Where (1) a plaintiff who resigned from her job later brought suit alleging that the defendant employer committed unlawful age discrimination by placing her on three-month performance improvement plan (PIP) and (2) the defendant was awarded summary judgment on the ground that no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the PIP constituted an adverse employment action, the judgment should be affirmed because the plaintiff has not shown how the PIP altered her employment conditions.
“Joanne Walsh worked for many years as an information technology (‘IT’) employee for HNTB Corporation in its Boston, Massachusetts office. In August 2019, the company placed Walsh on a three-month performance improvement plan (‘PIP’) that she successfully completed. About ten months later, Walsh resigned. She then sued HNTB alleging, inter alia, that the company committed unlawful age discrimination, primarily by placing her on the PIP and then constructively discharging her.
“The district court granted HNTB summary judgment on the grounds that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the PIP constituted an adverse employment action or that Walsh resigned in circumstances that constituted a constructive discharge. Walsh appealed. In response, HNTB challenged the timeliness of the appeal and defended the judgment on the merits. We conclude that the appeal is timely and affirm the judgment. …
“After her resignation, Walsh sued HNTB in Massachusetts state court, asserting claims under the Age...
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...