show, that Esparza informed anyone at UTEP that she believed her treatment was improperly based on her age, sex, or national origin. Accordingly, Esparza has failed to assert a retaliation claim based on opposition as well. CONCLUSION Esparza’s sole issue on appeal is granted in part and denied in part. The trial court erred in dismissing Esparza’s age, sex, and national origin discrimination claims. While Esparza failed to allege a necessary element of her prima facie case — that an adverse employment action had - occurred — she should have been afforded the opportunity to amend her pleadings to cure that deficiency. We therefore reverse and remand Esparza’s age, sex, and national origin discrimination claims, to the extent they are not based on disparate pay. 891-92 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Peltier v. United States, 388 F.3d 984, 988
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 a suspension with pay and full benefits pending a timely investigation into suspected wrongdoing is not an adverse employment action holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding oneday unpaid suspension not an adverse employment action holding that investigatory suspension with pay was not adverse employment action