(“A tangible employment action in most cases inflicts direct economic harm.”); HuntGolliday v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago, 104 F.3d 1004, 1014-15 (7th Cir.1997) (suspension and suspension pending termination); Hunt v. City of Markham, Illinois, 219 F.3d 649, 654-55 (7th Cir.2000) (denial of a raise); Ribando v. United Airlines, Inc., 200 F.3d 507, 511 (7th Cir.1999) (denial of a promotion). Markel could be considered to have been constructively discharged, though not in the traditional sense, or suspended pending termination. See Tutman v. WBBM-TV, Inc./CBS, Inc., 209 F.3d 1044, 1050 (7th Cir.2000) (a constructive discharge normally occurs where an employer drives the employee to quit by making working conditions miserable); Hunt-Golliday, 104 F.3d 7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Murray v. Chicago Transit Authority, 252 F.3d
holding that denial of a request for reimbursement for travel expenses did not constitute an adverse employment action holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that a transfer to a worksite 180 miles away from plaintiffs home did not necessarily constitute an adverse employment action while noting that such a transfer could under some circumstances constitute an adverse employment action holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding that denial of a bonus was not an adverse employment action