opinion, UMMC is entitled to summary judgment on this claim because plaintiffs have failed to come forward with proof to demonstrate that defendant’s articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reason is pretext for gender discrimination. Clearly plaintiffs can satisfy the first two elements of their prima facie case: they are female and, having been employed by UMMC as cytotechnologists for a number of years during which they received favorable evaluations, obviously were qualified for their positions. Moreover, contrary to UMMC’s urging, plaintiffs have alleged and offered proof that they suffered an adverse employment action, namely, a denial of the opportunity for overtime and accompanying compensation. See Johnson v. Manpower Prof'l Servs., Inc., 442 Fed.Appx. 977, 982 (5th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Shannon v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 292
holding that denial of a bonus was not an adverse employment action holding that denial of the opportunity to work overtime is an adverse employment action sufficient to make out a prima facie case under title vii holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action holding that denial of overtime pay is an adverse employment action because it relates to  compensation holding that improper assignment of overtime opportunities and pay constitutes adverse employment action for purposes of  1983