With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. at 1321. The D.C. Circuit held that these bare and conclusory assertions did not satisfy the plaintiffs burden to show that the lowered performance evaluations were “attached to financial harms.” Id.; see also Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1199 (noting that evaluations and written warnings are adverse actions only when they have “tangible job consequences”). Similarly, plaintiff in this case has not alleged that she suffered losses in pay, promotion, or reassignment of duties, or that she faced any other tangible job consequences as a result of the two personnel performance notes, except for the bare, conclusory assertion that “[t]he effect of the retaliatory employment practices ... was to deprive [her] of pay, overtime pay, benefits and privileges and otherwise adversely affect D.C.2006) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff asserts in her opposition to

A: holding an employee must be able to perform essential job functions at the time of termination
B: holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work
C: holding that the plaintiff could bring an action for negligent misrepresentation although the plaintiff could not sue on the contract because the contract was void
D: holding sevenday suspension was not materially adverse because although it was disciplinary in nature plaintiff was able to remain on the job and in pay status
D.