must prove to establish retaliation. A Title VII discrimination plaintiff must establish an adverse employment action. However, the same is not true in a retaliation case. Id. at 745. “The language of ‘materially adverse employment action’ that some courts employ in retaliation cases is a paraphrase of Title VII’s basic prohibition against employment discrimination, found in 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1) and (2).... The provision regarding retaliation may intentionally be broader, since it is obvious that effective retaliation against employment discrimination need not take the form of a job action.” Id. at 745-46 (quoting McDonnell v. Cisneros, 84 F.3d 256, 258-59 (7th Cir.1996)); see also Knox v. Indiana, 93 F.3d 1327, 1334 (7th Cir.1996) (“There is nothing in the law of (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Particularly instructive is another case
holding attorneys must be given reasonable notice of the charges they face before the referees hearing on those charges holding that filing of charges by employer constituted retaliatory act holding that an employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea holding that the speedy trial clock for state charges did not begin to run when the defendant was taken into custody by federal authorities on federal charges but rather when he was indicted for the state charges holding that filing of request for lump sum settlement constituted institution of a proceeding under the texas workmans compensation act