Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEXUAL HARASSMENT—6th Cir.: Bisexual construction worker, purportedly ridiculed, failed to show hostile environment, retaliation, (Feb 13, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

A coworker allegedly told him that he “looked like” a “gay faggot,” more specifically a man who had been murdered in Michigan.

A construction worker who was allegedly ridiculed for months by coworkers at Pullman SST, Inc., after they learned he was bisexual, and then fired, allegedly for refusing to accept a new job assignment when the company transferred him to another worksite, failed to substantiate his Title VII and state-law hostile work environment or retaliation claims, the Sixth Circuit affirmed. He could not show that Pullman was liable for the abuse he alleged because it took proper actions, including launching an immediate investigation and taking preventative measures to deter future harassment, upon learning of his allegations, and he did not present enough evidence to show that Pullman’s reason for ending their relationship was pretextual (Hamm v. Pullman SST, Inc., No. 25-1617 (6th Cir. Feb. 12, 2026)).

“[G]unite nozzleman.” Since high school, according to the court, the plaintiff has held several construction jobs in and around Detroit, Michigan. He eventually obtained his certification as a “gunite nozzleman,” operating equipment that sprayed concrete onto surfaces, and he started to work for Pullman in the summer of 2020.

Michigan Central Station job. Having completed several smaller jobs for Pullman, he began to undertake the gunite work on its project at Michigan Central Station. There he reported to a construction superintendent and worked alongside several crewmembers.

Alleged verbal abuse. The worker alleged that the verbal abuse started in November or early December 2021, after he told a coworker that he is bisexual. The coworker “chuckled” and told another crewmember.

“[L]ooked like” man murdered in Michigan. A short time later, the coworker allegedly told him that he “looked like” a “gay faggot,” specifically a man named Kevin Bacon—not the actor—who had been brutally murdered in Michigan.

Superintendent agreed. The construction superintendent allegedly overheard this conversation and agreed with the coworker. The construction worker’s coworkers allegedly then began regularly to refer to him “as Bacon and Kevin Bacon.”

Other offensive comments, acts. Over the next five months, coworkers allegedly made many other offensive comments. The superintendent allegedly would tell the construction worker to get his “gay ass” working or say similar things when he thought he was taking a break.

Other coworkers regularly called him a “faggot,” and they routinely asked him derogatory questions, such as whether he was “going to make out with” a male coworker. Someone wrote “fuck [plaintiff]” in the dust build-up on his car.

Reporting to construction manager. In February 2021, he reported the alleged abuse to the construction manager by phone, and the latter assured him “that he would have a talk with all the guys.” Thereafter, the situation briefly improved before coworkers “returned to their old ways” and the construction worker again complained to the manager, who again promised to “take care of it.”

Abuse continued. The abuse continued, however. Early in April, the superintendent allegedly asked him another derogatory question and called him a derogatory name. Then, on April 29, the construction worker ran into the superintendent while searching the worksite for supplies. The superintendent asked him where he was going, and when he explained what he was doing, the superintendent “started yelling at” him. The construction worker, who had already been suffering from anxiety attacks, responded that he “had to go” home and “was sick.”

Called “f***ing faggot.” The superintendent allegedly retorted, “Get the f*** out of here and go f*** yourself, you f***ing faggot.” The construction worker left the Michigan Central Station worksite never to return.

Complaint to HR. On the same day, the construction worker formally complained about the harassment to Pullman’s HR department. A senior HR manager promptly investigated and interviewed him the next day. He described his recent interaction with the superintendent and also said that the superintendent and the coworker had called him “Kevin Bacon” and “faggot” and otherwise mocked and berated him. He did not, however, reveal his sexual orientation or disclose other comments that his colleagues had made.

HR investigation. The HR manager next interviewed nine Pullman employees who had allegedly harassed him or known about the harassment. For the most part, these interviews contradicted his claims. Though the superintendent admitted that he told him to “get the fuck out of here and go fuck [him]self” when the construction worker said he was leaving on April 29, the superintendent “emphatically” denied calling him derogatory names. Ultimately, the HR manager could not “corroborate” the construction worker’s claim that other coworkers had violated Pullman’s antiharassment policy.

Preventative measures. Pullman nonetheless decided to take several preventative measures. It issued the superintendent a written warning for using inappropriate language in violation of company policies about proper behavior. And it required all Detroit field supervisors to attend in-person antiharassment training. Finally, it required all Pullman employees to reread and re-sign the company’s antiharassment policy.

