Opinion ID: 186091
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count III: Retaliation

Text: 36 Taylor claims Hedlin changed her first-line supervisor and modified her Performance Plan in retaliation for her having filed a complaint with the EEOC. Relying upon the lack of evidence of any substantive change or of an increase in Taylor's workload as a result of these arrangements, the district court concluded that neither constituted an adverse employment action. 37 Taylor argues the district court erred in failing to consider evidence demonstrating that the changes of which she complains were retaliatory. Whether they were retaliatory is immaterial, however, if they were not adverse employment actions. Taylor does not point to a scintilla of evidence suggesting these changes had a material adverse effect upon the terms or conditions of her employment. See Freedman v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 255 F.3d 840, 844 (D.C.Cir.2001). Because Taylor did not present any evidence upon which one could reasonably find she suffered an adverse employment action, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of her employer on Count III.