by issuing unfavorable job performance appraisals and/or terminating plaintiff; and if so, what are the appropriate damages, if any ... (emphasis added). At issue here is whether the district court properly instructed the jury that Metro could have committed an adverse employment action against Tuttle when it issued her an unfavorable job performance appraisal based upon her age. As Metro itself notes, a negative performance evaluation does not constitute an adverse employment action, unless the evaluation has an adverse impact on an employee’s wages or salary. Hollins v. Atlantic Co., Inc. 188 F.3d 652, 662 (6th Cir.1999) (citing Crady v. Liberty Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Indiana, 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir.1993)); see also Smart v. Ball State Univ., 89 F.3d 437, 442 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the district court could have
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 in the context of a first amendment retaliation claim that adverse employment actions may include negative evaluation letters holding that assignment of unfavorable class schedules did not constitute an adverse employment action absent evidence of materially adverse consequences holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that a negative performance evaluation on its own is insufficient to constitute an adverse employment action as a matter of law