behavior “may have been inappropriate, [the Tenth Circuit has] followed other courts in holding that ‘unsubstantiated oral reprimands’ and ‘unnecessary derogatory comments’ are not in themselves ‘materially adverse employment aetion[s].’ ” Id. at 1214 (quoting Sanchez v. Denver Pub. Schs., 164 F.3d at 533). The Wells v. Colorado Dep’t of Transportation court also held that the decision to reassign a plaintiff to a larger, more sophisticated engineering project did not constitute an adverse employment action because ormance are not considered adverse material actions when the plaintiff does not “suffer any tangible consequence from th[e] memo, in the form of a loss of pay or benefits or further discipline.” Davis v. Town of Lake Park, Fla., 245 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir.2001)(<HOLDING>). But see Roberts v. Roadway Express, 149 F.3d
holding that internal policy memorandum not generally distributed to employees did not create an implied condition to an employees contract even though that employee had requested an obtained a copy 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 an employers requirement that an employee comply with a performance improvement plan or face disciplinary action did not constitute adverse employment action holding that because plaintiff chose to leave her employer she did not suffer any tangible employment action holding that a counseling memorandum as compared with the formal disciplinary procedure that expressed concern and criticism of the employees performance was not an adverse employment action because the employee did not suffer any tangible consequence from the memorandum