on such claims based upon the following: (1) On October 13, 1996 the Magistrate Judge ruled that no claim for retaliation was stated in this case. No amended complaint has been filed adding any retaliation claim, and no appeal of or objection to that magistrate’s order has been made. (2) Although Myers did not like being transferred from Q.A. supervisor to reliability engineer in 1994, she retained the same seniority, grade, and salary in the latter position as she had enjoyed in the former, and no evidence is presented to support any inference that the transfer was the objective equivalent of a demotion. (Dk. 58, Exh. 5, p. 123). Under the facts presented, no showing of any adverse terms or conditions has been made. See Sanchez v. Denver Pub. Schs., 164 F.3d 527, 532 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). (3) Myers has made no showing of severe and
holding that a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities is not an adverse employment action holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that removal of job responsibility did not constitute an adverse employment action because there was no change in the plaintiffs job position grade pay or benefits holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding that the dissemination of a negative job reference constitutes an adverse employment action