Title VII; “Hostile work environment” claim; Whether plaintiff could hold defendant-employer liable; Whether defendant acted negligently in failing to prevent co-workers’ abuse; Vance v Ball State Univ; Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); Retaliation claim; The honest-belief rule

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant-employer (Pullman) of plaintiff-Hamm’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims, concluding (1) Pullman took reasonable actions calculated to end the harassment and (2) Hamm failed to offer sufficient evidence that his firing for refusing to accept any other job assignment was a “pretext for discrimination.” Hamm alleged that his fellow employees harassed him once they learned he was bisexual. He reported his abuse to a Pullman HR employee, who investigated the allegations, interviewed the employees, and required them to review the company’s antidiscrimination policy. She also allowed Hamm to transfer to a new worksite and to take medical leave for anxiety and panic attacks. While on leave, he rejected offers of alternative assignments, and Pullman terminated him. He sued under Title VII and Michigan’s ELCRA, alleging hostile work environment and retaliation claims. The district court granted Pullman summary judgment. On appeal, the court noted that under Vance, where “the harasser is a ‘co-worker,’ the employee must establish that the employer acted negligently in failing to prevent the abuse.” Hamm failed to show that the allegedly abusive Station superintendent “could take tangible employment actions against him.” Thus, he did not qualify as a supervisor whose actions automatically bound Pullman. The court further held that Hamm failed to show the necessary negligence by Pullman because it had taken actions that were “‘reasonably calculated to end the harassment.’” Applying the same framework to his ELCRA hostile work environment claim, the court found that it failed for the same reasons. As to his retaliation claims, the court held that Pullman offered “a neutral reason for terminating” Hamm’s employment and Pullman had an “honest belief” that he had declined several alternative job offers.