Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
be a materially adverse employment action, see White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R. Co., 364 F.3d 789, 802 (6th Cir. 2004), the “change in employment conditions must be ‘more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities.’ ” Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgmt, Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 886 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Crady v. Liberty Nat’l Bank and Trust Co., 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir. 1993)). The change in Kubik’s teaching schedule is just that: an alteration of job responsibilities. Although being directed to teach at 8:00 a.m. every morning might be a frustrating inconvenience, Title VII claims cannot be brought based upon “trivial workplace dissatisfactions.” White, 364 F.3d at 795. See also Turner v. Sullivan Univ. Sys., Inc., 420 F.Supp.2d 773, 787 (W.D. Ky. 2006) . The denial of Kubik’s tenure extension
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that assignment of unfavorable class schedules did not constitute an adverse employment action absent evidence of materially adverse consequences
B. holding that termination is an adverse employment action
C. holding that a negative criticism or performance evaluation unaccompanied by a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment does not constitute adverse employment action
D. holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action
E. holding that potentially indefinite suspension of employee from work without pay could constitute materially adverse employment action even where employer awards full backpay for the entire period and that reassignment of responsibilities could constitute materially adverse employment action even absent demotion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.