handles customer complaints. (Id. at 42-45). The evidence of record does not suggest that the requested position was paid a greater amount than Plaintiffs current position. Nor does the evidence of record show that such transfer would have resulted in greater prestige. See 126 S.Ct. at 2417 (noting that “the forklift operator position required more qualifications, which is an indication of prestige”). Additionally, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that such transfer would result in greater opportunities for advancement. Simply put, a reasonable person, when viewing the record before the Court, would not find that the denial of a request to transfer was materially adverse. See Craven v. Tex. Dept. of Crim. Justice, Institutional Div., 151 F.Supp.2d 757, 765-66 (N.D.Tex.2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the only relevant adverse employment
holding that denial of transfer request from a morning to a night shift was not adverse employment action because difference in working hours alone is not sufficient under title vii holding that a denial of transfer was not an adverse employment action where the plaintiff asserted only that the transfer would allow him to work closer to home holding an adverse employment action based on denial or revocation of a security clearance is not actionable under title vii holding that denial of a bonus was not an adverse employment action holding that denial of the opportunity to work overtime is an adverse employment action sufficient to make out a prima facie case under title vii