Overview
- The First Circuit, which ruled March 13, affirmed summary judgment for HNTB after finding Joann Walsh’s 2019 performance plan did not change her title, pay, duties, or chances to advance.
- Because the plan only documented performance concerns and set improvement goals, the court said it was not an adverse action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
- Applying the Supreme Court’s 2024 Muldrow decision, the court stressed that a plaintiff must show some concrete change to the terms or conditions of employment.
- The panel also rejected Walsh’s constructive-discharge claim, finding a supervisor’s comments about younger replacements did not make her workplace intolerable or signal an imminent firing.
- The decision outlines a fact-specific approach in which PIPs that add duties, alter title or pay, or limit transfers or promotions can still be adverse actions, guiding employers to keep plans remedial and well documented.