Put simply, a performance improvement plan is designed to improve performance, not expose employers to liability. Courts used to see it that way too. That changed when the Supreme Court redefined what counts as an adverse employment action — and suddenly PIPs were in play.

TL;DR: An IT employee placed on a three-month performance improvement plan that she successfully completed did not suffer an adverse employment action under the ADEA. The First Circuit, applying the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, held that a PIP constitutes an adverse action only if it actually changes the terms or conditions of employment — and this one didn’t. The court also rejected the employee’s constructive discharge claim, finding that quitting ten months after finishing the PIP, with no one telling her to leave and no evidence of intolerable conditions, did not amount to a forced resignation.

📄 Read the First Circuit’s decision