Key Takeaways

• Recent decisions from federal courts are providing employers with additional guidance on when a performance improvement plan (PIP) may qualify as an adverse employment action to state discrimination claims under federal law.
• The courts have held that PIPs that inform an employee about their performance deficiencies and provide corresponding ways to improve may not constitute an adverse employment action. However, those that add new and different job responsibilities, alter titles or compensation and/or limit future growth opportunities may rise to the level of an adverse employment action.

The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that lowered the threshold for what a plaintiff must demonstrate to bring a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act raised a lot of uncertainty about when an employment decision will meet the new “some harm” standard. Previously, some federal circuits required that employees had to meet a “materially adverse” or “significant harm” standard, and so much of the case law that developed for years about what employment actions may constitute adverse employment actions is now outdated. Subsequent federal court decisions are starting to clarify this issue, though, particularly with respect to the topic of corrective action plans.

Recent Court Rulings

In Walsh v. HNTB Corp., the plaintiff sued her former employer for unlawful age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiiAFBVV95cUxNVmpnYVJzVURHMDJNR1BZdm5y...