Background
Joanne Walsh, a fifty-five-year-old IT employee, sued HNTB Corporation alleging age discrimination after being placed on a performance improvement plan and subsequently resigning. The district court granted summary judgment for HNTB, ruling that the performance improvement plan was not an adverse employment action and that Walsh’s resignation did not constitute constructive discharge. HNTB also challenged the timeliness of Walsh’s appeal, arguing her notice was filed too late.
The court’s reasoning
The court first addressed the timeliness of the appeal. It held that Walsh’s pro se motion to extend the deadline, filed within the initial thirty-day period, functioned as the notice of appeal because it demonstrated an intent to appeal and contained the requisite information under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure three. The court then affirmed the summary judgment on the merits, agreeing with the district court that no reasonable factfinder could conclude the performance improvement plan was an adverse action or that Walsh was constructively discharged.
We are satisfied that her January 19 motion was the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal.
Walsh v. HNTB Corp., No. 24-1499 (1st Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision clarifies that pro se litigants may satisfy notice of appeal requirements through motions to extend deadlines if the filings demonstrate intent and contain necessary details, while reinforcing the high bar for proving age discrimination via performance improvement plans.