Rivers v. New York City Housing Authority (176 F. Supp. 3d 229, 2016)

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Matsumoto, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs Jakwan Rivers and Debía Crenshaw (“plaintiffs”) initiated this action against the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”), NYCHA employees John Rhea (“Rhea”), Gloria Finkelman (“Finkelman”), Carolyn Jasper (“Jasper”), Carl Walton (“Walton”), and Melethil Alexander (“Alexander”), (collectively, the “NYCHA defendants”), as well as the Local 237 International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the “Union” or “Local 237”), Union President Gregory Floyd (“Floyd”), and Union official Remilda Ferguson (“Ferguson”) (collectively, the “Union defendants”) alleging that defendants conspired to and did in fact retaliate against them for exercising their First Amendment free spéech and association rights. Defendants have separately moved for summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons provided herein, the Union defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in.- its entirety, and the NY-CHA defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

The following facts are set forth from the admissible evidence of record and are viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs as the non-moving parties. The court will provide a general background of the events giving rise to this action. The . fact-specific nature of the allegations, however, makes it more prudent to discuss certain factual details that are supported by admissible evidence throughout the court’s analysis as particular details become relevant.

A. Rivers

Rivers’Initial Work at NYCHA

Rivers began working for NYCHA as a maintenance worker in April 1998. (NY-CHA 56.1 at ¶ 37; Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 1.) He became a member of the -Union as soon as he began his employment at NYCHA. (NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 38) Rivers’ principal job duties involved emergency construction work near Long Island City. (Id. at ¶ 37.) Rivers.worked at NYCHA until January 2006. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 1.) Throughout that period, he had a perfect disciplinary record without any negative evaluations or feedback. (Id. at ¶ 22.) In January 2006, Rivers took a leave of absence from NYCHA to work at the Union as a “business agent.” (Id. at ¶ 1.) In that capacity, he handled Union member grievances, visited members’ work locations to investigate grievances, and defended members in local disciplinary hearings. (NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 24.) Rivers’ Work at the Union

In March 2007, Floyd became the Union president. (NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 19.)' Beginning. in January -2008 Floyd and his subordinate Ferguson, the director of the Union’s housing division, told all Union employees that the Union backed then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg for the 2009 New York City mayoral election. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 4.) Around June 2008, Rivers learned that Floyd had begun to implement a policy of permitting NYCHA management to terminate Union members without opposition to solidify his relationship with NY-CHA management. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Rivers alleges that Floyd told him to let the terminations “take [their] course.” (Id.) It is undisputed however, that the number of terminations of Local 237-represented NYCHA employees did not materially differ during 2007 and 2008 from the number of terminations of Local 237-représented NYCHA employees in other years. (Union 56.1 at ¶ 124.)

In part because of their dissatisfaction with Floyd’s leadership and in part because of their support for William Thompson (Bloomberg’s Democratic opponent in the 2009 mayoral race), Rivers and six colleagues began to organize an alternative Union slate, Members for Change, and announced in August 2008 that members of the group would run a slate of candidates against Floyd and his, supporters in the upcoming October 2009 Union elections. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶¶ 7, 9.) Members for Change distributed campaign literature, some of which including Rivers’ photograph indicating that he was running for vice president of the Union. (Id. at ¶ 8; Union 56.1 at ¶ 28.) Toward the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009, Rivers publicly announced Members for Change’s opposition to Floyd and its endorsement of Thompson in Union meetings before hundreds of members. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶¶ 10-11.)

Rivers alleges that Floyd’s adherents at the Union took notice of Rivers’ political activities. In November 2008, Rivers alleges that one of his ■ supervisors screamed and cursed at him while he was discussing a Union member’s grievances on the telephone. {Id. at ¶ 57.) A few weeks later, Union Deputy Director James Giocastro (“Giocastro”) allegedly told Rivers that he should support Bloomberg for mayor because the Union could have him “placed anywhere” in the city, suggesting that the Union could assign him to an inconvenient or undesirable work location. (Id. at ¶ 13.) On January 27, 2009, Floyd terminated Rivers’ position as a business agent. {Id. at 11 • 12.) Rivers alleges, thought the Union disputes, that Floyd expressly told Rivers that it was due to his support for Thompson for mayor. (Id. at ¶ 12; Union Resp. to PI. 56.1 at ¶ 12.)

Rivers’ Return to NYCHA

Rivers immediately returned to NYCHA in his former position as a maintenance worker. (PI. 56.1 at ¶ 15.) On January 27, 2009, upon learning that Rivers was being reassigned to NYCHA, defendant Finkel-man, NYCHA’s deputy general manager for operations, placed Rivers in the Bronx, at a NYCHA facility called the St. Mary’s Houses without speaking to anyone, at Local 237. (NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 46-49, 56.) It is undisputed that an employee has no right to return to his prior location after a term with the Union, . (Union 56.1,at ¶ 36.) Rivers claims that his placement created a travel hardship for him because he lived in Suffolk County on Long Island. (PI. 56.1 at ¶ 20.) It is undisputed that Finkelman placed Rivers at St. Mary’s Houses based on NYCHA availability and need. (NY-CHA 56.1 at ¶ 54.) Rivers asserts that on his first day at St. Mary’s Houses, the assistant superintendent said to him that Finkelman had told St. Mary’s staff that Rivers had opposed the wrong people and that his supervisors should therefore make his life miserable. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 21.) That same day, Rivers was issued what he claims was a baseless counseling memorandum for failing to find himself a work assignment. (Id. at ¶ 22.)

At St. Mary’s Houses, instead of the construction work he had previously done, Rivers was assigned to a position where his duties generally involved repair work inside NYCHA housing units. (Id. at ¶ 15.) His work entailed electrical repair, plumbing, carpentry, appliance repair, and door and window repair. (Id.) Rivers claims, though defendants dispute, that he received insufficient training to perform these tasks. (Id.)

Rivers’ frustration at St. Mary’s Houses led him to informally request transfers from Finkelman. In February 2011, soon after Rivers began requesting a transfer, NYCHA Deputy General Manager for Administration Natalie Rivers (no relation to Rivers) emailed Finkelman to tell her that Union President Floyd was “driving [her] crazy” by insisting that Rivers “is supposed to be at St. Mary’s.” (Id. at ¶ 86.) Finkelman responded, telling Natalie Rivers that Rivers should remain in the Bronx. (Id.)

In March 2009, Rivers (through counsel) filed an administrative petition before the New York City Board of Collective Bargaining. (Union 56.1 at ¶ 51.) In the petition, Rivers complained, as relevant here, that the Union and NYCHA had colluded to place him in the Bronx in retaliation for his opposition to Floyd. (NYCHA 56.1 at ¶¶ 63-64; Union 56.1 at ¶ 51; ECF No. 92, Declaration of Jeffery Niederhoffer (“Niederhoffer Decl.”), Ex. 28.) In August 2009, NYCHA and Rivers signed a written stipulation of settlement in which Rivers released his claims in exchange for a placement at a NYCHA facility closer to his home. (Niederhoffer Decl., Ex. 30; Union 56.1 at ¶ 52.)

Rivers’ Tenure at the South Jamaica Houses

In September 2009, pursuant, to the stipulation of settlement, Rivers was transferred to the South Jamaica Houses development in Queens. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 26; NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 65.) Rivers continued to protest, however, that he was not properly trained for his job responsibilities. Though it is undisputed that Rivers received many trainings, Rivers states that they were superficial and did not adequately prepare him for his daily responsibilities at NY-CHA. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 17; NYCHA 56.1 at ¶¶ 37, 58-59, 69-71, 75-78, 91.)

Shortly after his transfer to the South Jamaica Houses, Rivers alleges that Union Deputy Director Giocastro visited the development and told Rivers’ supervisor Margo Madden (“Madden”) as well as the South Jamaica Houses superintendent that they “could do anything they want to Rivers, such as giving him any assignments and writing him up for any reason, and the Union would not represent Rivers or stop them abuse.” (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 26.) Rivers alleges that Giocastro told Rivers that Gio-castro would permit the mistreatment because Rivers was running against Floyd and supporting Thompson. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Rivers alleges that Madden and Rivers’ other supervisors subsequently began to assign him physically strenuous tasks while refusing to provide him the tools he needed to complete the tasks, and St. Mary’s Houses Superintendent Alan Gua-dagno purportedly mocked Rivers’ work continually. (Id. at ¶¶ 28-29.)

In the months preceding the October 2009 Union elections, Rivers alleges that a subordinate of Union President Floyd admitted to a Union business agent that the Union was working to end Rivers’ employment at NYCHA (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 84.)

In November 2009, Rivers complained about his treatment at NYCHA by email to NYCHA Chairman Rhea as well as to his NYCHA supervisors Madden and Jasper. Jasper advised Maddden not to respond but instead to take “the high road as we discussed today treat him fair, and issue work accordingly.” (Niederhoffer Decl., Ex. 38.) Jasper subsequently updated Chairman Rhea to let Rhea know that NYCHA would provide training to Rivers. (Id., Ex. 40.) Rhea responded and stated that “disciplinary consequences” should follow if Rivers failed “to meet expectations.” (Id.) In December 2009, Rivers claims he was injured due to his lack of training. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 38.)

In February 2010, Rivers complained to NYCHA officials Finkelman and Jasper as well as to NYCHA Chairman Rhea about a threat NYCHA manager Madden allegedly made about him to a tenant. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶¶ 33-37; NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 82.) Although it is undisputed that NYCHA investigated the threat, Rivers claims that the investigation was insufficient. (Id.) A few months later, in July 2010, Rivers claims that he was again injured and that NYCHA and the Union colluded to contest workers’ compensation benefits he sought after the injury. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶¶ 39-45.)

In September 2010, Rivers again emailed Chairman Rhea directly to complain about his lack of training and the injuries he had suffered, though Rhea did not respond to the emails. (NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 98; Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 35.) After Rivers’ return from workers’ compensation leave, in February 2011, he received a purportedly baseless counseling memorandum from an assistant superintendent at the South Jamaica Houses; although the counseling memorandum was revoked, Rivers was never reimbursed the pay he lost. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶¶ 48-49.) Rivers also alleges that NY-CHA repeatedly denied him overtime and leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. (Id. at ¶¶ 51-55.)

In 2010, Rivers (through counsel) filed a second administrative petition with the New York City Board of Collective Bargaining. (ECF No. 85, Declaration of Stephen B. Moldof (“Moldof Decl.”), Ex. 18; Union 56.1 at ¶ 53.) The petition alleged that NYCHA and the Union had worked together to punish NYCHA employees (including both Rivers and Crenshaw) for supporting Members for Change, and included many of the specific allegations Rivers brings in this action. (Union 56.1 at ¶¶ 53-55.) The petition was withdrawn in June 2011. (Id. at ¶ 56; Moldof Decl., Ex. 19.)

In December 2012, at his deposition, Rivers claimed to be totally disabled and unable to work. (Union 56.1 at ¶ 4.)

B. Crenshaw

Crenshaw began working at NYCHA in March 1995 as a housing assistant. (NY-CHA 56.1 at ¶ 111.) She was promoted to a managerial position in March 2006. (Id. at ¶ 112.) Crenshaw began attending Members for Change meetings in August 2008, shortly after she met Rivers. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶¶ 58-59.) She became more vocal on behalf of Members for Change in January 2009, when she began canvassing at NY-CHA facilities before work. (Id. at ¶ 60.) Her canvassing continued in March 2009. (NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 31.) She also alleges that she had discussions about Members for Change in April 2009 and June 2010. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶¶ 75-76.)

In February 2009, Crenshaw’s supervisors, Alexander and Walton, met with Crenshaw. (Id, at ¶¶ 62, 64.) During the meeting, they increased Crenshaw’s workload and reduced her authority by telling her that her then-subordinates would begin reporting to Alexander instead. (Id.) She alleges that her new job responsibilities — which were time-consuming and burdensome — were not borne by other assistant housing managers. (Id.) It is undisputed, however, that assistant managers at other locations were given many of the same tasks as Crenshaw. (NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 116.)

In March 2009, Alexander issued Cren-shaw a counseling memorandum for missing work.during a snowstorm that-Cren-shaw claims crippled public transportation and prevented her from commuting to work. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 67.) After Crenshaw complained to Walton around March 2009 about the new job responsibilities and said she would discuss her concerns with the Union, Walton stated that he and Union official Ferguson had known each other for 18 years, which indicated to Crenshaw that the Union would not defend her. (Id. at ¶ 73.) Soon after Crenshaw’s conversation with Walton, Union representative Giocas-tro ' attended a meeting with Walton and Crenshaw to discuss Crenshaw’s concerns. (Id. at ¶ 74.) Crenshaw alleges that after Giocastro began to defend her against an allegedly unwarranted counseling memorandum, Walton raised his hand and said: “Don’t you know who this is, she is the one who is going up against you, and Floyd.” (Id.) Crenshaw claims that Giocastro immediately . ceased defending her. (Id.) Crenshaw also alleges that she complained via email to NYCHA managers including Chairman . Rhea throughout 2009 and 2010 about, her alleged mistreatment, though there does not appear to be any record of the purported emails. (Id. at ¶ 82.)

A string of counseling memoranda followed in April and May 2009 that Cren-shaw complains were entirely baseless. (Id. at ¶¶ 68-69.) For example, in April 2009, Walton issued Crenshaw a counseling memorandum for “insubordination” after she yelled and cursed at him; Crenshaw claims the allegations were false. (Id. at ¶ 68; NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 121.) Crenshaw claims that she always performed her work in a “timely and accurate manner,” despite feeling overwhelmed by her new responsibilities. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 69.) Overall, between March 2009 and May 2010 Cren-shaw received three instructional memo-randa and nine written counseling memo-randa. (NYCHA Resp. to Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 69.)

NYCHA served Crenshaw -with notice of a hearing in October 2009 that would address three serious disciplinary charges against Crenshaw. First, Crenshaw was charged with creating a hostile work environment and insubordination to Alexander on June 11, 2009. The second charged that Crenshaw failed to follow instructions between May 20 and 28, 2009. The third charge Crenshaw faced was for failing to follow NYCHA rental procedures on September 18, 2009. (Id. at ¶ 79; Niederhoffer Decl., Ex. 65-66; NYCHA 56.1 at ¶¶ 136-44.) Crenshaw alleges that Union representative Giocastro, who was assigned to represent her at the October 2009 hearing, failed to prepare or seriously contest the allegations against her. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 79.) Alexander testified at the hearing and Crenshaw was ultimately found, guilty of two of the three charges by a neutral hearing officer. (Niederhoffer Decl., Ex. 66; NYCHA 56.1 at ¶¶ 136,140.)

In April .2010, Crenshaw alleges that Alexander sexually assaulted her when he “pressed up behind [her] and rubbed his erect penis on [her] buttocks.” (ECF No. 102, Declaration of Alexander Coleman, Ex. C, Declaration of Debra Crenshaw (“Crenshaw Decl.”) at ¶ 25.) Crenshaw filed a report with NYCHA’s Department of Equal Opportunity, but she claims that NYCHA took no action against Alexander. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 71.) Alexander testified at his deposition, however, that an internal investigation occurred and that the charges against him were dismissed. (ECF No. 95, Declaration of Donna M. Murphy, Ex. 1, Alexander Deposition at 59-61.) One week after the assault, Alexander issued her a counseling memorandum for being AWOL during the time she reported her complaint about Alexander’s assault. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 72.)

Crenshaw claims that the increased workload and stress brought on by the disciplinary actions and harassment caused her to develop serious back and neck problems. (Id. at ¶¶ 80-81.) By August 2010, she claims she was incapacitated. (Id.) She sought workers’ compensation, which was granted in part over NYCHA’s opposition. (NYCHA 56.1 at ¶¶ 147-50.) Pursuant to NYCHA policy, after she had been absent for one year due to disability, she was terminated in August 2011. (Id. at ¶ 151-52.) She returned to work at NYCHA in July 2012 as an assistant manager in the Bronx, but retired in early 2014. (Id. at ¶ 153; Union 56.1 at ¶ 6.)

II. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) on October 18, 2011. (ECF No. 1, Complaint.) They amended their complaint on February 28, 2012. (ECF No. 14, Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”).) Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the pleadings and re-open discovery was denied on November 17, 2014. (ECF No. 72.) Plaintiffs bring two claims against the NYCHA defendants under § 1983. The first alleges that the NYCHA defendants retaliated against them for exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The second alleges that the NY-CHA defendants retaliated against them for exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of association. They also bring two related claims against the Union defendants. The first alleges that the Union defendants conspired with the NYCHA defendants to retaliate against them for exercising their right to freedom of speech. The second alleges that the Union defendants conspired with the NYCHA defendants to retaliate against them for exercising their right to freedom of association.

Defendants have separately moved for summary judgment and filed memoranda of law in support of their motions. (ECF No. 89, NYCHA Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (“NY-CHA Mem.”); ECF No. 80, Union Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (“Union Mem.”).) Plaintiffs filed an opposition addressing both motions. (ECF No. 101, Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (“PI. Opp’n.”).) Defendants filed replies. (ECF No. 94, NYCHA Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (“NYCHA Reply”); ECF No. 97, Union Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (“Union Reply”).)

The parties have also filed statements of material facts (as well as responses) in accordance with Local Rule 56.1. (ECF No. 89, Ex. 2, NYCHA Statement of Material Facts (“NYCHA 56.1”); ECF No. 81, Union Statement of Material Facts (“Union 56.1”); ECF No. 103, Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts (“Pl. 56.1”); ECF No. 104, Plaintiffs’ Response to NYCHA 56.1 (“Pl. Resp. to NYCHA 56.1”); ECF No. 105, Plaintiffs’ Response to Union 56.1 (“Pl. Resp. to Union 56.1”); ECF No. 108, NYCHA Response to Plaintiffs’ 56.1 (“NY-CHA Resp. to Pl. 56.1”); ECF No. 98, Union Response to Plaintiffs’ 56.1 (“Union Resp. to Pl. 56.1”).)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate “where there exists no genuine issue of material fact and, based on the undisputed facts, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Zelnik v. Fashion Inst. of Tech., 464 F.3d 217, 224 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment ... against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). “Summary judgment is appropriate when the record taken as a whole could not . lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Smith v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 776 F.3d 114, 121 (2d Cir.2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

The court turns to the issues raised by defendants’ motions for summary judgment. First, the court will address the preclusion concerns presented by the defendants regarding the two earlier-filed administrative petitions. Second, the court will address liability for the entity defendants: NYCHA and the Union. Third, the court will provide the appropriate legal standards for the First Amendment retaliation claims and the conspiracy claims. Fourth, the court will evaluate Rivers’ claims. Finally, the court will address Crenshaw’s claims.

I. Preclusion

At the outset, the court must examine defendants’ arguments that certain claims in this action are precluded because of actions taken by Rivers and Crenshaw in two administrative proceedings.

A. The 2009 Improper Practice Petition

On March 5, 2009, Rivers, represented by counsel, filed an “Improper Practice Petition” against Local 237 and NYCHA. (NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 63.) Among other grievances, Rivers complained of his assignment to the Bronx upon his return to work at NYCHA. (Id.) He had previously been assigned to Long Island City, which was closer to his home, and sought a reassignment there. (Id.) NYCHA filed an answer to the petition on April 24, 2009. (Id. at ¶ 64.) On August 24, 2009, the parties agreed to settle the petition and entered into a stipulation providing for Rivers’ transfer to the South Jamaica Houses in Queens as a maintenance worker. (Id. at ¶ 65.)

The settlement, signed by Rivers, his attorney, and a representative of NYCHA, “resolve[d] any and all claims on behalf of Rivers that may have arisen from or related to [sic] the matters addressed in [the 2009 Improper Practice Petition].” (Nied-erhoffer Decl., Ex. 30, at 2.) Rivers agreed to withdraw his claims with prejudice. (Id.) Rivers has conceded that claims “arising from or relating to the matters alleged” in the 2009 petition are barred in this action. (See Pl. Opp’n at 19 (“Plaintiffs do not seek damages for Rivers’ January 27, 2009 assignment to the Bronx.... ”)) The court accepts that concession for purposes of deciding these motions.

B. The 2010 Improper Practice Petition

A separate issue is raised by a 2010 Improper Practice Petition filed, and later withdrawn, by Rivers and Crenshaw. The Union defendants argue that the withdrawal of the 2010 petition bars certain claims asserted by both plaintiffs in this litigation.

The 2010 Improper Practice Petition alleged that NYCHA and the Union sought to penalize NYCHA employees who backed the Members for Change slate in the 2009 Local 237 election. (See Moldof Decl., Ex. 18; see also Union 56.1 at ¶ 53.) The petition alleged that NYCHA and the Union “collectively engaged in a[n] unlawful attempt to violate the rights of the membership by disallowing fair and impartial disciplinary practices to ensue, and selective disciplinary practices to those in opposition of the current leadership.” (Mol-dof Decl., Ex. 18.) The petition specifically mentions a variety of retaliatory actions that overlap with the allegations in the Amended Complaint in this action. For example, the petition mentions Rivers’ lack of training for certain work duties, the denial of repeated transfer requests resulting in two on-the-job injuries, the opposition to Rivers’ workers’ compensation claim, the denial of certain requests for FMLA leave, and the physical threats allegedly made against Rivers to a NYCHA tenant. (See Moldof Decl., Ex. 18; see also Union 56.1 at ¶ 54.) The petition also alleges that Crenshaw was disciplined for minor infractions and subjected to constant harassment by her manager. (See Moldof Decl., Ex. 18;. see also Union 56.1 at ¶ 55.) Ultimately, the petitioners, through counsel, withdrew. the petition. (See Moldof Decl., Ex. 19; see also Union 56.1 at ¶ 56.) The withdrawal — which contains the signatures of Rivers, Crenshaw, and various other NYCHA employees — provides that the signatories “would like to rescind our complaint submitted to the Office of Collective Bargaining.” (See Moldof Decl., Ex. 19; see also Union 56.1 at ¶ 56.) An e-mail sent by Rivers’ attorney contains the withdrawal document as an attachment: the document is titled “COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL LETTER FOR OCB.” (Moldof Decl., Ex. 19.)

The Únion defendants argue that plaintiffs are barred from pursuing any claims mentioned in the 2010 petition that were “withdrawn] with prejudice.” (Union Mem. at 28.) Plaintiffs respond that the Union’s “assertion is objectively untrue and is made in bad faith” because the withdrawal does not suggest or establish that “any individual intended to give up or waive any rights with prejudice.” (Pl. Opp’n at 20.)

To determine whether plaintiffs waived their right to bring this § 1983 action, “this Court does not rely on New York law, since ‘the question of a waiver of a federally guaranteed constitutional right is, of course, a federal question controlled by federal law.’” Legal Aid Soc’y v. City of New York, 114 F.Supp.2d 204, 226 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (quoting Brookhart v. Jan is, 384 U.S. 1, 4, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 16 L.Ed.2d 314 (1966)). The waiver of a fundamental right “cannot be presumed or lightly inferred, and courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver.” Intermor v. Inc. Vill. of Malverne, No. 03-CV-5164, 2007 WL 2288065, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 94 n. 31, 92 S.Ct, 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) (“[I]n the civil no less than the criminal area, courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

With these background principles in mind, the court concludes that the withdrawal of the 2010 petition is insufficiently unequivocal for a determination that plaintiffs waived their federal constitutional rights. The language in the waiver provides that the plaintiffs wished to “rescind” the complaint. (Moldof Decl., Ex. 19.) Nowhere does the withdrawal pi*ovide that it was “with, prejudice,” as the Union defendants inaccurately argue. (Union Mem. at 28.) Instead, the withdrawal in this case bears a' strong resemblance to a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. R 41(a). In the Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) voluntary dismissal context, where it is unclear whether a withdrawal was with or without prejudice, Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) provides that the dismissal is without prejudice and a “dismissal without prejudice does not preclude another action on the same claims.” Chappelle v. Beacon Commc’ns Corp., 84 F.3d 652, 654 (2d Cir. 1996); Thai v. United States, 391 F.3d 491, 497 (2d Cir.2004) (per curiam) (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) voluntary dismissal principles in federal habeas context, though the federal rules of civil procedure need not be employed in federal habeas cases); see also 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2367 (3d ed.) (“[A]s numerous federal courts have made clear, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a) leaves the situation as if the action never had been filed.”).

The court cannot find a waiver based on the thin evidence presented here, particularly given the strong presumption against waiver. See Fuentes, 407 U.S. at 94 n. 31, 92 S.Ct. 1983. For purposes of the defendants’ motions, no legal significance attached to the withdrawal of the 2010 Improper Practice Petition.

II. Liability Under § 1983 for NYCHA and the Union

Before proceeding with an analysis regarding individual liability, the court will address the issue of liability for NYCHA as well as liability for the Union.

A municipal entity like NYCHA can only be held liable if its “policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury.” Monell v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). “Whether or not a single individual possesses ’final policymaking authority .is an issue of state law.”, Chin v. New York City Hous. Auth., 575 F.Supp.2d 554, 562 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (quoting Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989)).

Policymaking authority for NY-CHA is placed in a seven-member body that includes the chairman. See N.Y. Pub. Hous. Law § 402(3) (“The authority shall consist of seven members appointed by the mayor, one of whom shall be designated by the mayor as chairman removable at his or her pleasure.”); see also Ramos v. City of New York, No. 96-CV-3787, 1997 WL 410493, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 1997) (dismissing NYCHA because NYCHA board — rather than the NYCHA chairman, who the plaintiff alleged directly “discriminated against him and ratified a subordinate’s discriminátory conduct” — had final policymaking authority). Because Rhea did not have final policymaking authority, because there is no indication that the NYCHA board delegated such authority to him, and because there is no evidence that any other board member had notice of the alleged retaliation at issue in this, action, NYCHA must be dismissed.

For a similar reason, the Union — the entity itself, as opposed to the two Union employee defendants (Floyd and Ferguson) — must also be dismissed. The Second Circuit has extended Monell’s rationale to private entities when they are sued under § 1983. See Green v. City of New York, 465 F.3d 65, 82 (2d Cir.2006) “Private employers are not liable under § 1983 for the constitutional torts of their employees ... unless the plaintiff proves that action pursuant to official ... policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort. Although Monell dealt with municipal employers, its rationale has been extended to private businesses.” Rojas v. Alexander’s Dep’t Store, Inc., 924 F.2d 406, 408-09 (2d Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted).

Here, plaintiffs argue that they were specifically targeted for retaliation based on their political beliefs, but do not anywhere propose that'the Union had a policy or practice of engaging in such conduct beyond their individual situations. The Union is therefore dismissed from this action. See, e.g., Gitter v. Target Corp., No. 14-CV-4460, 2015. WL 5710454, at *3 n. 4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2015) (“Although the parties do not raise this issue,-because Target is a corporation, to find Target liable for a violation of § 1983 Plaintiff would also have to offer evidence that Plaintiffs handcuffing was pursuant to Target’s policy or custom.”).

III. Legal Standard for First Amendment Retaliation Claims

To survive summary judgment on a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by “bringing] forth evidence showing that [1] he has engaged in protected First Amendment activity, [2] he suffered an adverse employment action, and [3] there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Smith, 776 F.3d at 118 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

A. Protected First Amendment Activity Standard

Courts employ a two-step inquiry to evaluate whether a public employee’s speech or. association is protected under the First Amendment. The first step requires evaluating whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 418, 126 S.Ct. 1961, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006). The Supreme Court has defined “a matter of public concern” as one that “re-lat[es] to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). Second, if the employee spoke on a matter of public concern, the court must determine whether the relevant government entity “had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the public based on the government’s needs as an employer.” Lane v. Franks, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 2369, 2380, 189 L.Ed.2d 312 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of Twp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Illinois, 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968).

B. Applicable “Adverse Employment Action” Standard

With respect to the second element of a First Amendment retaliation claim, the adverse employment action requirement, “retaliatory conduct that would deter a similarly situated individual of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her constitutional rights constitutes an adverse action,” Zelnik, 464 F.3d at 225. An adverse employment action includes a “discharge, refusal to hire, refusal to promote, demotion, reduction in pay, and reprimand.” Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d 102, 110 (2d Cir.1999), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 64, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006). The Second Circuit has cautioned, however, that “lesser actions may also be considered adverse employment actions,” id. (citation omitted), and emphasized that whether an action qualifies as adverse is a “heavily fact-specific, contextual determination.” See Hoyt v. Andreucci, 433 F.3d 320, 328 (2d Cir.2006). A “campaign of harassment which though trivial in detail may [be] substantial in gross, and therefore ... actionable.” Zelnik, 464 F.3d at 227; see also Phillips v. Bowen, 278 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir.2002) (“Our precedent allows a combination of seemingly minor incidents to form the basis of a constitutional retaliation claim once they reach a critical mass.”).

The “standard for an ‘adverse action’ in the context of First Amendment retaliation is substantially similar to the same inquiry in the Title VII retaliation context.” Manon v. Pons, No. 12-CV-7360, 131 F.Supp.3d 219, 232, 2015 WL 5507759, at *7 n. 8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2015) (citation omitted). The standard for what constitutes a retaliatory adverse action both under Title VII in the First Amendment context is broader, however, than in the Title VII discrimination context. See Burlington, 548 U.S. at 64, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (recognizing that Title VU’s anti-retaliation provision “is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment”); Taylor v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., No. 11-CV-3582, 2012 WL 5989874, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2012) (“The standard for an adverse employment action in retaliation claims is considerably broader than the standard for discrimination claims under Title VII.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

C. Applicable Causation Legal Standard

The parties dispute the appropriate legal standard to be employed in the evaluation of causation for First Amendment retaliation claims. Plaintiffs argue that the appropriate test evaluates whether the relevant protected speech was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse employment action. (Pl. Opp’n at 30-31.) Defendants contend that University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2517, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013), a recent Supreme Court decision holding that Title VII retaliation claims are subject to a “but for” causation standard, applies in the First Amendment retaliation context as well. (NYCHA Mem. at 5-6; Union Mem. at 13-14 & n.10.)

Nassar held that the “text, structure, and history of Title VII demonstrate that a plaintiff making a retaliation claim under [Title VII] must establish that his or her protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer.” 133 S.Ct. at 2534. The Second Circuit has, on at least two occasions since Nas-sar, addressed causation standards in the First Amendment retaliation context. First, in Puglisi v. Town of Hempstead, Dep’t of Sanitation, Sanitary Dist. No. 2, 545 Fed.Appx. 23, 25 (2d Cir.2013), a plaintiff appealed a summary judgment granted to various defendants on, inter alia, a Title VII retaliation claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim. The court explicitly recognized that NassaYs “but for” causation standard doomed the plaintiffs Title VII retaliation claim. Id. The court, however, separately addressed plaintiffs First Amendment claim. Id. at 26-27. Although the court concluded that the plaintiff could not carry his causation burden, it explained his burden as follows, citing a case predating Nassar: ‘“Even if there is evidence that the adverse employment action was motivated in part by protected speech, the government can avoid liability if it can show that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the protected speech.’” Id. at 26 (alteration omitted) (emphasis added) (quoting Anemone v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 629 F.3d 97, 114 (2d Cir.2011)). The court’s use of the above-quoted “motivated in part” language, coupled with its citation to a ease predating Nassar to provide the applicable causation standard, strongly suggests that the substantial motivating factor test for evaluating causation for First Amendment retaliation claims survived Nassar.

An even more recent post-Nassar Second Circuit case reached a similar outcome. In Georges v. Peters, 581 Fed.Appx. 80, 81 (2d Cir.2014), the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a Title VII claim because the plaintiff could not meet Nassaf s “but-for” causation standard. In that same decision, the court affirmed the dismissal of a First Amendment retaliation claim “for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court,” id. at 80, where the district court — post-Nassar — had applied the substantial motivating factor test to evaluate causation. See Georges v. Peters et al., No. 10-CV-7436 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2013), ECF No. 57, at 11. Peters, like Puglisi, suggests that the Second Circuit is disinclined to extend Nassar’s “but-for” standard to First Amendment retaliation claims,

Further, courts both in this circuit and others have declined to apply Nassar to First Amendment retaliation claims. See Jagmohan v. Long Island R. Co., No. 12-CV-3146, 2014 WL 4417745, at *14, *16 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2014) (post-Nassar decision applying Nassar to Title VII retaliation, claim but applying substantial motivating factor test to First Amendment retaliation claim). The only circuit court to squarely address the applicability of Nassar in the First Amendment retaliation context held that Nassar does not apply to First Amendment retaliation claims. See Mooney v. Lafayette Cnty. Sch. Dist., 538 Fed.Appx. 447, 453 n. 4 (5th Cir.2013) (“The holding in Nassar, however, does not apply to the First Amendment causation standard, which requires only that protected speech be a ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor in the adverse employment action suffered by the plaintiff.”); see also Stoner v. Ark. Dept of Corr., 983 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1099 (E.D.Ark.2013) (applying substantial motivating factor test to First Amendment retaliation claim and explicitly distinguishing Nassar); Powell v. Doane, No. 12-CV-440, 2013 WL 4511935, at *4 n.3 (M.D.Ala. Aug. 23, 2013) (same).

The court acknowledges that at least two district courts in this circuit have held that Nassar applies to First Amendment retaliation claims. See Zehner v. Bd. of Educ. of the Jordan-Elbridge Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 11-CV-1202, 2015 WL 5708797, at *6 n. 1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2015); Mazur v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 53 F.Supp.3d 618, 638 (S.D.N.Y.2014) aff'd, 621 Fed.Appx. 88 (2d Cir.2015) (affirming dismissal of First Amendment retaliation claim on unrelated ground because the speech at issue did not address matter of public concern). Neither the Zehner court nor the Mazur court, however, discussed Nassar in any detail, and the Mazur court extended the Nassar standard to a First Amendment retaliation claim despite the defendant’s argument that the substantial motivating factor test applied. See No. 12-CV-687, ECF No. 58, at 28-29.

Even setting aside the precedent, most of which provides little or no justification for extending (or refusing to extend) Nas-sar, there are strong reasons not to apply Nassar to § 1983 actions, particularly § 1983 actions involving First Amendment retaliation claims. First, neither the majority nor the dissent in Nassar even mentions § 1983 or the First Amendment. Second, as the Nassar majority itself took pains to explain, the decision was grounded in the “text, structure, and history of Title VII.” 133 S.Ct. at 2534. A decision so strongly rooted in Title VII should not necessarily apply to § 1983, which has its own distinctive text, structure, and history. See Patterson v. Cnty. of Oneida, N.Y., 375 F.3d 206, 225-27 (2d Cir.2004) (emphasizing significant distinctions between Title VII and § 1983 in reversing grant of summary judgment for § 1983 claims while affirming grant of summary judgment for Title VII claims); see also Keller v. Prince George’s Cnty., 827 F.2d 952, 955 (4th Cir.1987) (discussing the broader remedies available to plaintiffs under § 1983 than Title VII, and further emphasizing the longer statutes of limitations and lack of exhaustion requirement under § 1983).

Having considered the Second Circuit’s decisions in Puglisi and Peters-, the other cases both in and outside this circuit outlined above that explicitly refused to extend Nassar to the First Amendment retaliation context; and the significant distinctions between § 1983 and Title VII, the court concludes that plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claims are governed by the substantial motivating factor causal test rather than the but-for causal test.

D. Conspiracy Standard

Plaintiffs additionally seek to hold the Union defendants liable under § 1983. Because the Union defendants are private actors not generally subject to § 1983 actions, plaintiffs argue that they are liable since they conspired with the NYCHA defendants to retaliate against them for exercising their First Amendment rights. To establish a conspiracy, plaintiffs must show: “(1) an agreement between a- state actor and a .private party; (2) to act in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury; and (3) an overt act done in furtherance of that goal causing damages.” Ciam-briello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 324-25 (2d Cir.2002).

IV. Rivers

As set out above, to establish a viable First Amendment retaliation claim, Rivers must show that: (1) he engaged in constitutionally protected speech as a private citizen speaking on a matter of public concern; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected speech and the adverse employment action. See Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir.2008). The court will address the three elements as they pertain to Rivers’ various claims.

A. Constitutionally Protected Activity

Rivers must first show that his protected activity constitutes speech (or association) as a citizen related to a matter of public concern. See Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418, 126 S.Ct. 1951. If he succeeds, the court must next evaluate whether NYCHA “had an adequate justification for treating [him] differently from any other member of the public based on the government’s needs as an employer.” Lane, 134 S.Ct. at 2380. Here, the central disputed issue is whether Rivers spoke or associated on a matter of public concern.

Rivers proposes that he engaged in two types of First Amendment protected activity: (1) his support for William Thompson for New York City mayor and (2) his work on behalf of Members for Change in opposition to the Floyd slate. Rivers contends that his support for Thompson, as well as Floyd’s acquiescence to NYCHA management, led him to form Members for Change, along with six of his colleagues, in July 2008. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 7; NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 26.) In October 2008, he announced, at a meeting of at least 100 Union members, that Members for Change endorsed Thompson for mayor. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 10.) On January 26, 2009, Rivers again announced Members for Change’s endorsement of Thompson, and its opposition to the Floyd slate, this time at a meeting of approximately 250 Union members. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Rivers actively campaigned on behalf of Members for Change and Thompson until the Local 237 board member elections in October 2009 and the mayoral elections in November 2009. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-12.)

The NYCHA defendants argue that retaliation claims arising out of plaintiffs’ opposition to the Floyd slate must be dismissed because that opposition constituted an intra-union dispute that did not touch on a matter of public concern. (NYCHA Mem. at 14-16; NYCHA Reply at 5-6.) Plaintiffs argue that their opposition to Floyd was a result of his “collufsion] with management to completely circumvent members’ collectively bargained for rights” and therefore that their actions involved matters of public concern. (Pl. Opp’n at 23.)

Although “retaliation against public employees solely for their union activities violates the First Amendment,” Clue v. Johnson, 179 F.3d 57, 60 (2d Cir.1999), “[t]here may well be intraunion disputes that do not raise enough of a public concern to trigger First Amendment protection.” Id. at 61. In Clue, which both parties recognize is controlling here, members of a vocal faction of a transit workers’ union had challenged union leadership on the ground that “union leaders were ’in bed’ with management and supported management policies that redounded to the disadvantage of workers,” Id. They alleged that their employer, the. New York City Transit Authority, retaliated against them for their activities. Id. at 58-59. The Transit Authority argued that the employees’ activities were purely an internal dispute within the union, and therefore not entitled to First Amendment protection. Id. at 60. The Second Circuit disagreed, and held that the employees’ activities — even if they could be characterized as “’factional’ rather than as tantamount to ‘union activity,”’ — did not merely involve internal union affairs. Id. at 61. Instead, the employees had “substantially] critici[zed] management,” and such criticism “raisefd] matters of public concern.” Id.

NYCHA argues that Members for Change “criticized Union leadership and policy, not management’s labor policies.” (NYCHA Reply at 5.) The evidence suggests, however, that much of Members for Change’s platform involved both explicit and implicit criticism of NYCHA management. For example, Members for Change literature contained allegations that Local 237 officials “Permitted Management' to terminate union employees at an Alarming rate” and “Allowed Management to violate Union Contractual Agreements with no Opposition.” (Niederhoffer Decl., Ex. 17.) A flyer including Rivers’ photograph and name urged union members to “vote for leadership that pledges their commitment to the Local 237 membership and not to management.” (Id., Ex. 16.) Another flyer stated that “Local 237 members have been fighting a losing battle against management.” (Id., Ex. 18.) Rivers’ challenges to Local 237 leadership closely resemble the transit employees’ challenges to union leadership in Clue, where the faction’s argument was that “union leaders were ’in bed’ with management and supported management policies that redounded to the disadvantage of workers.” 179 F.3d at 61. Indeed, in many ways, the two factional challenges appear practically identical.

NYCHA correctly points out -that some Members for Change campaign literature is directed at perceived Union shortcomings that do not involve relations with management (NYCHA Mem. at 14-15), but strong criticism of management is sufficient under Clue to raise matters of public concern. See 179 F.3d at 61. The court concludes that strong criticism of management can be found in the above-quoted literature alone. Clue does not require or even remotely suggest that the speech and associational activities of a union faction be exclusively targeted at union-management relations to touch on matters of public concern. Consequently, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving plaintiffs, the court finds for purposes of defendants’ motions that Rivers’ opposition to the Floyd slate, and its relationship with NYCHA, was protected activity.

In addition, though neither defendant argues otherwise, Rivers’ public support for William Thompson for mayor similarly constitutes protected activity. See, e.g., Burns v. Cook, 458 F.Supp.2d 29, 40 (N.D.N.Y.2006) (“[P]laintiffs public support of the candidate running for a position on the Board of Education is protected speech under First Amendment retaliation law.”); see also Seale v. Madison Cnty., 929 F.Supp.2d 51, 70 (N.D.N.Y.2013) (“The support of a candidate for public office can reasonably be considered a matter of public concern.”); Kelly v. Huntington Union Free Sch. Dist., 675 F.Supp.2d 283, 294 (E.D.N.Y.2009) (“To the extent the mass mailing in support of a Board candidate was an improper political activity, it can reasonably be considered a matter of public concern.”).

B. Adverse- Employment Actions

Defendants next argue that Rivers has failed to establish any adverse employment actions to support his First Amendment retaliation claims. As discussed earlier, a plaintiff must show that he suffered an adverse employment action to establish a First Amehdment retaliation claim. See Ruotolo, 514 F.3d at 188. To establish a genuine issue of'material fact with regard to whether a particular action constitutes an' adverse employment action in the First Amendment retaliation context, a plaintiff must show that the retaliatory action “would deter a similarly situated individual of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her constitutional rights.” Zelnik, 464 F.3d at 225 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Rivers proposes a lengthy list of actions that he claims constitute adverse employment actions. (Pl. Opp’n at 27-28.) At the outset, the court concludes that Rivers cannot assert as adverse any employment actions predating the'August 2009 stipulation dismissing with prejudice the 2009 Improper Practice Petition. Since no claim can arise from actions preceding the stipulation (see Niederhoffer Decl., Exs. 28-30; see also supra Discussion Part I.A), Rivers is precluded from arguing that any action taken by defendants preceding the stipulation constitutes an adverse employment action. Additionally, for reasons explained in further detail below in the court’s discussion about causation (see infra Discussion Part IV.C), the court will not consider purportedly retaliatory acts occurring more than a year after Rivers’ protected speech concluded. Accordingly, based on the temporal'parameters suggested by the Second Circuit between the protected activity and the adverse employment action, the court will only discuss purportedly adverse employment actions that occurred between the 2009 stipulation and November 2010, one year after the conclusion of the November 2009 mayoral election (the latest time in which Rivers engaged in protected speech).

The court will thus consider the asserted adverse actions that fall within the aforementioned temporal bounds.' Rivers alleges that the following constitute adverse employment actions: (1) Floyd’s statement made to a Union subordinate, in front of Rivers in late 2009, to the effect of: “you see what happens when you go against the grain” (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 56); (2) South Jamaica Houses Superintendent Guadagno’s continuous mocking of Rivers (id. at ¶ 29); (3) NYCHA’s denial of overtime requests made by Rivers (id. at ¶¶ 51-54); (4) NY-CHA’s denial of requests made for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for Rivers’ dying mother (id. at ¶ 55); (5) Rivers’ rebuffed requests to NY-CHA and Union officials for additional training or for a transfer to a position for which he was adequately trained (id. at ¶¶ 15, 17-18, 30-32); (6) NYCHA’s opposition to Rivers’ request for workers’ compensation after Rivers was ostensibly injured on the job in July 2010 (id. at ¶¶ 39-45); and (7) Madden’s actions assigning Rivers “the most physically strenuous responsibilities” (id. at ¶ 28).

