conclude that Defendants’ nonretaliatory reasons for selecting the other candidates conceal retaliation. To reiterate, the selection committee interviewed nearly twenty applicants and determined that there were better people for the position. Plaintiff invites the Court to infer that the panel truly selected Plaintiff for the position because Defendants failed to produce the selection packet. To so infer would be unreasonable because, inter alia, Carrio sat on the panel and testified that, although Plaintiff was a “decent presenter” and “performed well,” “there were others that ... performed better.” Id. at 23-24. No evidence suggests that these neutral reasons serve to suppress retaliatory animus. Accordingly, no reasonable juror could conclude that Def pp.2d 500, 515 (D.Md.2011) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, there is no evidence that Lt.
holding that a similar written reprimand provided to an architect of the capitol employee was not materially adverse because it merely criticized his job performance holding that allegations that employee was yelled at for complaining about his discriminatory treatment and criticized  were not materially adverse actions holding that the actions were not actions of public and general applicability but were actions directed principally and primarily at plaintiffs 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 the plaintiffs letter to the human resources department complaining of unfair treatment in general and not specifically complaining about age discrimination did not constitute protected activity