evidence to support this allegation, or to show that he experienced any adverse consequences as a result. He does not even allege — much less, provide evidence that shows — that the administrative leave period was unpaid. Moreover, although plaintiff asserts in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment that being escorted from his office was “humiliating and degrading,” Pl.’s Opp. at 27, he does not offer any evidence of negative consequences flowing from that event: he does not show whether his coworkers witnessed the event, whether the escort was forceful, or whether there were any other aspects of how his discharge was effected that would “dissuade a reasonable worker” from bringing a charge of discrimination. Compare Greer v. Paulson, 505 F.3d 1306, 1317-18 (D.C.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>), with Harper v. Potter, 456 F.Supp.2d 25, 29
holding that suspension with back pay was materially adverse because plaintiff presented evidence of a demonstrable effect involving objectively tangible harm which included personal bankruptcy two real estate foreclosures and negative marks on her employment record holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action holding that initial paid suspension of two weeks periodically extended to total 19 months while an internal investigation was conducted is not an adverse action because plaintiff cannot show objectively tangible harm resulting from paid leave 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 investigatory suspension with pay was not adverse employment action