was the adverse employment action Sullivan alleged Majesco took against him. Sullivan protests the court’s statement that he was not constructively discharged because he had not received a “significant change in benefits.” Sullivan contends the detrimental impact of the new commission structure, coupled with Majesco’s environment in which non-Indian-initiated sales were discouraged, indicated the kind of intolerable working conditions that would force one to resign. In addition, Sullivan argues the district court solely looked to the fact that he retained his job title, which is not part of the constructive discharge test, instead of considering how Sullivan had less potential to earn commissions under Majesco’s new plan. See Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc., 361 F.3d 272, 284 (5th Cir.2004)(<HOLDING>). Majesco responds that Sullivan failed to
holding that denial of overtime pay is an adverse employment action because it relates to  compensation holding that termination is an adverse employment action recognizing that a set of actions may constitute an adverse employment action when considered collectively even though some actions do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action individually holding that deprivation of increased compensation as the result of a failure to train constitutes an adverse employment action recognizing the disparity in a reassigned employees potential incentive compensation as evidence of an adverse employment action