job classification and rate of pay remained the same, and her position was similar to those she had occupied in previous years.” Wells v. Colo. Dep’t of Transp., 325 F.3d at 1213. In another case, Tran v. Trustees of State Colleges in Colorado, 355 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir.2004), the Tenth Circuit held that a plaintiffs transfer to two different supervisors did not constitute an adverse employment action. See id. at 1268. Noting that the transfers did not “result in a loss of employment, compensation, or benefits,” the Tenth Circuit then considered the claim that the first transfer was adverse because the plaintiff was not qualified. Id. In rejecting this argument, the Tenth Circuit noted that the plaintiffs work evaluation during this period was “above standard” and “commendable.” Id. (<HOLDING>). Office memoranda critiquing the employee’s
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 requiring plaintiff to learn new skills or the possibility she could have received training did not create an adverse change in her job responsibilities holding that the plaintiff had offered insufficient evidence to establish deliberate indifference in a failuretotrain claim in part because the plaintiff did not present evidence that the training received was inadequate or evidence of any specific additional training that the employees should have received holding that a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities is not an adverse employment action holding that a change in job duties was not an adverse employment action where the new job duties did not constitute qualitatively inferior work requiring any less skill or knowledge