With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case and evidence of pretext, further evidence that discrimination was the actual motivation. See Abdu-Brisson, 239 F.3d at 469 (interpreting Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143, 120 S.Ct. 2097). 1. PPR Downgrade Vernon is able to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA for the downgrade in his PPR. It is undisputed that Vernon belongs to a protected class (he is 40 years of age or older and a black Belizean) and that he was qualified for the position he held. Port Authority argues that the PPR downgrade is not an “adverse” employment action, because although some individual scores were reduced, Vernon still received the same overall score as previous years and received the maximum pay increase to which he was entitled. Title VII 2 F.2d 1249, 1254 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Preda v. Nissho Iwai Am. Corp., 128 F.3d 789,

A: holding that mediocre performance evaluations  rather than subaverage  that did not give rise to any further negative employment action did not constitute adverse actions
B: holding that adverse employment actions include poor evaluations
C: holding that poor evaluations alone do not constitute an adverse employment action
D: holding in the context of a first amendment retaliation claim that adverse employment actions may include negative evaluation letters
B.