the second prong because she violated the non-compete clause in her contract. Thus, the district court did not reach the third prong of the test. Nevertheless, on appeal, Markel used a considerable portion of her brief to contend that she suffered an ad: verse employment action. This is an interesting legal question be cause Markel was not technically dismissed from her job; she was paid in full until the end of her contract, and her contract was nonrenewable. Typically, adverse employment actions are economic injuries such as dismissal, suspension, failure to promote, or diminution in pay. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761-62, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (199 80, 887-88 (7th Cir.2001) (same); Miller v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 997, 1006 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Place v. Abbott Lab., 215 F.3d 803, 810 (7th
holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that denial of a request for reimbursement for travel expenses did not constitute an adverse employment action holding that denial of overtime pay is an adverse employment action because it relates to  compensation holding that denial of a bonus was not an adverse employment action