The Michigan Court of Appeals has explained that [although there is no exhaustive list of adverse employment actions, typically [they] take[] the form of an ultimate employment decision, such as “a termination in employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices that might be unique to a particular yor of Detroit, 478 Mich. 589, 734 N.W.2d 514, 517 n. 2 (2007). Accordingly, Mazur, has not adduced facts sufficient to establish that he suffered from adverse employment actions as a result of his work conditions. See Christian v. Mich. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 268-856, 2007 WL 517501, at *4, 2007 MichApp. LEXIS 431, *14 (Mich.Ct.App. Feb. 20, 2007) (<HOLDING>). Even if Wal-Mart’s assignment of Mazur to
holding that a job transfer was not an adverse employment action because the plaintiff enjoyed the same  rate of pay and benefits and her duties were not materially modified holding that because plaintiff chose to leave her employer she did not suffer any tangible employment action holding that change in work schedule and assigning less desirable job duties did not constitute a tangible employment action holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding that the plaintiff has not established a tangible employment action because occasional rotation to less desirable assignments within her job category is not an ultimate employment decision 