On March 13, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in Walsh v. HNTB Corp. that placing an employee on a performance improvement plan (PIP) did not constitute age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because the working conditions remained the same.

• In Walsh v. HNTB Corp., a former employee sued an architectural design firm for age discrimination and constructive discharge after it placed her on a performance improvement plan (PIP).
• The First Circuit found that the facts of this case did not meet the standard for an adverse employment action established with the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis.
• While a PIP may be an adverse employment action, if it negatively impacts the terms and conditions of employment, the mere fact of a PIP is not enough.

After a performance review cited some concerns, HNTB Corp. placed an information technology worker on a PIP in 2019, which she successfully completed. She resigned in 2020 at the age of fifty-five and sued for age discrimination and constructive discharge. She said her supervisor told her that she could “be replaced with younger, cheaper people” and that the company was “not getting its return on investment” on her.

The employer argued that it decided to implement the PIP because of performance issues and not as pretext for age discrimination.

On December 21, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiswFBVV95cUxOa2ZzTHZhTkp0MUJsWmRmTG9V...