How to put an employee on a performance improvement plan
The short answer
To put an employee on a performance improvement plan, document the gap between their performance and the role's expectations, set two or three measurable goals, name the support you will give, schedule regular check-ins, set an end date (usually 30, 60 or 90 days), present it in a private meeting, and review each goal against its measure on the end date.
General information, not legal advice. This page is for general information only and isn’t legal, financial or tax advice. Laws vary by state and change; check the official source or talk to a qualified professional about your situation. Every rule on this page links to its official source.
When a PIP makes sense, how to write goals that can actually be measured, what to say when you present it, and a PIP template you can fill in here.
Pick the right document
Performance improvement planFree templateStep 1Written warningFree templateStep 2Final written warningVersion of the written warningStep 3
Steps
Tick each step as you go. Your ticks are saved on this device only.
0 of 8 done
All steps done.
What to say in the meeting
The first PIP meeting sets the tone. Be direct about the gap and equally clear about the support.
Open“I want to talk about your performance in [area] and put a plan in place so we both know exactly what success looks like.”
Gap“The role needs [standard]. Over the last [period], [what the numbers or examples show].”
Goals“This plan has [two or three] goals. For each one, here is how we will measure it.”
Support“Here is what I will do to help: [support]. We will meet [weekly] to check progress.”
Consequence“The plan ends on [date]. If the goals are met, it closes. If not, further action may be taken, up to and including termination.”
Listen“What do you need from me to make this work? You can also add your comments to the plan in writing.”
Leave out
- Presenting a PIP with goals nobody could meet in the time given
- Skipping or cancelling check-ins
- Calling it 'just a formality'
- Anything about age, race, sex, religion, disability, pregnancy, national origin or other protected characteristics
5 common mistakes
- Vague goals. 'Improve communication' cannot be measured. 'Reply to client emails within one business day' can.
- No real support. A plan that lists goals but no training, time or guidance is hard to defend as a genuine chance to improve.
- Missed check-ins. If the scheduled check-ins did not happen, the end-date review has little to stand on.
- Moving the goalposts. Changing goals halfway, without writing down why and agreeing it, undermines the whole plan.
- Timing after a complaint or leave request. If the employee recently complained about discrimination, asked for an accommodation, or took part in an investigation, review the timing and your evidence first. The EEOC's retaliation page lists a lower evaluation and increased scrutiny among actions that can count as retaliation, depending on the facts.
Rules that matter in your state
At-will employment and its exceptionsChoose your stateRules with official sources
Choose your state above to see the rule we have verified, or check it with your state labor office.
- At-will employment and its exceptions. Whether a PIP is needed before ending employment depends on your policies, any contract, and your state's exceptions.
Verified so far, by state
Each rule below was checked against official sources. States not listed have not been verified yet for these topics; check them with the state labor office.
| State | Rule and law | Verified |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | At-will employment and its exceptions: Under Hoffman-La Roche v. Campbell, the language of an employee handbook can create a binding unilateral contract that modifies at-will status, unless the handbook expressly disclaims it. (McClendon v. Liberty National Life Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-1018-WKW (M.D. Ala. 2013), discussing Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell, 512 So. 2d 725 (Ala. 1987)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Arizona | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: In Arizona employment is severable at will unless there is a written contract; a handbook or manual can create such a contract only if it expresses the intent that it is a contract of employment. Public policy: Arizona's Employment Protection Act replaced the common-law Wagenseller rule: a fired employee has a wrongful termination claim only in the circumstances the statute lists, such as discharge in violation of a state statute or in retaliation for refusing to break the law or for reporting violations. (A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(2); A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(3)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Arkansas | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Arkansas courts do not recognize a wrongful discharge claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment. Public policy: Arkansas recognizes a limited public policy exception (Sterling Drug v. Oxford): an at-will employee may sue for wrongful discharge if fired in violation of a well-established public policy of the state; it does not protect merely private interests. (Harper v. Brookshire's Grocery, No. 1:03-cv-01170-HFB (W.D. Ark. 2005), citing Gladden v. Arkansas Children's Hosp., 292 Ark. 130, 728 S.W.2d 501 (1987); Dixon v. Arkansas Surgical Hospital, No. 4:07-cv-00084-GTE (E.D. Ark. Mar. 25, 2008), quoting Palmer v. Arkansas Council on Economic Educ., 344 Ark. 461, 40 S.W.3d 784 (2001), and Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| California | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: California's statutory at-will presumption can be overcome by an agreement, express or implied in fact, that the employee will be fired only for good cause; courts look at the totality of circumstances, including personnel policies, length of service, employer assurances and industry practice (Foley; Guz v. Bechtel). Public policy: California recognizes a tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.), an exception to the at-will rule of the Labor Code. (Order, No. 3:19-cv-04397 (N.D. Cal.), citing Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 336 (2000); Order, No. 4:13-cv-02835-DMR (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2014), citing Tameny v. Atl. Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167 (1980)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Colorado | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Colorado does not allow a tort claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an employment contract (Decker v. Browning-Ferris); the public-policy wrongful discharge tort serves that role. Implied contract: Colorado recognizes an implied-contract exception: termination policies in a handbook or manual can bind the employer if they were an offer the employee accepted by starting or continuing work (Continental Air Lines v. Keenan); a clear and conspicuous disclaimer defeats the claim. Public policy: Colorado recognizes a tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz): a fired employee has a claim if the discharge contravenes a clear mandate of public policy. (Colorado Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, Chapter 31, Notes on Use, citing Decker v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 931 P.2d 436 (Colo. 1997); Colorado Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, Chapter 31, Instruction 31:4, Notes on Use, citing Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708 (Colo. 1987); Colorado Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, Chapter 31 (Wrongful Discharge), Instruction 31:12, Notes on Use, citing Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo. 1992)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Connecticut | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: Connecticut recognizes that statements in an employer's personnel manual or handbook can, in appropriate circumstances, create an express or implied contract that limits at-will termination; clear disclaimers can prevent this. Public policy: Connecticut recognizes a common-law claim for wrongful discharge when an at-will employee is fired in violation of an important public policy (Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods). Courts treat the exception as narrow, and it is generally unavailable where a statute already provides a remedy. (Wood v. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (D. Conn. 2005), applying Finley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 202 Conn. 190 (1987); Connecticut Civil Jury Instructions 3.14-3 Wrongful Discharge (citing Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC, 260 Conn. 691 (2002))) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Delaware | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Delaware reads an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing into at-will employment, but strictly limits it to four exclusive categories: public policy violations, employer misrepresentations relied on by the employee, using superior bargaining power to deprive the employee of earned compensation, and falsified or manipulated records used to create fictitious grounds for termination (Pressman). Implied contract: Delaware courts hold that an employee handbook that is a unilateral statement of company policies does not create an employment contract; a contract limiting at-will termination must expressly create a definite term or otherwise expressly bar at-will termination. Public policy: Delaware recognizes a claim when an at-will employee's termination violates public policy, but it is handled as one of the four exclusive categories of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman), and applies only where no other remedial scheme exists. (U.S. District Court, D. Del., No. 00-803 (Brooks v. Nationwide), citing Lord v. Souder, 748 A.2d 393 (Del. 2000) and E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman, 679 A.2d 436 (Del. 1996); U.S. District Court, D. Del., No. 00-803 (Brooks v. Nationwide), citing Heideck v. Kent General Hospital, Inc., 446 A.2d 1095 (Del. 1982); Pratt v. M&T Bank Corp., No. 14-cv-1126 (D. Del.), citing Bailey v. City of Wilmington, 766 A.2d 477 (Del. 2001) and E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman, 679 A.2d 436 (Del. 1996)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| District of Columbia | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: In D.C., an employee handbook or personnel manual can create an implied contract that overrides at-will status, for example when it states specific preconditions that must be met before termination (Strass v. Kaiser); a clear disclaimer generally preserves at-will status. Public policy: The District of Columbia recognizes a very narrow public policy exception to at-will employment (Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co.): an at-will employee may sue for wrongful discharge when the sole reason for the firing was refusing to violate a statute or municipal regulation; Carl v. Children's Hospital allows further exceptions solidly based on a statute or regulation. (Memorandum Opinion, No. 1:10-cv-00900-JDB (D.D.C. Dec. 21, 2010), citing Washington Welfare Ass'n v. Wheeler, 496 A.2d 613, 615 (D.C. 1985); Order, No. 1:15-cv-01700 (D.D.C.), quoting Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28, 34 (D.C. 1991), and