under Title VII, no tangible employment actions were taken against Ms. Kramer by Sergeant Benson. The United States Supreme Court defines “tangible employment action” as “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, re-assignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 751, 118 S.Ct. 2257. “Tangible employment actions fall within the special province of the supervisor” and “requiref ] an official act of the enterprise, a company act.” Id. at 762, 118 S.Ct. 2257. The tangible employment action must have been taken by the harassing supervisor. Harrison v. Eddy Potash, 248 F.3d 1014, 1024 (10th Cir.2001). The conditions Ms. Kramer experienced under Serg .1999) (<HOLDING>). As frustrating as Sergeant Benson’s actions
holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding that a change in work schedule and request that an employee perform two additional tasks did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action holding that change in work schedule and assigning less desirable job duties did not constitute a tangible employment action holding that the plaintiff has not established a tangible employment action because occasional rotation to less desirable assignments within her job category is not an ultimate employment decision  holding that a change in job duties was not an adverse employment action where the new job duties did not constitute qualitatively inferior work requiring any less skill or knowledge