Task: Text Completion
Input (English): 1999, she did receive that review in November, after Compuware took measures to correct the lapse. Although the review noted several performance deficiencies, Compuware nonetheless awarded Ms. Thomas a 4% increase, made retroactive to September when the salary review should have been completed. And, although Ms. Thomas complains that the amount of the salary increase was less than other employees received, she has presented no evidence that the increase was outside the range for which she was eligible. Neither a late but retroactive pay raise, nor a pay raise within the applicable range but less than the employee subjectively believes she deserved, constitutes a “materially adverse employment action.” See Kocsis v. Multi-Care Management, Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 886-87 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). We note, for the record, that in White v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a lateral transfer without a loss in benefits does not constitute an adverse employment action (B) holding that termination is an adverse employment action (C) holding that a materially adverse action is of the magnitude of a termination of employment or a decrease in salary or a material loss in benefits (D) holding that in order to constitute a materially adverse change in the terms of plaintiffs employment a transfer must include either diminished responsibilities a demotion evidenced by a change in salary title or benefits or other indices unique to the particular situation (E) 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
Output (English): (C)