citing Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Hawaii | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: In Hawaii the employer's right to fire at will can be contractually modified by statements in employee policy manuals or handbooks (Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines). Public policy: Hawaii recognizes a common-law claim for at-will employees fired in violation of a clear mandate of public policy (a Parnar claim, from Parnar v. Americana Hotels). (Du Preez v. Banis, No. 1:14-cv-00171-LEK (D. Haw. Sept. 30, 2015), quoting Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawai`i 368 (2000), and Kinoshita v. Canadian Pac. Airlines, 68 Haw. 594, 601 (1986); Order, No. 1:11-cv-00326 (D. Haw.), citing Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 652 P.2d 625, 631 (Haw. 1982)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Illinois | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: Illinois recognizes that an employee handbook or other policy statement can create enforceable contractual rights that limit at-will employment when the traditional requirements for contract formation are met (Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center). Public policy: Illinois recognizes the tort of retaliatory discharge: an employer may fire an at-will employee for any reason or no reason, except when the discharge violates a clearly mandated public policy (Kelsay v. Motorola; Palmateer v. International Harvester). The Illinois Supreme Court describes the tort as limited and narrow. (Ross v. May Co. (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., No. 1-06-0239, 2007), quoting Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center, 115 Ill. 2d 482, 490 (1987); Turner v. Memorial Medical Center, 233 Ill. 2d 494 (2009) (Ill. Sup. Ct. Docket No. 107317), quoting Barr v. Kelso-Burnett Co., 106 Ill. 2d 520 (1985)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Indiana | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Indiana does not recognize a duty of good faith and fair dealing owed by an employer to an at-will employee. Public policy: Indiana recognizes only a narrow public policy exception: an employee fired for exercising a clear statutory right (Frampton, workers' compensation) or for refusing to commit an illegal act for which the employee would be personally liable (McClanahan) has a wrongful discharge claim. (Farr v. St. Francis Hospital & Health Centers, No. 1:06-cv-00779-SEB-JMS (S.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2007), quoting Hamblen v. Danners, Inc., 478 N.E.2d 926, 929 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985); Farr v. St. Francis Hospital & Health Centers, No. 1:06-cv-00779-SEB-JMS (S.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2007), citing Montgomery v. Bd. of Trustees of Purdue Univ., 849 N.E.2d 1120, 1128 (Ind. 2006)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Iowa | At-will employment and its exceptions: Iowa recognizes a narrow tort for wrongful discharge in violation of a clearly defined public policy, covering discharge for enforcing a statutory right, refusing to participate in illegal activity, or reporting workplace illegalities. (Carver-Kimm v. Reynolds (Iowa Supreme Court, June 23, 2023), citing Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 751, 761 (Iowa 2009)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Kansas | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: Kansas recognizes that an employer can create an implied-in-fact contract limiting at-will termination through representations in an employment manual or other sources (Morriss v. Coleman Co.); the question is the parties' intent, judged from all the circumstances. Public policy: Kansas recognizes common-law retaliatory discharge claims as a public policy exception to at-will employment, notably for exercising workers' compensation rights and for good-faith whistleblowing; the claim is unavailable where an adequate alternative statutory remedy exists. (Taylor v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 6:05-cv-01300-WEB (D. Kan. Mar. 20, 2007), citing Morriss v. Coleman Co., 241 Kan. 501, 738 P.2d 841 (1987); Debus v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., No. 2:15-cv-09121-JAR (D. Kan. Jan. 14, 2016)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Kentucky | At-will employment and its exceptions: Kentucky recognizes a narrow common-law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Firestone Textile v. Meadows; Grzyb v. Evans): the discharge must be contrary to a fundamental, well-defined public policy evidenced by a constitutional or statutory provision, which the court decides as a question of law. (Lewis-Smith v. Western Kentucky University, No. 1:12-cv-00014-JHM (W.D. Ky. Jan. 9, 2015), citing Grzyb v. Evans, 700 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Ky. 1985)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Louisiana | At-will employment and its exceptions: Louisiana does not recognize a common-law public-policy exception to at-will employment; under the Civil Code an employer may dismiss an at-will employee for any reason, provided the termination does not violate a statutory or constitutional provision (such as anti-discrimination laws). (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review (Jan. 2001), "The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions") | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Maine | At-will employment and its exceptions: Maine enforces a promise that employment may be ended only for cause only if the restriction on the employer’s right to terminate is clearly stated; employee manuals whose restrictions are not clearly stated are not contracts (Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods). (Fitzpatrick v. Teleflex, No. 1:08-cv-400 (D. Me.), citing Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, 486 A.2d 97, 99-100 (Me. 1984)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Maryland | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: In Maryland, personnel-policy or handbook provisions that limit the employer’s discretion to terminate, or set a required termination procedure, may become enforceable contractual undertakings if properly expressed and communicated (Staggs v. Blue Cross of Maryland); an express disclaimer of contractual intent defeats the claim. Public policy: Maryland recognizes a tort of wrongful ("abusive") discharge when the motivation for firing an at-will employee contravenes a clear mandate of public policy (Adler v. American Standard Corp.); courts treat it as a narrow exception. (Spacesaver Systems, Inc. v. Adam, No. 1797, Sept. Term 2011 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., reported), quoting Staggs v. Blue Cross of Maryland, Inc., 61 Md. App. 381 (1985); Parks v. Alpharma, Inc., 421 Md. 59 (2011) (Md. Court of Appeals, No. 115, Sept. Term 2010), discussing Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31 (1981)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Massachusetts | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Massachusetts implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment contracts, but it is limited: an employer who fires an employee in bad faith is liable for unpaid compensation clearly connected to work already performed (Fortune v. National Cash Register). Public policy: Massachusetts recognizes a wrongful-termination claim for at-will employees only when the firing violates a clearly established public policy (King v. Driscoll); the Supreme Judicial Court interprets this exception narrowly. (Bradley v. Cruz, No. 1:13-cv-12927 (D. Mass. Nov. 3, 2014), quoting Harrison v. NetCentric Corp., 744 N.E.2d 622, 629 (Mass. 2001), and Fortune v. Nat’l Cash Register Co., 364 N.E.2d 1251 (Mass. 1977); Dineen v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, No. 1:13-cv-12200 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2014), quoting King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 582 (1994)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Michigan | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: Michigan's at-will presumption can be rebutted: stated employer policies and established procedures can make a right to continued employment absent just cause enforceable in contract or through a legitimate-expectations claim (Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield). Public policy: Michigan recognizes limited public policy exceptions (Suchodolski v. Michigan Consolidated Gas): an employee fired for refusing to violate a law, performing a legal duty, or exercising a legal right can sue; no such claim lies where a statute already prohibits the retaliation and provides a remedy. (Kinch v. Pinnacle Foods Group LLC, No. 2:16-cv-12840 (E.D. Mich. July 17, 2017), quoting Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 292 N.W.2d 880, 894 (Mich. 1980); Order, No. 1:04-cv-00835 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 8, 2006), citing Suchodolski v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 316 N.W.2d 710, 711 (Mich. 1982)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Minnesota | At-will employment and its exceptions: Minnesota recognizes only a narrow common-law public policy claim (Phipps v. Clark Oil): an employee fired for refusing to participate in an activity the employee in good faith believes violates a state or federal law, rule or regulation may sue; the Supreme Court has declined to recognize a broader claim for any violation of public policy. (Wredberg v. Canvas Health, Inc., No. A24-1897 (Minn. Aug. 12, 2026), citing Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569, 571 (Minn. 1987)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Mississippi | At-will employment and its exceptions: Mississippi recognizes only a narrow public policy exception to at-will employment (McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix): an employee may sue in tort if fired for refusing to participate in an illegal act or for reporting the employer's illegal acts. (McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., 626 So. 2d 603, 607 (Miss. 1993), as stated in Nuwer v. Mariner Post-Acute Network, No. 00-60299 (5th Cir. 2003)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Missouri | At-will employment and its exceptions: Missouri recognizes a public-policy exception to at-will employment (Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute): an at-will employee may not be fired for refusing to violate the law or a clear mandate of public policy, or for reporting wrongdoing. The Whistleblower's Protection Act codifies the existing common-law exceptions, limits their future expansion by the courts and is the exclusive remedy. (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575.3 (Whistleblower's Protection Act, L. 2017 S.B. 43)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Montana | At-will employment and its exceptions: Montana's Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act replaces at-will employment once the probationary period ends: after the employee has completed the employer's probationary period, a discharge that is not for good cause is wrongful. The Act is the exclusive remedy for wrongful discharge and common-law tort and contract claims for discharge are preempted. (Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-904(1)(b) (Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Nebraska | At-will employment and its exceptions: