Pena v. Ingham County Rd. Comm’n, 255 Mich.App. 299, 660 N.W.2d 351, 358-59 (2003) (citations omitted) (quoting White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Co., 310 F.3d 443, 450 (6th Cir.2002)). Here, Mazur’s responsibility to clean the bathrooms and the fact that he was not permitted to use the scrubber or buffer did not affect his income, benefits, or title. While the fact that Mazur was consistently required to clean the bathrooms might understandably displease him, it did not result in a material adverse change in the terms of his employment. Moreover, that some of Mazur’s coworkers dubbed him “Tidy Bowl man” is the sort of social ostracism that does not constitute an adverse employment action. See Heckmann v. Detroit Chief of Police, 267 Mich. App. 480, 705 N.W.2d 689, 697 (2005) (<HOLDING>), overruled in part on other grounds, Brown v.
holding that the action taken need not be the substantial equivalent of dismissal in order to constitute adverse employment action holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding that being socially isolated in the office did not constitute an adverse employment action as a matter of law holding that termination is an 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