any other ultimate employment decisions based on his age. In a discrimination case, “an adverse employment action means an ultimate employment decision, such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, and compensating.” Foley v. Univ. of Houston Sys., 855 F.3d 333, 340 (5th Cir. 2003). The employment actions alleged by Kaplan do not meet this standard. Kaplan conceded that the City never reduced his compensation or change the hours of his employment, but pointed only to instances in which he was “reassigned [to] a different reporting structure with different, responsibilities.” Taking these allegations as true,' they cannot form the basis of a claim for age discrimination because they are not ultimate employment decisions. See Messer v. Meno, 130 F.3d 130, 140 (5th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>). After carefully reviewing all of the summary
holding that an employer in an employment discrimination case may not justify its conduct based on evidence that did not motivate it at the time of the employment decision holding that many actions taken by an employer though unfavorable to an employee do not constitute a basis for discrimination because they do not qualify as an ultimate employment decision 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 holding that poor evaluations alone do not constitute an adverse employment action holding that complaints regarding violation of employer policies unrelated to impermissible discrimination do not fall within the scope of title vii and therefore do not qualify for protection under the statute