A PIP Is Not Inherently Discriminatory

A longtime employee of an architectural firm in Boston was placed on a performance improvement plan. She completed the plan successfully, but quit less than a year later and sued for age discrimination (she was in her 50s) and constructive discharge, alleging that the PIP was imposed because of her age. She also claimed the employer had ceased giving her pay increases and had reassigned some of her job duties. The case eventually ended up before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Both the lower court and the circuit court found that the PIP was not discriminatory, even under the “relaxed” standards given by the Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis.  

While little detail is presented in the write-up of the above case, the employer obviously was able to substantiate their positions, illustrating the point that strong documentation is always necessary whenever engaging in disciplinary actions.