In Joanne Walsh v. HNTB Corporation, the First Circuit Court of Appeals provided further guidance concerning what actions by an employer may satisfy the “some harm” standard under Title VII, announced by the Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis.
In Muldrow, the Supreme Court held that to establish a claim of employment discrimination under Title VII, an employee only needs to show that he or she suffered an adverse employment action that caused “some harm,” and need not show that the harm was “significant.” The less stringent “some harm” standard, however, created significant uncertainty as to what changes to an employee’s terms or conditions of employment would be sufficient, or insufficient, to constitute an adverse employment action.
In Walsh, the former employee asserted a claim for age discrimination against her employer. The former employee argued that under Muldrow, she suffered multiple adverse employment actions because she was issued a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) and was subsequently subjected to allegedly hostile comments and behavior by her supervisors after she came off the PIP, resulting in her constructive discharge.
Applying Muldrow, the First Circuit disagreed with the former employee that she faced any adverse employment action. First, the Court held that a PIP is not automatically an adverse employment action; instead, it stated, the implementation of a PIP is a fact-specific inquiry that is dependent on the terms, and context, of the...
Welcome to Reality Check, NewsGuard’s nonpartisan newsletter that tracks the false claims and conspiracy theories that shape our world — and who’s behind them. Please support us by becoming a premi...