Joanne Walsh v. HNTB Corporation

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), this Court held that an employee challenging discrimination “with respect to [her] . . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” need show only “some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment,” not harm that is “significant.” Id. at 354-355. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act uses the same operative language. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). Assuming that respondent placed petitioner on a formal performance improvement plan because of her age, the court of appeals held that the plan, which imposed biweekly progress meetings, monthly formal reviews, mandatory tasks, and a written warning that noncompliance “will lead to further disciplinary action, up to and including termination,” did not affect her terms or conditions of employment, because it did not change her title, pay, assigned duties, or advancement opportunities and she was employed at will. The question presented is whether a formal performance improvement plan that subjects an employee to heightened supervision, mandatory tasks, and a written threat of discharge discriminates against her “with respect to [her] . . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” under Muldrow, even when the plan does not alter her title, pay, formal duties, or advancement opportunities and she is employed at will.