“Post-Muldrow, then, there is no one-size-fits-all answer for whether a PIP constitutes an adverse employment action.”
After finding that a long-tenured HNTB employee’s motion to extend the notice of appeal deadline served as the functional equivalent of a notice to appeal, the First Circuit affirmed summary judgment against the 55-year-old’s ADEA claim. The PIP upon which she had been placed, and which she had successfully completed, was not an adverse action under Muldrow and she failed to show that comments by her supervisors while she was on the PIP, including that she could “be replaced with younger, cheaper people,” together with post-PIP conduct, were sufficient to establish constructive discharge (Walsh v. HNTB Corp., No. 24-1499 (1st Cir. Mar. 13, 2026)).
As a Technology Support Representative II, the employee supported the infrastructure company’s IT systems across multiple offices. From 2015 to 2017, she declined her supervisor’s suggestion she consider advancing to the TSR III position.
PIP. In 2018, a new supervisor gave her a “met expectations” on her performance review but noted that her review was “the lowest in the range” and stated that she lacked “initiative to stretch beyond the day-to-day and status quo of the Boston area offices.” She was subsequently placed on a three-month performance improvement plan at the same time as a slightly older colleague. The PIP indicated that she was “perceived to be an impediment to the success/performance of the...
exporters knowingly avoided U. S. duties on Asian and European flat-rolled steel products, agreeing to pay $19 million to resolve the dispute, according to a press release issued Wednesday by the U...