News & Analysis as of

Performance Improvement Plans › Title VII

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL

PIP This: The Expansion of Actionable Adverse Employment Decisions in the Wake of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL on

Over the course of the last year, employers have faced increased claims from employees testing what constitutes an actionable adverse action under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Seventh Circuit Says Summary Judgment Stands: Evidence Does Not Support FCA Retaliation

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment decision dismissing a former employee’s False Claims Act (“FCA”) retaliation suit. Lam v. Springs Window Fashions, LLC, No. 21-2665, 2022 U.S. App....more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Fifth Circuit Relied on ‘Next to No Evidence’ of Animus in Discrimination Suit

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,... on

On May 13, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer, finding that a fired employee had failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext. In Owens...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Fourth Circuit Says Placing Employee on PIP Not Discrimination Under Title VII

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

Employers routinely use Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) to notify employees of job performance issues. If an employee believes that they have unfairly been placed under a PIP, can this form the basis for an employment...more

4 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide