a letter stating a no tolerance policy on violence or threatening behavior in the workplace, sent after Rodas was the subject of a complaint from a co-worker of threatening behavior. Finally, the remainder of the actions identified by Rodas fall well within the bounds of “minor annoyances” that we have previously deemed insufficient as a matter of law to be materially adverse. See Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg’l Transp. Auth., 743 F.3d 11, 26 (2d Cir. 2014) (concluding that disciplinary citations, assignment to drive dirtier buses, one late overtime payment, and refusal to be provided with half-day off for doctor’s appointment did not rise to level of materially adverse actions for retaliation claim); Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 663 F.3d 556, 568-72 (2d Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>). No different conclusion is warranted when the
holding that switching police officers to a rotating momingafternoonnight shift from a permanent night shift was an adverse employment action because it severely affected their sleep schedules and made it more difficult for them to work overtime and parttime day jobs holding delayed paychecks denial of personal time criticism of work performance and shift change were adverse actions holding that a plaintiff alleging a hostile work environment claim under title vii may seek damages for all behavior contributing to a hostile work environment claim including behavior allegedly occurring outside the limitations period provided that an act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period holding that counseling sessions and written criticisms of employees work performance did not fall within the types of materially adverse employment actions holding that investigatory sessions counseling threats of termination hostile behavior during meeting being made to come to work on day off under false pretenses and being switched to night shift were not materially adverse actions for retaliation claim