With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". given the retroactive pay raise with the hope that he would “forego [sic] this litigation.” However, we do not focus on the “ultimate effects” of each employment action, but on the “deterrent effects.” Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1243 (9th Cir.2000) (adopting the EEOC standard for identifying adverse employment actions). That Ellins had to threaten and then actually file suit to even partially recover the pay increase is more than sufficient to demonstrate the deterrent effect on protected speech Diaz’s delay in signing Ellins’s P.O.S.T. application worked. Such deprivation of salary is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity and is sufficient to constitute an adverse employment action. See Manhattan Beach, 881 F.2d at 819; Fonseca, 374 F.3d at 847 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Ellins introduced sufficient

A: holding that improper assignment of overtime opportunities and pay constitutes adverse employment action for purposes of  1983
B: holding that termination is an adverse employment action
C: holding that investigatory suspension with pay was not adverse employment action
D: holding that denial of overtime pay is an adverse employment action because it relates to  compensation
A.