that Tho ble claim that he was subject to the equivalent of a demotion. We of course express no view on Thompson’s likelihood of success, noting only that further assessment of his demotio 38 n. 15 (1st Cir.2010) (“We emphasize that there was no evidence presented at trial that the rotation was permanent, or that he was divested of meaningful job responsibilities as a consequence.” (emphasis added)), and Hunt, 277 F.3d at 771 (hold that a shift change was not an adverse employment action where it was “undisputed that the night shift would have offered Hunt the same benefits, responsibilities, and compensation” and there was no evidence that the night shift "could be characterized, objectively, as a demotion"), with Lavalais v. Vill. of Melrose Park, 734 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
holding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to state a claim for wrongful discharge where he alleged he was discharged due to his political affiliation and activities holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding that denial of transfer request from a morning to a night shift was not adverse employment action because difference in working hours alone is not sufficient under title vii holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that plaintiff successfully pleaded an adverse employment action based on his assignment to the night shift where plaintiff alleged facts indicating that his duties were so restricted that it is as  if he is not a sergeant