both that he was awarded an $800 performance award in 1998 and that “each member of [his] department received the same ‘pass’ rating as [Nurriddin].”' Pl.’s Opp’n at 11. Undeterred, he now argues that he suffered discrimination and retaliation when he was awarded “only an $800 performance award.” Id. For an action to be adverse, it must .“affect [the employee’s] position, grade level, salary, or promotion opportunities.” Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1199. Here, the parties do not present arguments about whether a “diminished” performance award is an adverse action. Because Nurriddin’s receipt of an $800 award, rather than a larger amount, would have affected his compensation, the Court will assume it represents an adverse action. See, e.g., Russell v. Principi, 257 F.3d 815, 819 (D.C.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, Nurriddin fails to provide any
holding that a negative criticism or performance evaluation unaccompanied by a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment does not constitute adverse employment action holding that a negative performance evaluation on its own is insufficient to constitute an adverse employment action as a matter of law holding that because a lower performance evaluation resulted in a lower bonus amount which is analogous to ones salary or to a benefit of ones employment it was adverse holding so under circumstances similar to the present ones holding that denial of a bonus was not an adverse employment action