must show that the working environment was objectively hostile or abusive, and also that the plaintiff subjectively perceived it as hostile or abusive. Harris, 510 U.S. at 22, 114 S.Ct. 367. In determining whether such an environment is hostile or abusive, the court must consider the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it was physically threatening, humiliating, or just a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interfered with the employee’s work performance. Id. 510 U.S. at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367. We hold that the actions Kwiatek alleg (7th Cir.1997) (“a poor evaluation alone, even if undeserved, is not an adverse action for purposes of Title VII”); Henriquez v. Times Herald Record, No. 97 CIV. 6176(SHS), 1997 WL 732444 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.25, 1997) (<HOLDING>), affirmed, 165 F.3d 14 (2d Cir.1998); Khan v.
holding that counseling sessions and written criticisms of employees work performance did not fall within the types of materially adverse employment actions holding that investigatory sessions counseling threats of termination hostile behavior during meeting being made to come to work on day off under false pretenses and being switched to night shift were not materially adverse actions for retaliation claim 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 holding that two counseling statements similar to negative performance evaluations do not rise to level of materially adverse employment action required under title vii holding that assignment of unfavorable class schedules did not constitute an adverse employment action absent evidence of materially adverse consequences