boring” than welding. This contrast weighs in favor of finding the change in job assignments to be materially adverse. See White v. Burlington N., 364 F.3d at 803 (concluding that an employee’s transfer from a forklift operator to a standard railroad track laborer job was an adverse employment action because, in part, “the forklift operator position required more qualifications, which is an indication of prestige”). Moreover, Spees was soon assigned to the night shift, which adversely affected her ability to raise her daughter as a single mother. An “inconvenience resulting from a less favorable schedule can render an employment action ‘adverse’ even if the employee’s responsibilities and wages are left unchanged.” Ginger v. District of Columbia, 527 F.3d 1340, 1344 (D.C.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Although Spees did not describe in detail how
holding that plaintiff successfully pleaded an adverse employment action based on his assignment to the night shift where plaintiff alleged facts indicating that his duties were so restricted that it is as  if he is not a sergeant holding that denial of overtime pay is an adverse employment action because it relates to  compensation 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 that denial of transfer request from a morning to a night shift was not adverse employment action because difference in working hours alone is not sufficient under title vii 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