contends UTEP retaliated against her for opposing a discriminatory practice, she has failed to allege a retaliation claim. We note that in establishing retaliation based on opposition, an employee must show more than she merely complained to the employer about her treatment. “The employee must put the employer on notice that the employee is opposing practices that the [sic] she believes constitute prohibited discrimination.” Warrick v. Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C., No. 14-13-00938-CV, 2014 WL 7405645, at *7 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see Chandler v. CSC Applied Technologies, LLC, 376 S.W.3d 802, 823-24 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (plaintiff did not engage in protected a dence does h Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Moisant v. Air Midwest,.Inc., .291 F.3d 1028,
holding that investigatory suspension with pay was not adverse employment action holding oneday unpaid suspension not an adverse employment action holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action 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