But “minor changes in duties or working conditions, even unpalatable or unwelcome ones, which cause no materially significant disadvantage, do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action.” Warr v. Hagel, 14 F.Supp.3d 1244, 1250 (E.D. Mo. 2014).

Although actions short of termination may constitute adverse employment actions...not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action.Warr v. Hagel, 14 F.Supp.3d 1244, 1251 (E.D. Mo. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In her First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that "Defendant only orders male cut uniforms, boots and bullet proof vests, even though companies manufacture uniforms, boot[s] and vests designed to fit women's bodies."

Transferring an employee to a less desirable shift without any accompanying significant change in working conditions is not an adverse employment action. See Warr v. Hagel, 14 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1252 (E.D. Mo. 2014) (citing Shockency v. Ramsey County, 493 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2007)). Plaintiff's shift required temporary adjustment while Plaintiff was on limited duty due to her injuries. (Doc. 77 at ¶¶ 129-137).

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals defines an adverse employment action as "'a tangible change in working conditions that produces a material employment disadvantage, including but not limited to, termination, cuts in pay or benefits, and changes that affect an employee's future career prospects.'" Warr v. Hagel, 14 F.Supp.3d 1244, 1250 (E.D. Mo. 2014) (quoting Jackman v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Dept. of Correctional Servs., 728 F.3d 800, 804 (8th Cir. 2013)). To be materially adverse, the action must be "more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities."