Khazin v. City of New York: Clarifying the Awareness and But-For Causation Standards in Title VII Retaliation Claims

Introduction

The Second Circuit’s summary order in Khazin v. City of New York (24-1236-cv, decided April 8, 2025) addresses key issues in Title VII retaliation law. Valentin Khazin, a former NYPD sergeant, alleged that he suffered retaliation after refusing to discriminate against a Black subordinate and later lodging Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints. He pursued claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment for the City of New York and individual officers, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed and clarified: (1) the necessity that a defendant both understand and be aware of protected activity; (2) the stringent “but-for” causation standard after McDonnell Douglas; and (3) the limits of what constitutes a materially adverse employment action.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. It held that:

Khazin failed to show that NYPD decision-makers understood his refusal to follow orders as an opposition to unlawful discrimination (awareness requirement).
Several alleged retaliatory acts were not “materially adverse” under Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Co. v. White.
Even assuming a prima facie case, Khazin did not meet his burden to show “but-for” causation or to rebut the City’s legitimate non-retaliatory explanations (disciplinary investigations, off-duty employment violations, unfounded anonymous complaint).
Claims under NYSHRL and NYCHRL were waived on appeal for inadequate briefing.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973): Established the three-step burden-shifting framework for Title VII retaliation claims.
Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro & Assocs., 716 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2013): Clarified that an employer must understand the protected activity as opposing unlawful discrimination to satisfy the awareness element.
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006): Defined “materially adverse” actions in retaliation contexts.
Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2001): Held that temporal proximity alone, especially after an extended gap, cannot support an inference of retaliation.
Burkybile v. Board of Education, 411 F.3d 306 (2d Cir. 2005): Reinforced the requirement for but-for causation and limitations on timing inferences.
Bey v. City of New York, 999 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2021): Summarized standards for de novo review of summary judgment in employment cases.
Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010): Stated that “petty slights” do not amount to materially adverse actions.
Zann Kwan v. Andalex Group LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013): Explained that a plaintiff must produce specific evidence of pretext to survive summary judgment.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning progressed in three key steps:

Awareness of Protected Activity: Under Kelly, an employer must understand that an employee’s conduct is opposition to discrimination. Khazin’s refusal to follow orders was not clearly communicated as opposition to discrimination; he never indicated that his motivation was Title VII–protected.
Materially Adverse Actions: Following Burlington Northern, the Court distinguished between minor workplace annoyances (wait-lists, scheduling inconveniences) and materially adverse actions. Only serious disciplinary measures merited consideration—but those were shown to arise from independent investigations.
But-For Causation and Pretext: After the City offered legitimate non-retaliatory reasons (discipline for off-duty employment violations, unfounded hit-and-run complaint), Khazin had to show those reasons were pretextual. Conclusory affidavits and timing gaps (discipline pre-dating complaints, or more than a year afterward) were insufficient.

Impact

This decision reinforces strict adherence to Title VII’s burden-shifting regime in summary judgment:

Employers enjoy deference when legitimate, documented reasons underlie adverse actions.
Plaintiffs must clearly communicate protected opposition and produce specific evidence of pretext.
The awareness requirement will curtail opportunistic retaliation claims when motives are ambiguous.
Timing alone—especially when adverse actions precede or follow protected activity by long intervals—will not sustain causation inferences.

Future litigants should ensure facts establish both employer awareness of discriminatory opposition and specific, timely evidence rebutting lawful disciplinary rationales.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment: A court decision without a trial when no genuine factual dispute exists.
Prima Facie Case: The initial showing a plaintiff must make: protected activity, employer awareness, adverse action, and causal link.
Burden Shifting (McDonnell Douglas): Once a plaintiff meets prima facie, the employer must state a legitimate reason; then the plaintiff must prove pretext and but-for causation.
Materially Adverse Action: Any employer action that could deter a reasonable employee from opposing discrimination—minor inconveniences do not qualify.
But-For Causation: The adverse action would not have occurred “but for” the employee’s protected activity.

Conclusion

Khazin v. City of New York solidifies the Second Circuit’s commitment to rigorous application of Title VII’s procedural and substantive standards at the summary judgment stage. Key takeaways:

Employees must clearly articulate opposition to discrimination so employers understand their protected activity.
Only truly “material” harms qualify as adverse actions in retaliation claims.
Detailed evidence—not timing or conclusory affidavits—is essential to show pretext and but-for causation.
State and municipal human rights claims require specific appellate arguments or they will be waived.

This decision will guide both employers and employees in navigating retaliation claims, emphasizing precise fact-finding and strict adherence to statutory burdens.