The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to review the case of Peter Gumm, a former steel company manager who claimed he was fired for speaking out against racial bias, not for alleged misconduct. The decision leaves in place a lower court ruling favoring his former employer, AK Steel Corp., which Gumm accused of weaponizing false accusations to silence his complaint.

As is customary, the high court gave no explanation for its denial of Gumm’s July petition for certiorari, effectively closing the door on a three-year legal battle that tested the boundaries of workplace retaliation and judicial deference to employer investigations.

Fired After Speaking Out

Gumm filed suit in October 2021 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, alleging that AK Steel opened a baseless internal probe to justify firing him. He said the retaliation came shortly after he objected to the company’s decision to hire a white supervisor over a more qualified Black candidate he had recommended.

The former Dearborn, Michigan, manager contended that his firing reflected a pattern of unequal treatment within AK Steel, where Black employees were allegedly held to stricter standards. He cited incidents in which white workers were reinstated after misconduct while Black employees were not.

AK Steel’s Defense: Misconduct Allegations

AK Steel countered that Gumm was terminated for legitimate reasons, citing numerous complaints from his subordinates describing him as abrasive, demeaning, and unprofessional.

According to the company, an anonymous complaint in November 2019 accused Gumm of making racist remarks and showing hostility toward Black workers. Following an internal investigation, AK Steel said it concluded that the allegations were credible and terminated Gumm in January 2020.

By the time of his firing, AK Steel had already become a subsidiary of Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., one of North America’s largest iron ore producers, after being acquired in 2020.

Courts Side With the Company

Gumm’s argument that the firing was a pretext for retaliation failed to persuade the courts. In March, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Michigan federal judge’s decision granting summary judgment to AK Steel.

The appellate panel ruled that even if Gumm disagreed with how the investigation was handled, his objections didn’t prove the company lacked a “reasonable belief” in the accusations. The court emphasized that the short time span between Gumm’s discrimination complaint and his termination was not enough to establish retaliation without additional supporting evidence.

Gumm’s petition to the Supreme Court claimed this interpretation allowed companies to “concoct false narratives” and rely on unverified allegations to escape accountability — a trend he said undermines employee protections and the integrity of the judicial process.

Legal Teams and Aftermath

Gumm was represented by Gwen-Marie Davis Hicks of GDH Law Firm, who argued that summary judgment procedures are increasingly being used to shut down valid discrimination claims before they reach a jury.

AK Steel, meanwhile, was represented by John T. Below of Bodman PLC, who maintained that the company acted lawfully in firing Gumm after a legitimate investigation into workplace misconduct.

Neither party immediately responded to requests for comment on the Supreme Court’s decision.

With the denial, Peter Gumm’s Steel Retaliation Suit ends without further review, marking another instance where the high court declined to intervene in a workplace discrimination and retaliation dispute — leaving unresolved questions about how far employers can go in invoking internal investigations as shields against bias claims.