Nebraska recognizes a public policy exception to at-will employment: an employee may claim damages for wrongful discharge when the motivation for the firing contravenes public policy. The Nebraska Supreme Court describes it as limited to cases where a clear mandate of public policy has been violated. (Dibbern v. York Surgical Assocs., 318 Neb. 928 (2025)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| New Hampshire | At-will employment and its exceptions: New Hampshire recognizes a common-law wrongful termination claim when the employer fired the employee out of bad faith, malice, or retaliation, and did so because the employee performed acts public policy would encourage or refused to perform acts public policy would condemn (Cloutier; Short v. School Administrative Unit). (Faulkner v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, No. 1:12-cv-00482-SM (D.N.H. Aug. 12, 2015), quoting Short v. Sch. Admin. Unit No. 16, 136 N.H. 76, 84 (1992)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| New Jersey | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: New Jersey courts do not allow a stand-alone claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by an at-will employee: the claim requires an underlying contract (for example an express contract or a Woolley handbook contract). Implied contract: Under Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, absent a clear and prominent disclaimer, a promise in an employment manual that an employee will be fired only for cause may be enforceable even though the employment would otherwise be at will. Public policy: New Jersey recognizes a wrongful-discharge claim when firing an at-will employee is contrary to a clear mandate of public policy (Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.). (D.N.J. No. 2:05-cv-01880 (citing Schlichtig v. Inacom Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 597 (D.N.J. 2003)); Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 99 N.J. 284, 491 A.2d 1257 (1985), as quoted in D.N.J. No. 2:05-cv-01880; Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 417 A.2d 505 (1980), as applied in Day v. Wells Fargo (D.N.J. No. 3:17-cv-06237, 2018)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| New Mexico | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: New Mexico does not recognize a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an at-will employment relationship (Melnick v. State Farm). Implied contract: In New Mexico, a representation in an employee handbook or personnel policies can create an implied contract that limits the employer's right to fire at will, if it is definite enough to create a reasonable expectation (Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co.). Public policy: New Mexico recognizes a retaliatory (wrongful) discharge tort: an at-will employee may recover when the discharge contravenes a clear mandate of public policy (first recognized in Vigil v. Arzola). (D.N.M. No. 1:12-cv-00261 (Back v. ConocoPhillips), quoting Melnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 106 N.M. 726, 749 P.2d 1105 (1988); D.N.M. No. 1:05-cv-00461, quoting Trujillo v. Northern Rio Arriba Elec. Coop., 131 N.M. 607 (2001), citing Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co., 115 N.M. 665, 857 P.2d 776 (1993); Herndon v. Best Buy (10th Cir.), quoting Chavez v. Manville Prods. Corp., 108 N.M. 643, 777 P.2d 371 (1989)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| New York | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: New York does not imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing that limits an employer's right to terminate an at-will employee (Murphy v. American Home Products; Sabetay v. Sterling Drug). Implied contract: At-will status can be overcome only by an express written limitation on the employer's right to terminate (Weiner v. McGraw-Hill); vague oral assurances or the mere existence of a written policy are not enough. Public policy: New York does not recognize a common-law claim for wrongful or retaliatory discharge of an at-will employee in violation of public policy; the Court of Appeals has left any such claim to the legislature. (Nornberg v. Thai Magic Co., 2006 NY Slip Op 50104(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County), quoting Wakefield v. Northern Telecom, 769 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1985), on Murphy v. American Home Products, 58 N.Y.2d 293, 304-05 (1983); U.S. District Court, N.D.N.Y., No. 5:02-cv-01112 (Mar. 31, 2006), citing Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 461 (1982); Metellus v. JetBlue, No. 2:07-cv-04719 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2010), quoting Horn v. N.Y. Times, 100 N.Y.2d 85, 96 (2003)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| North Carolina | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: North Carolina does not recognize a wrongful discharge claim by an at-will employee based on an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Implied contract: Employee handbooks and policies an employer issues on its own do not become part of the employment contract unless they are expressly included in it (Walker v. Westinghouse), so they rarely change at-will status. Public policy: North Carolina recognizes a common-law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy: an employer may not fire an at-will employee for an unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes a specific expression of state public policy, such as a statute or regulation (Coman v. Thomas Mfg.; Amos v. Oakdale Knitting). (U.S. District Court, M.D.N.C., No. 1:24-cv-00323, quoting Hardin v. Belmont Textile Mach. Co. (W.D.N.C. 2006) and citing Salt v. Applied Analytical, Inc., 104 N.C. App. 652, 661 (1991); U.S. District Court, M.D.N.C., No. 1:12-cv-00286, citing Walker v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 335 S.E.2d 79, 83-84 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985); Shook v. NCG Acquisition, No. 23-1406 (4th Cir. 2024) (published), quoting Coman v. Thomas Mfg. Co., 381 S.E.2d 445, 447 (N.C. 1989)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Ohio | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Although every Ohio contract carries a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, there is no separate cause of action for breach of a duty of good faith in the at-will employment context. Implied contract: Ohio recognizes two contract-based exceptions to at-will employment (Mers v. Dispatch Printing): an implied contract arising from a handbook, company policy or oral representations, and promissory estoppel based on the employer's promises. Public policy: Ohio recognizes a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance; Painter v. Graley) when an at-will employee is fired in contravention of a clear public policy found in the Ohio or U.S. Constitution, statutes, administrative rules or the common law. (U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio, No. 2:15-cv-02223, quoting Padula v. Wagner, 2015-Ohio-2374 (9th Dist.), and Roberts v. Hagen (9th Dist. 2000); U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio, No. 3:11-cv-00236, citing Tersigni v. Gen. Tire, Inc., 633 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) and Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co., 483 N.E.2d 150 (Ohio 1985); U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio, No. 1:20-cv-00813 (Apr. 26, 2021), quoting Dohme v. Eurand Am., Inc., 956 N.E.2d 825, 829 (Ohio 2011)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Oklahoma | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Oklahoma does not imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment (Burk v. K-Mart Corp.), so an at-will employee cannot sue for a bad-faith termination. Implied contract: Oklahoma recognizes implied employment contracts, including ones based on handbooks and policy manuals (Hinson v. Cameron; Hayes v. Eateries); courts balance factors such as separate consideration, length of employment, handbooks, detrimental reliance and promotions, and vague assurances are not enough. Public policy: Oklahoma recognizes a narrow tort (the Burk tort, from Burk v. K-Mart Corp.) for an at-will employee fired for refusing to violate, or for acting consistently with, a clear and compelling public policy articulated in Oklahoma constitutional, statutory or decisional law. (Langston v. Therma-Tru Corp., No. 6:07-cv-00250 (E.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2008), citing Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 27 (Okla. 1989); Wood v. Handy & Harman Co., No. 06-5226 (10th Cir. Aug. 1, 2008) (unpublished), quoting Bowen v. Income Prod'g Mgmt., 202 F.3d 1282, 1284 (10th Cir. 2000), citing Hinson v. Cameron, 742 P.2d 549, 554-55 (Okla. 1987); U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Cir., No. 06-5205, citing Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 29 (Okla. 1989)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Oregon | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: The Oregon Supreme Court (Sheets v. Knight) declined to apply the duty of good faith and fair dealing to an employer's right to discharge an at-will employee. Implied contract: Statements in an employee handbook can become part of the employment contract (Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald), but a clear disclaimer in the handbook or personnel policies keeps the employee at will. Public policy: Oregon recognizes the common-law tort of wrongful discharge as a narrow exception to at-will employment, in two situations: discharge for performing a public duty or fulfilling a societal obligation (for example jury duty, Nees v. Hocks), and discharge for exercising an important job-related right. (U.S. District Court, D. Or., No. 6:04-cv-06326 (Oct. 5, 2005), quoting Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or. 220 (1989); U.S. District Court, D. Or., No. 3:23-cv-00136, citing Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald Publ'g Co., 281 Or. 651, 656-57 (1978) and Lawson v. Umatilla Cnty., 139 F.3d 690, 693 (9th Cir. 1998); U.S. District Court, D. Or., No. 3:06-cv-01012 (Dec. 3, 2007), citing Sheets v. Knight, 779 P.2d 1000, 1006 (Or. 1989) and Nees v. Hocks, 536 P.2d 512 (Or. 1975)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Pennsylvania | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: An at-will employee in Pennsylvania cannot sue for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing over the termination itself (Donahue v. Federal Express). Implied contract: Pennsylvania strongly presumes at-will employment; the presumption is overcome only by an express contract, an implied agreement supported by additional consideration, or clear and precise evidence of a contract for a definite term. Vague assurances or subjective expectations are not enough. Public policy: Pennsylvania recognizes a very narrow public policy exception to at-will employment: the firing must violate a clear public policy found in the constitution, legislation, a regulation or a judicial decision, and courts have applied it mainly where the employer required a crime, prevented compliance with a statutory duty, or fired the employee where a statute specifically prohibits it. (McGee v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., No. 2:02-cv-01121 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2006), quoting Donahue v. Federal Express Corp., 753 A.2d 238, 243 (Pa. Super. 