Anyone familiar with educator employment has likely heard the terms PIP, PDP, or FIP before. PIPs, short for Professional Improvement Plans, are generally the first attempt of an employer to change the behavior of an employee. Understandably, many people find being placed on PIPs surprising and very stressful, this is particularly true when an individual has been with an employer for decades only to find themselves suddenly placed under a microscope. Placement on a PIP can make an individual to feel targeted and harassed, which leads to the obvious question, can a PIP by itself be discriminatory? A recent decision from a federal appellate court addresses just this issue. See Perret v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 770 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2014) (hat tip to the Laconic Law Blog for pointing this case out). Hit the jump for the analysis… Continue reading
Tag Archives: Protected Class
In Missouri, in order to make a claim for discriminatory harassment, the individual has to be able to show four things:
- The individual is a member of a protected class (race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, or age);
- The individual suffered harassment related to their protected class;
- The harassment occurred because the individual belonged to the protected class; and
- A “term, condition, or privilege” of the individual’s employment was affected by the harassment.
The question faced in a recent Missouri appellate decision is whether the fourth requirement can be met even in a scenario where someone has not suffered from one specific act that caused economic harm. Fuchs v. Dept. of Revenue, WD77155 (Mo. App. W.D. Aug. 26, 2014). Hit the jump for the details… Continue reading