they would not have dissuaded a reasonable employee from filing a Title VII claim). Under the facts of this case, the performance improvement plan, alone, did not cause Haskenhoff material harm either within the workplace or outside of it. Haskenhoff was never suspended, with or without pay. See Burlington N., 548 U.S. at 72, 126 S.Ct. at 2417. Her work hours were not reduced, nor was her pay cut. The performance improvement plan did not affect her professional advancement. See id. at 69, 126 S.Ct. at 2416. Her duties and status remained unchanged, both within the workplace and outside of it. Under her performance improvement plan, Haskenhoff was only required to abide by rules applicable to others in her position. See Fischer v. Andersen Corp., 483 F.3d 553, 556-58 (8th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Finke and Wendland assured
holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions holding that placement on performance improvement plan was not a constructive discharge when employee acknowledged that plan requirements were largely fair and in conformance with what one would expect from an engineer holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that an employers requirement that an employee comply with a performance improvement plan or face disciplinary action did not constitute adverse employment action