responsibilities.” In Hollins, we listed a series of actions that may be considered a materially adverse change, including termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, or significantly diminished material responsibilities. Id. Here, the alleged actions are de mini-mus at best and none constitute a materially adverse action. None of the alleged retaliatory acts alleged resulted in a decrease in salary, a less distinguished title, or a loss of benefits. The placement on the performance improvement plan and the non-satisfactory work reviews had legitimate, non-retaliatory motivations and do not rise to the level of a materially adverse action. See Agnew v. BASF Corp., 286 F.3d 307 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Hollins, 188 F.3d at 662 (holding that
holding that an employers requirement that an employee comply with a performance improvement plan or face disciplinary action did not constitute adverse employment action holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that a negative criticism or performance evaluation unaccompanied by a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment does not constitute adverse employment action holding that plan did not comply holding that a negative performance evaluation on its own is insufficient to constitute an adverse employment action as a matter of law