A PIP exists to do two things: give the employee a real chance to improve, and document that you did. A PIP written to justify a decision already made does neither — it hands the plaintiff's attorney a dated exhibit showing exactly when the company started building a file. These are the eight checks that separate the two.
Why it matters: "Improve attitude" and "be more of a team player" are subjective standards a jury can't verify and a biased manager can move at will — which is precisely how plaintiffs frame them. Vague goals also make the outcome unauditable: no one can say whether the employee met them, so the termination decision looks discretionary.
Check: Each goal has a number, a deliverable, or an observable behavior, tied to the actual job description — "close rate at or above 15%," "zero missed filing deadlines," not "show more commitment."
Why it matters: The most damaging question in a deposition: "If the performance was so bad, why is there no documentation before the PIP?" A PIP that materializes fully formed — especially after a raise, a good review, or a protected complaint — reads as pretext. The PIP should be the culmination of documented feedback, not the first written record.
Check: Prior reviews, one-on-one notes, or coaching emails corroborate the issues the PIP cites. If the last performance review says "exceeds expectations," reconcile that gap in the PIP itself.
Why it matters: Temporal proximity — a PIP landing days or weeks after a discrimination complaint, an FMLA request, a workers' comp claim, or a wage question — is the most common circumstantial evidence in retaliation cases, and retaliation claims now outnumber every other charge type at the EEOC. The performance issues may be entirely real; the timing still writes the plaintiff's opening statement.
Check: Before issuing, confirm whether the employee has engaged in protected activity recently. If yes, the pre-existing documentation (check #2) needs to be airtight, and legal review before delivery is cheap insurance.
Why it matters: Discrimination cases are won on comparators: "Two reps missed quota; only the 55-year-old got a PIP." Inconsistent application of performance management across employees with similar records — by age, race, sex, disability, or any protected class — is the core of a disparate-treatment claim, and your own records will be discovered.
Check: Others with similar performance issues have been handled similarly. If not, be prepared to articulate the legitimate difference — and write it down now, not after the charge arrives.
Why it matters: Two traps. First, if the employee has disclosed (or discloses during the PIP) that a disability affects performance, the ADA interactive process is triggered — you may hold them to the same standards, but you must explore reasonable accommodations before pressing forward. Second, FMLA-protected absences cannot count against attendance or productivity metrics; a PIP that penalizes protected leave is interference on its face.
Check: Metrics exclude protected leave, and any disability disclosure routes to the accommodation process before the PIP clock keeps running.
Why it matters: A 14-day PIP for goals that take a quarter to demonstrate, with no training, no check-ins, and no resources, tells a jury the outcome was predetermined — the PIP was theater. Courts and juries understand the difference between a genuine improvement plan and a paper trail being constructed.
Check: The duration matches the goals (30/60/90 days are common), scheduled check-ins are on the calendar, and the plan names the support provided — training, shadowing, reprioritized workload.
Why it matters: Language cuts both ways. "Successful completion will result in continued employment" is a promise that can outlive at-will status; "failure will result in termination" boxes you into firing someone who improved 90% of the way. Meanwhile, a manager's email saying "we just need the PIP on file before we let him go" is the single most quoted document in wrongful termination discovery.
Check: The PIP states that it doesn't alter at-will employment, outcomes "may include further action up to and including termination," and — critically — managers are coached that emails about the PIP are discoverable.
Why it matters: A PIP that starts with weekly check-ins and goes silent after week two suggests the employer stopped caring about improvement — or never did. The close-out matters most: a written summary of whether each goal was met, with evidence, is what makes the eventual decision (either way) defensible.
Check: Every scheduled check-in happened and produced a dated note; the PIP closes with a written outcome assessment against each goal, shared with the employee.
Upload it and see what 100+ compliance checks flag — checked against 100+ issues attorneys look for, in about 60 seconds.
Scan your PIP freeNo account required · PII redacted before analysis · Original file never stored
Generally no for at-will employees — but if your handbook or past practice promises progressive discipline, skipping it invites a claim. The legal risk isn't in skipping a PIP; it's in running one inconsistently across employees.
Long enough that improvement is genuinely possible — commonly 30, 60, or 90 days. A two-week PIP for quarter-long goals reads as a formality on the way to a predetermined outcome.
You can, but close timing between protected activity and adverse action is classic retaliation evidence. Real performance problems should be documented from before the complaint — if the paper trail starts the week after, expect it to be the centerpiece of the claim.
You may hold employees with disabilities to the same standards, but a disability disclosure triggers the ADA interactive process — explore accommodations before continuing. It's both required and your strongest evidence the outcome wasn't predetermined.
No. The signature acknowledges receipt, not agreement — the document should say so. If they refuse, note the refusal with a witness and deliver a copy.
This guide is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment law varies by state and changes frequently; consult a licensed employment attorney about your specific situation. DefensibleHR.ai scan results are AI-generated starting points for review, not a substitute for counsel.