Clarifying Title VII Retaliation: Employer Awareness and Materially Adverse Actions in Khazin v. City of New York

1. Introduction

Khazin v. City of New York (2nd Cir. Apr. 8, 2025) addresses the contours of retaliation law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as well as parallel provisions in the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (NYSHRL and NYCHRL). Valentin Khazin, a former NYPD sergeant, claimed that he faced disciplinary measures and ultimately constructive discharge after he (1) refused a supervisor’s instructions that allegedly treated a Black subordinate unfairly and (2) filed formal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a summary order, affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the City of New York and eleven individual officers, concluding that Khazin failed to establish key elements of a retaliation claim.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of New York’s decision to dismiss Khazin’s claims. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden‐shifting framework, the court held that:

Khazin did not establish that management understood his refusal to follow instructions as opposition to discrimination, so he failed the “awareness” element of a Title VII retaliation claim.
Certain contested job actions (e.g., being placed on a training waitlist) were not “materially adverse” under Burlington Northern’s objective standard.
Even assuming some actions were materially adverse, Khazin did not produce evidence to show that retaliation was the “but-for” cause of those actions, given undisputed legitimate nondiscriminatory explanations (e.g., investigations into unauthorized off-duty work and unsubstantiated misconduct complaints).
The constructive discharge claim likewise lacked a causal nexus to protected activity.
Arguments under NYSHRL and NYCHRL were waived for failure to meaningfully contest the district court’s legal analysis.

The court accordingly affirmed dismissal of all retaliation and constructive‐discharge claims.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792): Established the three‐step burden‐shifting framework for retaliation claims.
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White (548 U.S. 53): Defined “materially adverse” actions as those that might dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining.
Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro (716 F.3d 10): Held that an employer must understand that the employee’s conduct was opposition to practices prohibited by Title VII.
Brown v. Eli Lilly & Co. (654 F.3d 347): Emphasized that speculation or conclusory statements cannot defeat summary judgment.
Zann Kwan v. Andalex Group (737 F.3d 834): Confirmed that a plaintiff must show pretext to prove but-for causation after the employer articulates a nondiscriminatory reason.
Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance (248 F.3d 87) & Burkybile v. Bd. of Educ. (411 F.3d 306): Established that adverse actions predating protected activity or separated by long delays do not support an inference of retaliation.
Mihalik v. Credit Agricole (715 F.3d 102): Set the NYCHRL standard for “treatment less well” in state and city human rights claims.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds in three key steps under McDonnell Douglas:

Prima Facie Case: Khazin had to show (a) protected activity, (b) employer awareness, (c) materially adverse actions, and (d) causation. The court found that:
- Khazin’s on‐duty refusal did not communicate opposition to discrimination—no evidence he framed it as a Title VII protest—so the City lacked the requisite awareness.
Employer’s Legitimate Reason: Defendants offered nondiscriminatory grounds for all contested actions—disciplinary investigations into off-duty work violations and unverified misconduct allegations.
But-For Causation and Pretext: Khazin did not produce any admissible evidence suggesting those reasons were false or a pretext for retaliation. His own admissions (e.g., having no personal knowledge of the alleged hit‐and‐run) and conclusory affidavits were insufficient to create a material factual dispute.

3.3 Impact

Although non‐precedential, this decision reinforces several important principles:

Employers must have actual or reasonably inferred knowledge that an employee’s conduct is opposition to discriminatory practices.
The materially adverse standard remains objective—petty slights or minor annoyances do not suffice.
Timing alone, absent closer proximity or proof of pretext, cannot establish causation.
Conclusive affidavits lacking factual support cannot survive summary judgment.

Future litigants will need to clearly document both the employer’s understanding of protected opposition and cogent evidence of retaliatory motive to defeat summary judgment.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment: A court’s decision to end a case without a trial when no important facts are in dispute and one side wins as a matter of law.
Prima Facie Case (Retaliation): The initial showing that: (1) you engaged in protected activity; (2) your employer knew; (3) you suffered an adverse action; and (4) there is a causal link.
McDonnell Douglas Burden‐Shifting: A three‐step process: plaintiff’s prima facie case → employer’s nondiscriminatory reason → plaintiff’s proof of pretext.
Materially Adverse Action: An objective standard: something that might deter a reasonable employee from complaining about discrimination.
But-For Causation: The plaintiff must show that the retaliation would not have happened “but for” the protected activity.
Pretext: Evidence that the employer’s stated reasons are false or concealing a retaliatory motive.
Constructive Discharge: When an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person feels forced to resign.

5. Conclusion

Khazin v. City of New York affirms the rigorous standards for Title VII retaliation claims: clear proof of employer awareness, objective materially adverse actions, and but-for causation with evidence of pretext. It serves as a reminder that generalized grievances or vague allegations—unsupported by concrete facts—will not survive summary judgment. Practitioners must ensure that any opposition to discrimination is explicitly communicated, well documented, and temporally connected to subsequent adverse actions to establish a viable retaliation claim.