demanding his resignation were possible outcomes of the meeting. Cf. Calhoun v. Gaines, 982 F.2d 1470, 1476 (10th Cir.1992) (relied upon by Plaintiff) (reasoning that the plaintiff did not have sufficient notice that “his employment [was] in jeopardy of termination” where the plaintiff could have reasonably inferred that meeting was for the sole purpose of discussing contract modifications and performance objectives, “rather than a proceeding to discuss the appropriateness of a termination decision”). Second, the Court rejects Plaintiffs argument that twenty-four hours was an insufficient notice period. The Tenth Circuit has indicated that there is no set length of time that must be provided and that termination immediately following notice may be sufficient. See West, 967 F.2d at 368 (<HOLDING>); Powell v. Mikulecky, 891 F.2d 1454, 1459
holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of age discrimination based upon a showing that she was a member of the protected group she was qualified and capable of doing her job she was discharged and that her manager called her old woman thus evincing agebased animus sufficient to demonstrate discriminatory intent holding that employee had sufficient notice because she knew in advance of her termination that the county attorney proposed to eliminate her job holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment holding that the former wife did not waive her attorneyclient privilege simply because the credibility of her claim that she relied on her husbands representations could be impeached by deposing her former attorney