that “discriminating among religions” in the workplace is “subject to strict scrutiny”)(citing Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 246, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982)). Because the right here is to be free from an alleged discriminatory conspiracy to demote employees based on their religion, the particular adverse employment action does not appear important to the analysis whether the right to be free from workplace discrimination based on religion is clearly established. Nevertheless, the Tenth Circuit in August, 2010, found a reassignment, with significantly less monetary loss, and less of a demotion in job title and responsibilities, qualified as an adverse employment action for disparate-treatment discrimination purposes. See Jones v. Oklahoma City Pub. Sch., 617 F.3d at 1279-80 (<HOLDING>). Thus,, notwithstanding that the right to be
holding that a materially adverse action is of the magnitude of a termination of employment or a decrease in salary or a material loss in benefits 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 a transfer or reassignment may rise to the level of an adverse employment condition if it is a significant change in working conditions recognizing possible adverse action where reassignment left plaintiff with significantly different  and diminished  supervisory and programmatic responsibilities holding that a teachers reassignment with a 17000 decrease in salary to take place one year following a teachers reassignment constituted an adverse employment action notwithstanding that the teacher was not demoted