2000); McGee v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., No. 2:02-cv-01121 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2006), citing Permenter v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 38 F. Supp. 2d 372, 377 (E.D. Pa. 1999); Tanay v. Encore Healthcare, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-00792 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2011), citing McLaughlin v. Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc., 750 A.2d 283, 287 (Pa. 2000)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Rhode Island | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Rhode Island does not imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing that limits termination of an at-will employee; the covenant exists only alongside a binding contract. Public policy: Rhode Island courts do not recognize a common-law claim for wrongful discharge of an at-will employee in violation of public policy (Pacheco v. Raytheon); protections come from statutes. (Bisbano v. Strine Printing Co., No. 13-1722 (1st Cir. Nov. 27, 2013), citing Centerville Builders, Inc. v. Wynne, 683 A.2d 1340, 1342 (R.I. 1996); Shumacher v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-00500 (D.R.I. June 8, 2007), quoting Pacheco v. Raytheon Co., 623 A.2d 464, 465 (R.I. 1993)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| South Dakota | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: South Dakota courts have refused to impose an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing on employment contracts in a way that overrides the at-will statute. Implied contract: A contract can override at-will status in South Dakota, including an implied for-cause-only contract, but only where the employee handbook contains a detailed list of exclusive grounds for discharge and a mandatory specific procedure the employer agrees to follow. Public policy: South Dakota, where employment is at will by statute, recognizes a narrow public policy exception: an employee fired in retaliation for refusing to commit a criminal or unlawful act has a wrongful discharge claim; the South Dakota labor department also lists firing for exercising a lawful right such as filing a workers' compensation claim. (U.S. District Court, D.S.D., No. 5:06-cv-05056 (Apr. 17, 2008), describing Peterson, 443 N.W.2d at 655, and Breen v. Dakota Gear & Joint Co., 443 N.W.2d 221, 224 (S.D. 1988); U.S. District Court, D.S.D., No. 5:06-cv-05056 (Apr. 17, 2008), quoting Bass v. Happy Rest, Inc., 507 N.W.2d 317, 321 (S.D. 1993); U.S. District Court, D.S.D., No. 5:06-cv-05056 (Apr. 17, 2008), quoting Johnson v. Kreiser's, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 225, 227 (S.D. 1988)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Tennessee | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: In Tennessee the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing cannot modify the employment-at-will doctrine: an employer does not breach it by firing an at-will employee for any reason (Goot v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville). Implied contract: A Tennessee employee handbook can become part of an employment contract, but only if it contains specific language showing the employer's intent to be bound by its provisions (Keller v. Casteel; Rose v. Tipton County); courts apply a high standard, and language reserving the employer's right to change the handbook generally prevents it from being a contract. Public policy: Tennessee recognizes a common-law retaliatory discharge claim for an at-will employee fired for trying to exercise a statutory or constitutional right, or for any other reason that violates a clear public policy evidenced by an unambiguous constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision (Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity). A statutory claim also exists under the Tennessee Public Protection Act. (Coker v. Carrier Corp., No. 4:05-cv-00051 (E.D. Tenn.), quoting Goot v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., No. M2003-02013-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2005), and McGee, 106 S.W.3d at 67; Freeze v. City of Decherd, No. 12-6160 (6th Cir. June 4, 2014) (published), citing Rose v. Tipton Cnty. Pub. Works Dep't, 953 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Levan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 3:11-cv-578 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Texas | At-will employment and its exceptions: Texas recognizes only a very narrow public-policy exception (Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck): an employer may not fire an employee for refusing to perform an illegal act. (Texas Workforce Commission, Texas Guidebook for Employers (2024), Outline of Employment Law Issues) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Utah | At-will employment and its exceptions: Utah recognizes a tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of a clear and substantial public policy. (U.S. District Court, D. Utah, No. 2:03-cv-01088 (applying Utah law)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
