protected conduct and the adverse action. Rhoads v. F.D.I.C., 257 F.3d 373, 392 (4th Cir.2001). ASWAN argues that it satisfies this test because (1) its ADA claims against VCU in this lawsuit constitute protected conduct, (2) VCU’s withdrawal of its earlier promise to help pay the cost of transporting homeless people constitutes an adverse action against ASWAN and its members, and (3) the reason for VCU’s reversal was to retaliate against ASWAN for bringing this lawsuit. As ASWAN admits, however, VCU was under no obligation to help pay the cost of transporting homeless people to and from the Conrad Center. And retracting a gratuitous promise does not amount to a discriminatory act or an adverse action. See Stiltner v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 74 F.3d 1473, 1482-84 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Although Stiltner involves ERISA’s
holding that the mvra overrides erisas antialienation provision holding gratuitous transfer of real property to hospital did not trigger right of first refusal holding that the employers revocation of gratuitous healthcare benefits did not violate erisas antiretaliation provision holding employers promise that retiree benefits will continue did not create vested lifetime benefits in the face of a termination clause holding that fehbas complete preemption provision closely resembles erisas express preemption provision and precedent interpreting the erisa provision thus provides authority for cases involving the fehba provision