the procedures that the FDA employed in determining whether to place Joseph on paid administrative leave, see ante, at 91-92; (ii) the FDA's decision to continue that leave for approximately five months after dismissal of the criminal charges, see id. at 91-92; and (iii) whether the placement of an employee on paid administrative leave during an exceptionally dilatory investigation might constitute an adverse employment action, see id. at 93. All these issues bear on whether an adverse employment action was taken for discriminatory reasons, not on whether the action constituted a material change in the conditions of employment. 3 . In formulating this basis for its holding, the majority relies on the Fourth Circuit's reasoning in Von Gunten v. Maryland, 243 F.3d 858, 869 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); see ante, at 91. But Von Gunten (mis)cites
holding that an employers requirement that an employee comply with a performance improvement plan or face disciplinary action did not constitute adverse employment action holding that paid adminis trative leave pending investigation does not constitute adverse employment action because terms conditions or benefits of a persons employment do not typically if ever include general immunity from the application of basic employment policies or exemption from an employers disciplinary procedures holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that employee does not suffer adverse employment action when placed on paid administrative leave pending investigation and citing cases holding that a negative criticism or performance evaluation unaccompanied by a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment does not constitute adverse employment action