Third Circuit addresses allegedly discriminatory PIP

Description

Abstract: A performance improvement plan (PIP) is supposed to help an employee keep his or her job. But does requiring an employee to participate in a PIP constitute an adverse employment action that could establish the basis for an age discrimination case? This article discusses a case that addressed that question, while a sidebar looks at another case that dealt with whether failure to investigate a discrimination complaint constitutes an adverse employment action. Citations: Reynolds v. Department of Army, No. 10-3600, July 22, 2011 (3rd Cir.). Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, No. 97-569, June 26, 1998 (Supreme Court). Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., No. 08-5013, May 14, 2010 (2nd Cir.)