With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 57, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006); see also Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1198 n.4 (“ ‘Adverse actions’ in the retaliation context encompass a broader sweep of actions than those in a pure discrimination claim.”). As the D.C. Circuit has previously held, a diminished performance evaluation qualifies as an adverse action for purposes of a retaliation claim insofar as it results in the plaintiff losing a “financial award or an award ofleave[ ] because a reasonable jury could conclude that such a loss ‘could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.’ ” Weber v. Battista, 494 F.3d 179, 185-86 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (emphasis added) (quoting Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at 57, 126 S.Ct. 2405); cf. Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d 1313, 1321 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). Thus, denial of time-off awards may amount to

A: holding that two counseling statements similar to negative performance evaluations do not rise to level of materially adverse employment action required under title vii
B: holding that mediocre performance evaluations  rather than subaverage  that did not give rise to any further negative employment action did not constitute adverse actions
C: holding that adverse employment actions include poor evaluations
D: holding that issuance of negative performance evaluations was not a materially adverse actions for purposes of a title vii retaliation claim because the plaintiff had failed to show that the evaluations were attached to financial harms though not commenting on other types of concrete harm such as denial of a timeoff award emphasis added quoting baloch 550 f3d at 1199
D.