The following article first appeared in the Insights section of Littler Mendelson’s website. It is reposted here with permission.
Many employers use performance improvement plans, or PIPs, as a way to provide clear guidance and direction to employees.
Employees given a PIP still have a job, and typically don’t lose any pay. But can a PIP be the basis for an employment discrimination claim?
Until recently, the answer probably was “no.” Many courts in the U.S. had denied such claims, finding that placement on a PIP did not constitute a “material,” or “substantial” harm to the employee.
But in 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis concluded that there is no requirement of materiality or substantial harm to advance a discrimination claim under Title VII—rather, only “some harm” need be shown.
And for more information on the impact of that decision, refer to our Littler 2 the Point, What is the impact of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis on discrimination claims under Title VII?
Since then, courts have had to grapple with the question—when does a change in the conditions of employment rise to the level of “some harm?”
In one recent case, an employer reorganized its operations, giving an employee new job responsibilities.
Later, the employee was given a negative performance review and then placed on a PIP. They resigned a few months later and claimed that their placement on the PIP itself was abusive treatment and constituted age discrimination.
The...
Top News The Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris, says the Federal Government’s high-level delegation currently in the United States is actively confronting and corre...