alternate basis for finding the refusal protected by the STAA. Adverse Employment Action. Maverick next challenges as contrary to law the ARB’s conclusion that the placement of the abandonment notation in Canter’s DAC report was adverse to Canter. Maverick argues it was not adverse because Canter was initially able to obtain employment. Had Canter been aware of the abandonment notation when Maverick first placed it in his DAC report, such that the limitations period would have elapsed while Canter was still able to obtain work, that might be the case. We have, after all, held the mere existence of a negative employment report not to be adverse in the absence of proof the report negatively affected future employment opportunities. See Turner v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 688, 696 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Under the unusual circumstances of this case,
holding that the dissemination of a negative job reference constitutes 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 holding negative employee review not adverse until it is used to deny a job opportunity holding that it is not enough that an employees job provides an opportunity to commit an intentional tort holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action