King

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Curnis King appeals the dismissal of his Title VII retaliation claim on summary judgment. The district court held that Plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence that he suffered an “adverse employment action.” We affirm.

Only “non-trivial employment actions that would deter reasonable employees from complaining about Title VII violations will constitute actionable retaliation.” Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 928 (9th Cir.2000). Plaintiff argues that certain e-mails sent by an agency lawyer constituted actionable adverse employment actions because: (1) they asked that Plaintiff be removed as an EEO counselor and that he not be given advice by his employer, and (2) they “blacklisted” Plaintiff by potentially interfering with his ability to be promoted. Neither argument is persuasive on this record.

*618 First, the request that Plaintiff be removed as an EEO counselor and that he be precluded from receiving employee assistance was not an adverse employment action because it was not “sufficiently final.” See Brooks, 229 F.3d at 929-30 (holding that a negative performance review that had been appealed by the plaintiff and was subject to…