| Virginia | At-will employment and its exceptions: Virginia recognizes only a narrow public-policy exception to at-will employment (Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville), which its Supreme Court has construed narrowly and applied in few instances. (Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc., Supreme Court of Virginia, Record No. 960530) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Washington | At-will employment and its exceptions: Washington recognizes the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (adopted in Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co.) as a narrow exception to at-will employment. (Martin v. Gonzaga University, Washington Supreme Court No. 95269-8 (slip opinion)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| West Virginia | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: West Virginia does not recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment; an employer has no implied duty to act in good faith when discharging an at-will employee, as long as the motivation does not contravene substantial public policy. Implied contract: West Virginia presumes at-will employment, but contractual provisions on discharge or job security, including a definite promise of job security in an employee handbook, can alter at-will status (Cook v. Heck's). Public policy: West Virginia recognizes a common-law claim (a Harless claim) when an employer fires an at-will employee to contravene a substantial public policy principle. (Coleman v. Housing Authority of the City of Weirton, No. 5:12-cv-00151 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 29, 2014), quoting Miller v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 193 W. Va. 240, 244, 455 S.E.2d 799, 803 (1995); Veltri v. Graybar Electric Co., No. 5:09-cv-00101 (N.D. W. Va.), quoting Pleasant v. Elk Run Coal Co., 486 S.E.2d 798, 802 (W. Va. 1997), citing Cook v. Heck's Inc., 342 S.E.2d 453, 459 (W. Va. 1986); Keffer v. Fayette County Board of Education, No. 22-631 (W. Va. Oct. 25, 2024) (memorandum decision), quoting Syl., Harless v. First Nat'l Bank, 162 W. Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Wisconsin | At-will employment and its exceptions: Implied contract: In Wisconsin a handbook that sets out mandatory discharge procedures can create an employment contract (Ferraro v. Koelsch), but an employee is considered at will unless evidence expressly shows the parties intended to be bound to a different arrangement. Public policy: Wisconsin recognizes a narrow public policy exception (Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet): a fired employee has a wrongful discharge claim only when the discharge is contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy evidenced by existing constitutional, statutory or administrative law. (Williams v. Milwaukee Health Services Inc., No. 13-3412 (7th Cir. Apr. 18, 2014), citing Ferraro v. Koelsch, 368 N.W.2d 666, 668 (Wis. 1985); Robinette v. Westconsin Credit Union, No. 3:09-cv-00600 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 25, 2010), citing Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 99, 113 (1998) and Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 113 Wis. 2d 561, 572-73 (1983)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official pages from the same agency |
| Wyoming | At-will employment and its exceptions: Good faith covenant: Every Wyoming employment contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Wilder v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce), but a breach is actionable in tort only where a special relationship of trust and reliance exists between employer and employee, which arises only in rare and exceptional cases. Implied contract: Wyoming presumes employment is at will, but employers and employees can depart from that presumption through an express or implied contract, which may include an employee handbook; a handbook disclaimer can preserve at-will status. Public policy: Wyoming recognizes a limited public policy exception to at-will employment (McLean v. Hyland Enterprises): the employee must identify a strong and well-established public policy and show that no other remedy is available. (McBride v. Peak Wellness Center, Inc., No. 11-8037 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012), citing Wilder v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, 868 P.2d 211, 220 (Wyo. 1994) and Dubrowski v. State ex rel. Wyo. Liquor Comm'n, 1 P.3d 631, 633 (Wyo. 2000); McBride v. Peak Wellness Center, Inc., No. 11-8037 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012), citing Boone v. Frontier Ref., Inc., 987 P.2d 681, 685 (Wyo. 1999); McBride v. Peak Wellness Center, Inc., No. 11-8037 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012), quoting McLean v. Hyland Enters., Inc., 34 P.3d 1262, 1268 (Wyo. 2001)) | Sep 24, 2026 · 2 official sources |
A tool that can help
Disclosure: InterObservers may earn a commission if you buy through links on this page, at no extra cost to you. This doesn’t change what we recommend. How we make money.
Questions people ask
How long should a performance improvement plan last?
30, 60 or 90 days are common. It should be long enough to show improvement on the goals you set, with several check-ins along the way.
What should be included in a PIP?
The performance gap with evidence, two or three measurable goals, the support provided, a check-in schedule, an end date, what happens at the end, and space for the employee's comments and signature.
Can you fire someone for poor performance without a PIP?
In most states there is no general requirement to use a PIP first, but contracts, your own policies and state exceptions can change that. Pick your state on this page to see what we have verified, with the source.
What happens if the employee meets the PIP goals?
The plan closes and you tell the employee in writing. Keep checking in informally for a while so the improvement holds.
Can an employee respond to a PIP?
Yes. The template includes an employee comments section, and the employee can attach a written response to be kept with the plan.
Is a PIP the same as a written warning?
No. A written warning addresses a specific incident or behaviour. A PIP is a structured plan with goals, support and check-ins over a set period, usually for ongoing performance gaps.
Sources (3)
Checked Sep 24, 2026 · How we verify every rule · Report an error