denied both harassing Hamm and witnessing any harassment directed toward him.
Despite being unable to corroborate Hamm's claims through witness testimony, the HR employee took remedial action. The company decided to require all employees to undergo additional training, though the specifics of this training program are not detailed in the available court documents.
The case proceeded through the federal court system, with oral arguments held before the Sixth Circuit on January 28, 2026. The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges Gilman, Griffin, and Murphy, with Judge Murphy authoring the opinion.
Hamm was represented by attorneys Nanette L. Cortese of The Cortese Law Firm in Bingham Farms, Michigan, and Scott P. Batey of Batey Law Firm, also in Bingham Farms. Pullman SST was represented by Karel Mazanec of Venable LLP in Washington, D.C.
The decision to recommend the case for publication suggests the Sixth Circuit viewed the ruling as establishing important legal precedent. Published decisions carry precedential weight and can be cited in future cases, unlike unpublished decisions which have limited precedential value. The recommendation indicates the court believed the case addresses significant legal issues that will guide future employment discrimination litigation.
Workplace harassment based on sexual orientation has become an increasingly important area of employment law following the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in *Bostock v. Clayton County*, which held that discrimination based on sexual orientation constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The *Bostock* decision expanded workplace protections for LGBTQ+ employees across the country.
The Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, meaning this decision will have precedential impact across these four states. Employment attorneys in the region will likely study the decision closely to understand how courts should handle similar workplace harassment claims.
The case highlights the challenges employers face in investigating harassment complaints, particularly when witness testimony conflicts with the complainant's allegations. The fact that Pullman SST's HR department could not corroborate Hamm's claims through witness interviews, yet still implemented remedial training measures, demonstrates the difficult balance companies must strike in addressing harassment complaints.
Employment law experts note that thorough investigations are crucial when harassment complaints arise. Companies must take allegations seriously while also conducting fair and impartial investigations. The decision may provide guidance on what constitutes an adequate response to harassment complaints, even when corroborating evidence is limited.
The case also underscores the continuing evolution of workplace protections for LGBTQ+ employees. As legal protections expand, both employees and employers must navigate new responsibilities and rights in the workplace. Clear company policies and consistent enforcement remain essential for preventing discrimination and harassment.
The timing of the decision, coming just over five years after the *Bostock* ruling, suggests courts are still working through the practical implications of expanded LGBTQ+ workplace protections. Each new published decision in this area helps establish clearer guidelines for both employees seeking protection and employers working to maintain compliant workplaces.
The Sixth Circuit's decision in *Hamm v. Pullman SST* will likely be analyzed by employment attorneys, HR professionals, and legal scholars as they work to understand the evolving landscape of workplace harassment law. The published status of the opinion ensures it will serve as binding precedent for future cases involving similar fact patterns and legal issues within the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction.