Task: Text Completion
Input (English): the highest rating available, ‘Fully Successful.’ ” Def.’s Mot. at 22 & Ex. 17. Moving to the third prong of the prima facie case, the reassignment of work responsibilities can rise to the level of an adverse employment action when it results in “significantly different responsibilities.” Brown, 199 F.3d at 456 (quoting Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998)); see also Carpenter v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 949 F.Supp. 26, 28 n. 3 (D.D.C.1996). Courts are hesitant to intervene in business affairs so as to avoid judicial micromanagement, especially when a diminution in pay, benefits, or work hours does not accompany the reassignment. Mungin, 116 F.3d at 1556-57; accord Stewart v. Evans, 275 F.3d 1126, 1135 (D.C.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Traditionally, “short of finding that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a job transfer was not an adverse employment action because the plaintiff enjoyed the same  rate of pay and benefits and her duties were not materially modified (B) holding that removal of job responsibility did not constitute an adverse employment action because there was no change in the plaintiffs job position grade pay or benefits (C) holding that a change in job duties was not an adverse employment action where the new job duties did not constitute qualitatively inferior work requiring any less skill or knowledge (D) holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action (E) holding in first amendment retaliation case that unwarranted reprimands a negative work evaluation threat of job loss through dissolution of the plaintiffs division threat of suspension without pay removal of job duties and exclusion from meetings did not constitute adverse employment action either singly or when considered in the aggregate
Output (English): (B)