This month, in Walsh v. HNTB Corporation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court finding that placing an employee on a performance improvement plan (PIP), by itself, does not rise to the level of a per se legally redressable “adverse employment action” under federal anti-discrimination laws.
While the decision in Walsh explains that the inquiry “is fact-intensive and PIP-specific,” it offers guidance for determining how a PIP can be implemented without constituting an “adverse action.”
Brief Background
The plaintiff worked several years for the defendant as an information technology employee. In August 2019, the company placed the plaintiff on a three-month PIP, which she successfully completed. Almost a year later, she resigned.
The plaintiff then brought suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging that the company had discriminated against her based on her age by placing her on a PIP, and that this ultimately forced her constructive discharge.
The Court’s Decision
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts sided with the defendant, granting its motion for summary judgment and holding that the PIP at issue did not constitute an adverse employment action. The plaintiff appealed, relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision Muldrow v. City of St. Louis. In Muldrow, the Court held that Title VII does not impose a “heightened threshold of harm,” and that an employee need not show a “material”...
Panaji: The Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Goa, has strongly refuted allegations being circulated on social media and certain media platforms regarding a so-called "Rs 1,000 crore sc...