to take all necessary annual and sick leave, and that she held the same position, was assigned the same responsibilities, and enjoyed the same salary and benefits throughout her employment. This Court must note that “[w]ork places are rarely idyllic retreats, and the mere fact that an employee is displeased by an employer’s act or omission does not elevate that act or omission to the level of a materially adverse employment action.” Blackie v. Maine, 75 F.3d 716, 725 (1st Cir.1996). “If we interpreted these simple personnel actions as materially adverse, we would be sending a message to employers that even the slightest nudge or admonition (however well-intentioned) given to an employee can be the subject of a federal lawsuit....” Sweeney v. West, 149 F.3d 550, 557 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). “We also would be deterring employers from
holding that two counseling statements similar to negative performance evaluations do not rise to level of materially adverse employment action required under title vii holding that mediocre performance evaluations  rather than subaverage  that did not give rise to any further negative employment action did not constitute adverse actions 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 negative perform anee evaluations of a teacher constituted a materially adverse employment action for purposes of a retaliation claim holding that poor evaluations alone do not constitute an adverse employment action