345, 356 (5th Cir.2005)). If the employer comes forward with legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment action, plaintiffs must then prove (1) that the reasons proffered were false and were thus a pretext for discrimination or (2) that even if the reasons are true, gender was a motivating factor. Id. (citing Machinchick, 398 F.3d at 356). Plaintiffs can meet this burden “ ‘by producing circumstantial evidence sufficient to create a fact issue as to whether the employer’s non-discriminatory reasons are merely pretext for discrimination.’ ” Id. (quoting Machinchick, 398 F.3d at 354). UMMC submits that plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and even if they could, that they cannot establish pretext. In the court’ 712, 716 (11th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (cited in Johnson). As to the fourth element,
holding that denial of overtime pay is an adverse employment action because it relates to  compensation holding an adverse employment action based on denial or revocation of a security clearance is not actionable under title vii holding that denial of the opportunity to work overtime is an adverse employment action sufficient to make out a prima facie case under title vii holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding that denial of a bonus was not an adverse employment action