259 F.3d 678, 691 (7th Cir.2001). This determination will depend on the particular facts in each case. Id. We have defined an adverse employment action as “more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. A materially adverse change might be indicated by a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices that might be unique to a particular situation.” Rabinovitz v. Pena, 89 F.3d 482, 488 (7th Cir.1996) (citation omitted). Of course, “not everything that makes an employee unhappy” will suffice to meet the adverse action requirement. Smart v. Ball State Univ., 89 F.3d 437, 441 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Rather, an employee must show that “material
holding that poor evaluations alone do not constitute an adverse employment action holding prima facie case of discrimination includes showing of adverse employment action constructive discharge could satisfy element of adverse employment action but there was no constructive discharge where evidence did not support that discrimination rather than actual performance problems prompted reprimands and poor evaluations holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that adverse employment actions include poor evaluations recognizing that a set of actions may constitute an adverse employment action when considered collectively even though some actions do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action individually