retaliation: (1) denial of a patrol car on the Allentown detail, (2) rotation out of the Allentown detail, and (3) four accusations of misconduct. She submits that the district court erred in ruling that she failed to raise a triable issue of fact on this claim. We disagree. Like the district court, we conclude that the denial of a patrol car cannot support Lewis’s retaliation claim because such an action would not dissuade a reasonable worker in plaintiffs situation from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. See Burl d to offer any evidence suggesting that defendants’ proffered non-retaliatory explanation for its response to a citizen’s complaint and to Lewis’s violation of Department sick leave policy was pretextual. See Joseph v. Leav-itt, 465 F.3d 87, 91 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). 3. Hostile Work Environment Lewis asserts
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 a plaintiff in a sex discrimination suit did not suffer an adverse employment action where her employer withheld one days pay and it was not reinstated holding that employee does not suffer materially adverse change in employment when employer merely enforces its preexisting disciplinary policies in a reasonable manner holding that potentially indefinite suspension of employee from work without pay could constitute materially adverse employment action even where employer awards full backpay for the entire period and that reassignment of responsibilities could constitute materially adverse employment action even absent demotion holding that employee does not suffer adverse employment action when placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation and citing cases