Conversation with managers. On May 3, the HR manager called the construction worker, and conferenced in the construction manager, to convey her investigation’s conclusions. In response, the plaintiff said that he would never work with the superintendent or the crew at Michigan Central Station again. The HR and construction managers agreed to reassign him to another worksite.

Medical leave. The construction worker also submitted a doctor’s note indicating that he needed medical leave until May 10 due to his anxiety and panic attacks. He twice extended that leave, once until May 17 and then again until May 24. Pullman agreed to let him take this repeated medical leave over these three weeks.

Reassignment? While he remained on leave, the construction manager called him several times about possible reassignments, and he rejected fully four proposals for a variety of medical and personal reasons. A day or so after the construction manager’s fourth call, the construction worker texted him to explain that his doctor had cleared him to return to work on May 24. The manager replied: “Try me Friday afternoon bud!” Starting then, the construction worker texted the manager over several days asking about job opportunities but received no response.

Fired. He thus turned to the HR manager, who responded that he had “declined” “several jobs” “for one reason or another” even though “Pullman employees need to be ready, willing, and able to perform various scopes of work assigned to them.” She added that Pullman considered his refusal to accept work to be a “voluntary resignation” and that “Pullman does not wish to continue the employment relationship.” And although he told her that he had not refused work in follow-up texts, she did not respond further.

Lawsuit. The construction worker sued Pullman under Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). He alleged that Pullman subjected him to a hostile work environment (HWE) based on his sexual orientation, and that Pullman then fired him in retaliation for his sexual-harassment complaint.

Decision below and appeal. The district court granted summary judgment to Pullman on both claims, and the construction worker timely appealed.

HWE. Affirming, the Sixth Circuit first found that he failed to state a Title VII HWE claim. Because he could not show that the superintendent should qualify as a “supervisor” whose harassment automatically binds Pullman, the court observed, he had to show that Pullman acted in a “negligent” way by permitting this abuse, and that he could not do.

To prove this type of negligence, employees must establish that the employer “knew or should have known” of the sexual harassment but unreasonably “failed to stop it,” and to decide on the propriety of an employer’s response, the appeals court said, it asks whether that response was “reasonably calculated to end the harassment.” Here, the appeals court found, Pullman satisfied that standard because it took “prompt and appropriate” action to remedy the harassment that the worker alleged.

As a general matter, Pullman had adopted an antidiscrimination policy that both barred all employees from engaging in “sexual harassment” of coworkers and told employees how to report harassment, and more specifically here, the HR manager “launch[ed]” an immediate “investigation” once he filed an HR complaint. She interviewed him the next morning. She then interviewed nine other “[w]itnesses,” including the alleged culprits and neutral parties.

Though her interviews uncovered no evidence “corroborating” his allegations, moreover, she took preventative measures to deter future harassment. Among other things, she recommended that the construction superintendent receive a warning for using inappropriate language, that all Detroit field supervisors receive additional in-person anti-harassment training, and that all employees review and re-sign the antidiscrimination policy. Finally, she “follow[ed] up with” the worker about her findings and told him that the construction superintendent should not have used inappropriate language when interacting with him. She also agreed to his request for a transfer to another worksite.

ELCRA. The Sixth Circuit additionally noted that the worker sued under Michigan’s ELCRA, which, unlike Title VII, expressly bars employers from discriminating against employees based on their “sexual orientation.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1)(a). Here, the appeals court noted, he did not argue that it should analyze his state claims under standards different from his Title VII claims. He thus “forfeited any argument that the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act provides greater protection to employees than Title VII.”

Title VII retaliation. Finally, the construction worker’s retaliation claims were also insufficient. Because Pullman identified a neutral reason for terminating him—because of his refusal to accept any job that the construction manager proposed in May 2021—the burden shifted back to him to show that the construction and HR managers manufactured this reason to hide their retaliatory motive, and this he could not do. Whether or not the worker actually declined the many offers the construction manager proposed, he and the HR manager at least held an “honest belief” that he did, observed the appeals court, and the worker’s “own assertions” that he never denied any assignment did not suffice to overcome the honest-belief rule.

The case is No. 25-1617.

Judge: Murphy, E.

Attorneys: Scott P. Batey (Law Offices of Scott P. Batey) for Kevin Hamm. Karel Mazanec (Venable) for Pullman SST, Inc.

Companies: Pullman SST, Inc.

Cases: SexualHarassment SexDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews GCNNews