1014-15. Even though a resolution of this issue might create some new insights in this area of the law, we need not reach it because of Markel’s failure to meet the second part of the test. Markel also complains that she was treated adversely because she was denied “better” equipment, the ability to travel and make presentations, and removed from certain accounts that caused her not to receive bonuses. Even if believed, these complaints do not amount to actionable adverse employment actions. “While adverse employment actions extend beyond readily quantifiable losses, not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action.” Smart v. Ball State Univ., 89 F.3d 437, 441 (7th Cir.1996); see also Stutter v. Illinois Dept. of Corr., 263 F.3d 698, 702-03 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Fyfe v. City of Fort Wayne, 241 F.3d 597, 602
holding that a transfer to a worksite 180 miles away from plaintiffs home did not necessarily constitute an adverse employment action while noting that such a transfer could under some circumstances constitute an adverse employment action holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that denial of a lateral transfer which would have allowed plaintiff to be near his wife was not an adverse employment action holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding that a lateral transfer without a loss in benefits does not constitute an adverse employment action