a two-week period was not adverse employment action). Here, Blackwell claims that ll’s October absences is therefore not an adverse employment action under the ADA. iv.Disciplinary action The fourth and final alleged adverse employment action took place in December 2011, when Blackwell was “written up” for attempting to leave five minutes before the end of his shift. Am. Compl. at 6. Like any other potential adverse employment action, a disciplinary action must cause “objectively tangible harm” to qualify, Douglas, 559 F.3d at 552, and “interlocutory or mediate decisions having no immediate effect upon employment conditions” are insufficient, Taylor v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 753, 765 (D.C.Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Walker v.WMATA, 102 F.Supp.2d 24, 29 (D.D.C.2000) (<HOLDING>). Here, Blackwell does not allege that the
holding that a district courts rejection of an argument for an inappropriate reason was error holding that an employers letter of admonishment following an employees allegedly inappropriate behavior toward a customer was not an adverse action holding that even an incorrect belief that an employees performance is inadequate can be a legitimate reason for an adverse employment action holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that an employers requirement that an employee comply with a performance improvement plan or face disciplinary action did not constitute adverse employment action