We have examined the complaint and are of opinion the decision of the district court is without reversible error, with one exception. Paragraph 23 of Miss Ford’s complaint reads, in pertinent part, as follows: When, however, it became clear that Ms. Ford had no intention of renewing her relationship with Warden Logan, he, on a pretext, directed Ms. Ford’s probationary status as a Sergeant be extended [to retaliate] against Ms. Ford.... Thus, it is a fair reading of the facts alleged in the complaint that Logan sought to renew his sexual relationship with Miss Ford, was rebuffed, and took adverse actions against her because of it. We hold that such allegations state a claim under Title VII. See Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 753, 760, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Since paragraph 23 of the complaint states a
holding that because plaintiff chose to leave her employer she did not suffer any tangible employment action holding that a plaintiff in a sex discrimination suit did not suffer an adverse employment action where her employer withheld one days pay and it was not reinstated holding that a refusal to sign an implied consent form is not a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for purposes of section 1547 holding that the plaintiff has not established a tangible employment action because occasional rotation to less desirable assignments within her job category is not an ultimate employment decision  recognizing claims as ones in which a plaintiff proves that her refusal to submit to a supervisors demands for sex resulted in a tangible employment action