8legs: First circuit court of appeals decision in walsh v. hntb corporation

#1 out of 1

First Circuit: A PIP Does Not Necessarily Constitute an Adverse Employment Action | JD Supra

The First Circuit held a performance improvement plan may be non-actionable counseling if it doesn’t change employment terms.
Court applies the Supreme Court’s ‘some harm’ standard to determine whether a PIP is an adverse action.
Two PIP categories were identified: non-adverse counseling vs. potential adverse action if terms change.
The PIP in Walsh did not assign new duties, alter compensation or title, or restrict internal mobility.
The decision notes the employee was at-will before, during, and after the PIP.
Employers should clearly state the PIP’s purpose to improve performance and not alter terms.
The ruling provides a roadmap for applying Muldrow’s standard to PIPs in practice.
The First Circuit covers Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island.
The article highlights the ongoing relevance of Muldrow in evaluating employment actions.
The piece emphasizes reviewing PIP templates to ensure compliance with Walsh and Muldrow.

Vote 0