With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claim is fact-intensive and better suited for the summary-judgment or trial stage. See, e.g., Alvarado, 492 F.3d at 613; Williams, 149 Fed.Appx. at 269-70. IV. Because Thompson plausibly alleges an adverse employment action, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for further proceedings. 1 . As our court clarified in Alvarado, "[a]I-though Click, Forsyth, [and] Sharp ... all involved claims of First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than claims of discrimination under Title VII, they are nevertheless relevant because the definition of 'adverse employment action' under § 1983, like Title VII’s definition of 'adverse employment action,' includes demotions.” Alvarado, 492 F.3d at 613 n. 6. 2 . Compare Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191, 1197 (D.C.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>), and Morales-Vallellanes v. Potter, 605 F.3d

A: holding that garcetti barred claims involving speech not necessarily required by the plaintiffs job duties but nevertheless  related to his job duties
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 change in work schedule and assigning less desirable job duties did not constitute a tangible employment action
D: holding that removal of job responsibility did not constitute an adverse employment action because there was no change in the plaintiffs job position grade pay or benefits
B.