Clarifying What Constitutes an “Adverse Employment Action” in § 1983 Retaliation Claims – A Commentary on Vasquez v. Yonkers Public School District (2d Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

Vasquez v. Yonkers Public School District, No. 24-1220 (2d Cir. Mar. 24, 2025), is a summary order from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that, while formally non-precedential under Local Rule 32.1.1, provides valuable guidance on two recurring points in civil-rights litigation:

What types of employer conduct qualify as an “adverse employment action” for purposes of a First Amendment/Equal Protection retaliation claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (mirrored on Title VII standards); and
How Monell liability attaches—or fails to attach—to a municipal employer such as a public-school district when only discretionary acts of an individual official are challenged.

The plaintiff, clerk Gisselle Vasquez, alleged that the Yonkers Public School District (YPSD) and its superintendent, Dr. Edwin M. Quezada, retaliated against her for filing a Title IX sexual-harassment complaint. She claimed retaliation in two forms: (i) the district’s alleged failure to investigate additional harassment allegations against two administrators, and (ii) the alleged dissemination of her original Title IX complaint among staff. Both the district court and the Court of Appeals rejected those claims on summary judgment.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to YPSD and Dr. Quezada. The panel (Raggi, Menashi, & Pérez, JJ.) held:

Neither the school district’s alleged failure to open a second investigation nor the internal discussion of the original complaint amounted to an “adverse employment action” that would deter a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity.
Because no individual liability was established against Dr. Quezada, municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), could not lie against the district.

Accordingly, the district court’s April 1, 2024 judgment dismissing Vasquez’s § 1983 retaliation suit was affirmed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District, 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015)
– Established that § 1983 retaliation claims premised on equal-protection violations are analyzed under the same burden-shifting framework as Title VII retaliation claims. The panel uses Vega to import Title VII standards wholesale.
Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc., 944 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2019)
– Provides the four-prong prima-facie test for retaliation; cited for the element-by-element breakdown applied to Vasquez’s claim.
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006)
– Supreme Court authority defining “adverse employment action” under Title VII to include any conduct that might dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining. The panel quotes “context matters” and finds the disputed conduct not sufficiently material.
Monell line of cases (Monell, Agosto, Praprotnik)
– These cases delimit municipal liability. In particular, Agosto v. NYC DOE, 982 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2020), is invoked to show that a single discretionary decision by a superintendent does not equal official policy without state-law rule-making authority.
Lax v. CUNY, 2022 WL 103315 (2d Cir. Jan. 11, 2022) (summary order)
– Holds that failure to establish individual liability defeats derivative municipal liability.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Adverse Employment Action

The court began by acknowledging that filing a Title IX or Title VII complaint is per se protected activity.
It then scrutinized the employer’s response:
- The coworker who tried to kiss Vasquez was immediately transferred.
- A Title IX investigation was opened and eventually substantiated her allegations.
- When Vasquez requested her own transfer, it was granted immediately.
Although there was delay and possible neglect (e.g., failure to follow up on additional claims), these lapses were attributed to the Title IX coordinator—not to Dr. Quezada or the district’s policy.
Applying Burlington Northern, the panel concluded a reasonable employee would not be dissuaded from complaining under these facts; therefore, no adverse action existed.

3.2.2 Municipal (Monell) Liability

Because Vasquez could not show that Quezada himself retaliated against her, no predicate constitutional violation by a policymaker was demonstrated.
YPSD had an express policy to investigate harassment claims; any isolated failure by subordinates to follow that policy cannot, under Praprotnik and Agosto, be imputed to the municipality.
Thus, even had Quezada possessed unreviewable discretion in the particular investigation, state law did not vest him with final policymaking authority to alter district-wide sexual-harassment rules.

3.3 Likely Impact on Future Cases

Although a summary order lacks precedential weight, Vasquez will nonetheless be cited for its persuasive value in at least three settings:

Narrowing Adverse-Action Theories. Plaintiffs will have to demonstrate something more than a flawed or incomplete internal investigation; they must show tangible harm or deterrence rising above negligent handling.
Reaffirming the Monell Standard. Litigants frequently conflate a superintendent’s discretion with policymaking authority. Vasquez clarifies that discretion alone is insufficient unless state law designates the official as the ultimate rule-maker.
Practical Guidance for School Districts. The order tacitly endorses swift, documented remedial measures (transfer of harasser; immediate accommodation of victim’s transfer request) as defenses to retaliation claims.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

§ 1983 Retaliation Claim. A lawsuit alleging that a state actor punished someone for exercising constitutional or statutory rights. When based on anti-discrimination statutes, courts borrow Title VII frameworks.
Adverse Employment Action. Any employer conduct serious enough to discourage a reasonable employee from filing complaints—not every slight or inconvenience.
Monell Liability. Municipalities can be sued under § 1983 only when the alleged wrong stems from an official policy or a decision by a person with final policymaking authority, not from one-off errors by employees.
Summary Order. A non-precedential decision resolving an appeal without a published opinion; still citable for its persuasive logic under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1.

5. Conclusion

Vasquez v. Yonkers Public School District underscores two doctrinal guardrails in retaliation jurisprudence: (1) an employee must point to materially adverse employer conduct—mere dissatisfaction with investigatory thoroughness is insufficient; and (2) municipal liability requires proof that an official’s challenged conduct pronounces or embodies municipal policy itself, not simply discretionary error. While the decision will not bind future panels, its reasoning will likely resonate in district courts confronting similar § 1983 retaliation and Monell issues, particularly within educational institutions. Practitioners should note the court’s emphasis on prompt remedial action and the disconnect between individual negligence and institutional policy when crafting or defending future claims.