The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on August 7, 2026, in the case of Mark Pannek and Thomas Strotman against U.S. Bank National Association, affirming some claims while reversing others. This decision impacts employees who allege workplace discrimination and retaliation, particularly in cases involving ethics complaints and hostile work environments.
Pannek and Strotman, former employees of U.S. Bank, claimed that the bank retaliated against them after Pannek filed an ethics complaint regarding their supervisor's inappropriate behavior. They also alleged that they faced a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment. The district court had previously granted summary judgment to U.S. Bank on all claims, but the appellate court found that some issues warranted further examination.
Background
Mark Pannek and Thomas Strotman were hired by U.S. Bank in 2017. Strotman served as vice president of governance control, while Pannek was vice president of third-party risk. Both reported to their supervisor, John Gemrich. Their working relationship deteriorated after Pannek reported Gemrich for inappropriate comments and behavior, including a betting incident during a meeting.
In March 2018, after attending a workplace conduct training, Pannek filed an ethics complaint against Gemrich. This complaint led to an investigation by U.S. Bank, which ultimately substantiated Pannek's claims. However, shortly after the investigation, both Pannek and Strotman were terminated, which they argued was retaliation for Pannek's complaint.
The Ruling
The Sixth Circuit Court, led by Judge Andre B. Mathis, reviewed the claims of retaliation and hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court found that a factual dispute existed regarding the retaliation claims, stating, "When viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Pannek and Strotman, a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether U.S. Bank fired them in retaliation for the ethics complaint." The court affirmed the dismissal of the hostile work environment claims, ruling that U.S. Bank was entitled to an affirmative defense against liability.
The ruling emphasized that while Pannek and Strotman established a prima facie case for retaliation, U.S. Bank's reasons for termination could be challenged. The court noted, "A reasonable jury could conclude that U.S. Bank's supposed reduction in force did not motivate its decision to terminate Pannek and Strotman." The judges involved in the decision included Mathis, Richard Allen Griffin, and Alice M. Batchelder, who concurred in part and dissented in part.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for workplace discrimination cases, particularly those involving retaliation for reporting unethical behavior. The court's decision to reverse the summary judgment on the retaliation claims allows Pannek and Strotman to pursue their case further, potentially leading to a trial where a jury can evaluate the evidence.
The ruling also reinforces the importance of proper workplace conduct and the need for employers to have effective mechanisms in place to address complaints. It highlights the legal protections available to employees who report misconduct, as well as the potential consequences for employers who fail to adhere to those protections.
What's Next
Pannek and Strotman may now proceed with their retaliation claims in the lower court. The case could potentially go to trial, where they will have the opportunity to present their evidence. There is no indication that U.S. Bank plans to appeal this ruling at this time.