Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to hire, refusals to promote, and reprimands” and can include transfers under some circumstances. Id. at 157 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Fifth Circuit has explicitly declined to add other actions to this category. Id. Dixon alleges anti-union threats, harassment, and illegal threats of termination, see Complaint ¶¶ 49-52, but no actions by Defendants that constitute adverse employment actions. See Breaux, 205 F.3d at 157-58 (citing cases holding that, inter alia, accusations, investigations, and false accusations are not adverse employment actions for purposes of § 1983 actions, and concluding that “oral threats or abusive remarks [do] not rise to the level of an adverse employment action”); cf. Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 708 (5th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932, 118 S.Ct. 336, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that for purposes of a title vii retaliation claim an action is cognizable as an adverse employment action if it is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity (B) holding that termination is an adverse employment action (C) holding that verbal threats if they are specific can constitute adverse action for retaliation purposes (D) holding an adverse employment action based on denial or revocation of a security clearance is not actionable under title vii (E) holding that a verbal threat of being fired is not an adverse employment action for purposes of title vii
Output (English): holding that for purposes of a title vii retaliation claim an action is cognizable as an adverse employment action if it is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity