‘despite repeated efforts by Dr. Phelps to schedule a meeting with him on it’ and because it appeared that [Nurriddin] had deliberately avoided asking Dr. Phelps, his first line supervisor, for approval to travel.” Def.’s MSJ at 27 (quoting EEO Report of McGee Interview). Nurriddin does not produce evidence showing that he properly requested travel or that he had completed the work necessary to engage in the travel requested. He responds only by citing the alleged statements made to him by Owens and Phelps. Pl.’s Opp’n at 15. Nurriddin does not explain how these alleged statements are evidence that McGee’s denial of his travel request in November 1998 was retaliatory. And because Nurriddin does not provide information about who allegedly, denied his travel request in December .2005) (<HOLDING>). NASA instead provides a legitimate
holding that assignment of unfavorable class schedules did not constitute an adverse employment action absent evidence of materially adverse consequences holding that a transfer to a worksite 180 miles away from plaintiffs home did not necessarily constitute an adverse employment action while noting that such a transfer could under some circumstances constitute an adverse employment action holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding that designation as awol did not constitute an adverse action holding that being socially isolated in the office did not constitute an adverse employment action as a matter of law