he well adverse employment action occurred in this case workplaces experienced events at work that she didn't like such as a performance review in which she was rated a solid performer however not every slight that an employee may experience at work constitutes an adverse and weimann action that i appropriate for redress in the courts this is a case in which the allegations don't come anywhere near the level of seriousness that's required to establish any viable claims for relief and mr brown's own papers confirm that she made numerous deposition admissions that directly notify her claims and just like she did in the district court in her briefing to this court she doesn't address those admissions at all indeed when you read the statement of fact in her opening brief a picture emerges of it most an unhappy employee who disagrees with the treatment that she received and she believes that one or more of her colleagues had some kind of personal animus against her but nowhere did she set forth any competent evidence that alleged treatment was motivated by discrimination or retaliation or that there was any fraud or any other of the claims that she alleges such as intentional infliction of emotional distress i want to discrimination case has to establish differential treatment she admitted at her deposition also that she knows of no derogatory statements that were made in connection with her gender she also admitted that she has no evidence that any of the evidence giving rise to this claim her poor performance review incorrect information given to the united states department of labor and he's taken away were fueled by gender discrimination she admitted she had no evidence that any of that was murdered by  motivated by gender discrimination she alleges several other incidents of alleged sex discrimination and we addressed those in detail in our brief i'll just point to one as an example she claims that a coworker named there's absolutely no evidence in the record as to the quality of this coworker's performance so to the extent she claims that this male employee was treated better there's simply no evidence in the record to reflect that moving on to miss grounds age discrimination claim that's her first cause of action she claims for example that access to the company's computer systems was denied and she claims that there was an employee under forty name ass carry who someone who need for computers was different than hers without the evidence to show that these people are similarly situated and that this has carried this comparative employee was under the age of forty  discrimination claim and she also admitted that she didn't know whether the managers who kept access were under the age of forty so again no evidence of any similarly situated employees treated differently also there is no evidence in the record that th computer access was an adverse employment action she doesn't discuss in in her deposition or nor is there anything in the record to show to what degree that you rely on these computers to be able to perform her job all she  was denied access well she never explains whether that caused her to be unable to perform her job back i don't think there's anything in the record i just gave me for interrupting that i don't seem to have the excerpt here or at least i can't find them discussion of for example session testimony but i don't think any of that has anything to create tribal issues of fact in this case just getting back to one additional point on the age discrimination claim she claims that her cheeks were taken away because of her age well the undisputed evidence in the record here is that everyone at her job level got their keys taken away only individuals at a higher job level were entitled to retain their keys so there's simply no evidence of age discrimination on that point a move onto grounds of national origin claim she claimed she admits that she never heard anything raga tory comments at work about her national origin she claims that she was removed from a team leader position because quote the resentments by a majority of the team members of her as a canadian national origin close quote well there's absolutely no evidence in the record as to what the alleged motivations of these people were in connection with her alleged origin claim i think that effort fails there's also the issue of the same actor principle which simply states that a person or supervisor who treats a plaintiff's employee well at some point is extremely unlikely to then turn around and become a discriminator against that person and that's particularly true in this case we have a supervisor named diane shallow who treated her very well for several years leading up to the a years she signed letters in support of mr brown's immigration from canada to the united states so the principle here would be that the shower and having helped her in all those instances is extremely unlikely to then turn around and decide that she's going to discriminate against this very same individual this isn't actually under california's very mormon housing that's correct your honor what's the state in case law in california with respect to whether a negative performance review standing alone can constitute an adverse employment or i believe the current standing of the law is that if you look at the consequences of the negative performance evaluation and i believe there's a case on point on this called acres which we cite in our brief the acres hay says that a negative performance evaluation i think in that particular case it was a counseling memorandum if it can be shown that such a proceeding has a direct and substantial and material adverse impacts on the person's job then it may qualify as an adverse employment action so just taking the akers case as an example i think the court determined in that case that because of the counseling memo that was issued to the plaintiffs in that case there was a reasonable possibility that the plaintiffs in vance when opportunities would be inhibited so i plaintiff's retaliation claim one of the crimes of or one of the elements of the retaliation test is whether there was prohibited active or protected activity and here the plaintiff admitted  deposition that she never complained about any form of discrimination that's prohibited by the farm crime in housing act she never complained about age discrimination she never complained about gender discrimination she never complained about national  discrimination and most she complained that she didn't like her performance review and that's not protected activity under the fair employment and housing act she had made it directly that she never made any complaints about unlawful discrimination so that reason alone the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs in this round retaliation claim and again i would i would point out that to the extent that mr brown is relying on the same incidence that i discussed earlier in support of her other claims those advances did not constitute adverse employment action just getting back to the computer example no evidence that that had any adverse effect  or the question thank you thank you occasions her position have to be continued simply because she was not able to sustain the question if she was to consensual a fresh emotional condition she just frightened that she took a horrible  complaints she did continue to comply and i doubt very well if she specified you doing this to me because i'm complaining at the moment this to me because i'm a woman because over the age of forty and