Performance improvement plans (PIPs) remain a common tool for addressing workplace performance and conduct issues, but evolving discrimination standards have raised new questions about when PIPs could trigger liability concerns for employers. In the July issue of HR Laws, Partner Jill Chasson
examined a new U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals decision that offered helpful guidance on how courts may evaluate PIPs under the post-Muldrow standard for adverse employment actions.

Jill analyzed the recent Walsh v. HNTB case, which involved a long-tenured employee who claimed her placement on a PIP supported age discrimination and constructive discharge claims. The court found that the PIP did not change the employee’s pay, title, responsibilities, or opportunities, and therefore did not qualify as an adverse employment action. Still, the court affirmed that some PIPs could qualify as adverse actions, depending on their structure and implementation.

Jill noted that the ruling provides a practical framework for employers using PIPs as part of the performance management process. She advised leaders to keep PIPs focused on counseling, correction, and measurable improvement rather than punishment, while ensuring they do not alter core employment terms, limit advancement, or appear punitive in purpose or effect.

Well-versed in the many federal and state laws that govern the workplace, Jill regularly works with employers to develop key policies, resolve difficult personnel issues, and provide guidance regarding legal compliance and risk management. When disputes arise, she represents employers before administrative agencies, in arbitration proceedings, and court litigation regarding a variety of employment-related claims.

Read the full HR Laws article.