no authority proposing that losing a selection packet is a materially adverse action, and the Court is aware of none. Therefore, no reasonable juror could conclude that act (4) is retaliatory. 5. Placing Plaintiff on Prolonged Administrative Leave Defendants placed Plaintiff on administrative leave on February 25, 2011 and terminated him on September 9, 2011. Plaintiff argues that his six-month placement on administrative leave amounted to a materially adverse act because, although he received full pay, he could not earn overtime or holiday pay. Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs favor, the Court assumes that Plaintiff has created a triable issue regarding material adversity. See Blakes v. City of Hyattsville, 909 F.Supp.2d 431, 441-42 (D.Md.2012) (publication forthcoming) (<HOLDING>). However, Plaintiff has failed to create a
holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action holding that potentially indefinite suspension of employee from work without pay could constitute materially adverse employment action even where employer awards full backpay for the entire period and that reassignment of responsibilities could constitute materially adverse employment action even absent demotion holding that verbal threats if they are specific can constitute adverse action for retaliation purposes holding that a suspension with pay may constitute materially adverse action for the purposes of retaliation claims depending on the facts of the case holding that investigatory suspension with pay was not adverse employment action