to award him the five percent salary increase during the period from the date he submitted his P.O.S.T. application, February 26, 2009, to the date he began to serve his May 2009 suspension constituted an adverse employment action. The district court rejected this argument, reasoning that Ellins did not demonstrate that he was entitled to the pay increase during that period because while the MOU provided for a five percent pay raise, it “[did] not state when the pay raise becomes effective.” We have specifically concluded that “an adverse employment action exists where an employer’s action negatively affects its employee’s compensation.” Fonseca v. Sysco Food Servs. of Ariz., Inc., 374 F.3d 840, 847 (9th Cir.2004); see also Hollister v. Tuttle, 210 F.3d 1033, 1034-35 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Manhattan Beach Police Officers Ass’n, Inc.
holding that if a state is immune from underlying discrimination then it follows that the state must be immune from claims alleging retaliation for protesting against discrimination holding that speech about financial assistance and handling racial discrimination does not qualify as protected speech holding that statute reaching beyond purely commercial speech to chill fully protected speech can merit application of the overbreadth doctrine holding that alleged discrimination in merit pay increases and salary raises against tenured professor alleging retaliation for his protected speech would constitute denials of governmental benefits redressable by  1983 holding that a police officers deposition in a fellow officers  1983 action alleging unlawful retaliation was protected speech