Is a PIP an Adverse Employment Action? Key Takeaways from Walsh v. HNTB

8 Instances in Which a PIP Wouldn’t Be an Adverse Employment Action

1. The PIP did not adversely affect the terms and conditions of employment.
2. The PIP did not result in a reduction in compensation (salary, bonuses, etc.).
3. The PIP did not alter the employee’s job title, usual job duties, or ability to seek other opportunities within the company. 
4. The PIP did not alter the employee’s work schedule, hours, and location.
5. The PIP did not alter access to health insurance, paid time off, and other employment perks.
6. The PIP was instituted as either counseling and advice to the employee, or as a formal mechanism to identify performance deficiencies and outline goals for improvement.
7. The PIP created an apprehension for future termination, but did not inflict any harm.
8. Changes addressed by the PIP were within the normal scope of employment.

8 Instances in Which a PIP Would Be an Adverse Employment Action

1. The PIP imposed material consequences that significantly alter the employee’s terms and conditions of employment.
2. The PIP tarnished the employee’s record or hinders their promotional opportunities.
3. The PIP reduced the employee’s compensation (salary, bonuses, etc.)
4. The PIP reduced or stripped the employee’s health coverage, benefits, or time-off.
5. The PIP produced a downgrade in job title, transfer to a less prestigious department, or an evident drop in the company’s hierarchy.
6. The PIP forced the employee to work highly undesirable hours, shifts, or locations.
7. The PIP imposed less-prestigious job responsibilities, strips away core job responsibilities, removes supervisory authority, or unfairly reassigns projects to other employees.
8. The PIP was used as a disciplinary punishment, or inflicts economic or professional harm.

The consideration of whether a performance improvement plan (PIP) constitutes an adverse employment action is reliant on the unique facts and is specific to each individual plan.

Adverse employment action: when an employer’s conduct leaves an employee “worse off” with respect to the terms or conditions of their employment.

Let’s look at an employment case, Walsh v. HNTB, that addresses a long-term employee’s PIP.

Walsh v. HNTB Corporation, 169 F.4th 330 (1st Cir. 2026)

Walsh v. HNTB provides an excellent case study of when a PIP does NOT constitute an adverse employment action. This case was decided on March 13, 2026.

Facts of the case

1. 1. Joanne Walsh worked for the HNTB Corporation from 1994-2020 as a Technology Support Representative II. 
   2. She was placed on a 3-month Performance Improvement Plan in 2019. 
   3. She completed the PIP in 3 (three) months, but resigned 10 (ten) months later.
   4. Walsh then sued HNTB, arguing she suffered constructive discharge due to the fact that, beginning with her PIP, her work environment diminished so much that she was forced to resign.
      • Constructive discharge is considered an adverse employment action, and Walsh argued her PIP marked the inception of that action.
      • An employee’s resignation can be considered a constructive discharge when the working conditions are extremely onerous and unpleasant.
        • The standard of working conditions is based on objective reasonableness.
      • Apprehension of future termination is not considered constructive discharge.
   5. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted HNTB summary judgment (where a case is won as a matter of law or whether there is no dispute as to the facts), ruling that the PIP did not constitute an adverse employment action. The Court also ruled that Walsh did not resign under conditions that constituted constructive discharge.
   6. Walsh appealed the decision.
   7. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court.

What Did The Court State?

1. 1. 1. Walsh’s supervisor’s comments and management style changes, albeit unpleasant to Walsh, did not create objectively intolerable conditions requiring her resignation.
      2. Walsh was not demoted, and her pay was not reduced, so the court ruled that any change in her duties was de minimis (too small to matter).

What Did Walsh’s Performance Improvement Plan State?

1. 1. 1. 1. Walsh was reluctant to take suggestions, unwilling to seek solutions, and did not extend past the status quo in terms of her job performance.
         2. Walsh, on at least one occasion, hid in the IT room and did not represent customer service well in her role.
         3. The PIP provided a list of necessary improvements to address Walsh’s problems.
         4. The PIP did not assign Walsh any new duties, alter her title or compensation, or limit her ability to seek other opportunities within the company.

Why You Need an Employment Lawyer If You’re Facing a PIP

A PIP is not always adverse; it’s often an employer’s way to help guide their employees back on the right path.

If you have any questions, consult an experienced employment lawyer in California.

We are happy to help you at San Diego Biz Law; call (619) 793-4827 Monday to Thursday from 10am to 4pm. A qualified attorney can review your situation, clarify your rights, and help protect your business from costly disputes.