accounts. In fact, when asked by his superiors how he obtained the emails, he lied about their origin. Because the access was not for official business and was accomplished using an unauthorized method, it was prohibited by § 12.7(d). B. ¶ 24. Plaintiff next argues that the City violated the employment contract by placing him on paid administrative leave during its investigation. According to plaintiff, this decision violated the employment contract because paid administrative leave is not among the disciplinary measures included in the personnel manual. ¶ 25. Other courts have held that placement of an employee on administrative leave during a period of investigation is not a disciplinary or adverse-employment action. See, e.g., Joseph v. Leavitt, 465 F.3d 87, 90-91 (2d Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). This Court has likewise held that, although
holding that the plaintiffs placement on paid administrative leave constituted an adverse action for purposes of a first amendment retaliation claim holding same and citing cases holding a police officer suffered no adverse employment action where he was temporarily placed on paid administrative leave holding that employee does not suffer adverse employment action when placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation and citing cases holding that paid adminis trative leave pending investigation does not constitute adverse employment action because terms conditions or benefits of a persons employment do not typically if ever include general immunity from the application of basic employment policies or exemption from an employers disciplinary procedures