he was never disciplined for its results. Finally, the alleged refusal to grant Plaintiffs January 2012 request for an earlier shift never occurred, because Plaintiff went on administrative leave while the HR Director was investigating the request and before she could determine whether to grant it. Remaining are: (1) the City’s requirement that Plaintiff undergo fitness exams in December 2011 and February 2012, and that he remain on administrative leave pending their completion and (2) the City’s refusal to grant Plaintiffs September 2012 request for accommodations. We assume for purposes of this appeal that placing Plaintiff on administrative leave pending his fitness exams constituted an adverse employment action. Compare Dahlia v. Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060, 1078-79 (9th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>), with Nichols v. S. Ill. Univ.-Edwardsville,
recognizing first amendment retaliation right holding that employee does not suffer adverse employment action when placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation and citing cases holding a police officer suffered no adverse employment action where he was temporarily placed on paid administrative leave holding that not all adverse action taken against a public employee in retaliation for exercising first amendment rights is sufficient to support a cause of action under  1983 holding that the plaintiffs placement on paid administrative leave constituted an adverse action for purposes of a first amendment retaliation claim