a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse- action. San Antonio Water Sys., 461 S.W.3d at 137. UTEP’s plea to the jurisdiction contended there was no causal connection between any of its actions and Esparza’s alleged EEOC activity. Espar-za alleged that UTEP’s “unlawful employment practices .., were carried - on and committed because of Plaintiff’s EEO activity.” As noted above, the only protected activity Esparza alleged was that she filed an EEOC claim on March 25, 2010. Esparza’s specific factual allegations, however, addressed only actions by UTEP that occurred before" she filed her EEOC charge. Likewise, the evidence she filed in response to UTEP’s plea addressed only actions occurring before she filed her EEOC charge. It is axiomatic that UTEP (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). See also Dodge v. City of Belton, Mo., No.
holding that investigative report into police chiefs conduct was protected as private personnel data holding that investigatory suspension with pay was not adverse employment action recognizing that unequal pay is an adverse action holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action holding that police chiefs suspen  sion with pay was not an adverseemployment action