With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We likewise affirm the denial of qualified immunity with respect to the Santa Barbara County District Attorney (“DA”) officials. Prancevic has adduced evidence that would support a finding that his First Amendment protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the DA’s decision to transfer his work assignment from Santa Maria to Lompoc. For example, the Chief Trial Deputy of the DA’s office testified that Defendant David Saunders was “infuriated” by Prancevic’s letter, and “[i]n the meeting,” in which Prancevic’s transfer was ordered, “the context was obviously punishment.” The DA officials are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case. See Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1071 (9th Cir.2009); Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Again, whether there would be a First

A: holding that a lateral transfer without a loss in benefits does not constitute an adverse employment action
B: holding that a change in job duties was not an adverse employment action where the new job duties did not constitute qualitatively inferior work requiring any less skill or knowledge
C: holding that a transfer to a worksite 180 miles away from plaintiffs home did not necessarily constitute an adverse employment action while noting that such a transfer could under some circumstances constitute an adverse employment action
D: holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action
D.