137. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to White suggests that, while White did receive an increase in his salary based upon his 2004 job performance, the increase was not as large as it would have been if White had received a better performance evaluation. We find this evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable jury that White’s allegedly downgraded performance evaluation caused him to suffer “a significant change in benefits.” Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257. By receiving a lower salary increase than he would have without the more negative evaluation, White was denied an increase in pay to which he allegedly was entitled. Under our precedent, such a deprivation of increased compensation does constitute an adverse employment action. See Clay, 501 F.3d at 710 (<HOLDING>); Jordan v. City of Cleveland, 464 F.3d 584,
holding that failure to renew contract was adverse employment action holding that denial of overtime pay is an adverse employment action because it relates to  compensation holding that deprivation of increased compensation as the result of a failure to train constitutes an adverse employment action holding that the dissemination of a negative job reference constitutes an adverse employment action holding that termination is an adverse employment action