The court will evaluate Rivers’ claims individually, mindful, however, that a “campaign of harassment which though trivial in detail may [be] substantial in gross, and therefore ,.. actionable.” Zelnik, 464 F.3d at 227; see also Phillips, 278 F.3d at 109 (“Our precedent allows a combination of seemingly minor incidents to form -the basis of a constitutional retaliation claim once they reach a critical mass.”).

(1) Floyd Statement

Rivers’ first allegation stems from Floyd’s purported statement to a Union subordinate in the presence of Rivers in late 2009. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 56.) Floyd allegedly told the subordinate: ‘You see what happens when you go against the grain.” (Id.)

Threats of retaliation standing alone do not generally constitute adverse employment actions. See Murray v. Town of N. Hempstead, 853 F.Supp.2d 247, 269 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (“As an .initial matter, threats of termination cannot, by themselves, constitute, an adverse employment action.”); Gross v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 386 F.Supp.2d 296, 298 n. 2 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (“With respect to her retaliation claim, Plaintiff has, accused Buchanan of, at most, threatening to retaliate against her, but a threat of retaliation, by itself, does not constitute an adverse employment action.”). Consequently, Floyd’s statement - which is, in any case, susceptible to many different meanings - cannot constitute an adverse employment action.

(2) Gwidagno Criticism

Rivers next alleges that South Jamaica Houses Superintendent Alan Gua-dagno “regularly and harshly ridiculed and criticized Rivers’ performance on the assignments for which he had been denied adequate training.” (PL 56.1 at ¶ 29.) Rivers provides little more detail, except to allege that “Guadagno regularly laughed at Rivers’ work and mockingly asked him how he expected to be Union President when he cannot even be a competent maintenance worker.” (Id.)

“Courts in this circuit have found that reprimands, threats of disciplinary action and excessive scrutiny do not constitute adverse employment actions.” Murray, 853 F.Supp.2d at 266; Johnson v. Conn. Dep’t of Corr., 392 F.Supp.2d 326, 340 (D.Conn.2005) (“The ’routine ridicule’ that [plaintiff] allegedly suffered also does not, without more, rise to the level of an adverse employment action for retaliation claims.”); cf. Brennan v. City of White Plains, 67 F.Supp.2d 362, 374 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (“While verbal abuse might at times be sufficiently severe and chronic to constitute an adverse employment action, such behavior, without more, hardly rises to the level of actionable retaliation.”). Conduct “which could be found to be offensive, discourteous, demeaning, and/or belittling” does not constitute an adverse employment action for purposes of a retaliation claim. Sangan v. Yale Univ., No. 06-CV-587, 2008 WL 350626, at *4 (D.Conn. Feb. 7, 2008).

In this case, Rivers’ allegations surrounding Guadagno’s demeaning comments do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action. Instead, even as alleged, they appear to constitute “routine ridicule” that is not actionable through a First Amendment retaliation claim.

(3) Overtime

Rivers also claims that he was repeatedly denied overtime opportunities that were provided to similarly situated employees. (Pl. 56.1 at ¶¶ 51-54.) Although Rivers proffers no evidence of a particular occasion on which he requested and was denied overtime, he argues that at least six other maintenance workers “worked significantly more overtime than what Rivers was granted.” (Id. at ¶ 52.)

A deprivation of the opportunity to earn overtime can be an adverse employment action. See Mazyck v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 893 F.Supp.2d 574, 589 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (finding that plaintiff who was denied requested overtime had shown adverse employment action); Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc., 803 F.Supp.2d 217, 235 (W.D.N.Y.2011) (“The denial of overtime may constitute an adverse employment action in some circumstances .... ”); Little v. Nat’l Broad. Co., Inc., 210 F.Supp.2d 330, 379 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (evidence that plaintiff “incurred an actual loss in income because of lost overtime and that he was forced to work undesirable shifts with an erratic schedule ,, if true, could prove that [plaintiff] was subject to an adverse employment action”). Failure to substantiate an allegation of retaliatory overtime denial with anything more than a conclusory allegation in an affidavit is, however, highly problematic. See Hayle v. Nassau Health Care Corp., No. 08-CV-2396, 2013 WL 6231164, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2013) (in title VII context, finding plaintiffs complaint “that she was not able to get as much overtime as the other supervisors in her department ... deficient because it is comprised [sic] only of her own conclusory testimony”); see also Turley, 803 F.Supp.2d at 236 (finding failure to show adverse employment action in Title VII case where plaintiff did not “identify any instance where he was denied requested overtime work so that it could be given to others”).

The parties appear to agree that Rivers worked some overtime. (See Pl. Resp. to NYCHA 56.1 at ¶ 61; Pl. Resp. to Union 56.1 at ¶ 68.). Rivers also concedes that he was offered, but did not accept, overtime on weekends. (ECF No. 99, Joint Deposition Appendix (“Dep. App’x.”), Rivers Dep. at 62. (“Q: Have you worked overtime on weekends? A: No. Q: Were you offered the opportunity to work overtime on weekends? A: Yes.”).) The parties disagree about when overtime was principally available: Rivers argues that it was generally available in the late evening on weekdays while the Union contends that it was generally available on weekends. (Compare Pl. 66.1 at ¶ 54, with Union Resp. to Pl. 56.1 at ¶ 54.)

Resolution of the dispute regarding the availability of overtime is unnecessary. Rivers’ claim on the overtime issue boils down to an argument that depriving him of overtime in his desired timeframe (while offering him overtime at a time he contends is less desirable) amounts to an adverse employment action. Rivers cites no caselaw to support such a novel argument. Further, Rivers has failed to direct the court to any particular request for overtime that was denied. His broad, con-clusory statements that he was treated differently from his similarly situated coworkers with respect to the provision of overtime do not create a genuine issue of material fact about whether the overtime denials constitute adverse employment actions. No rational jury could find that the denial of overtime in the circumstances outlined above “would deter a similarly situated individual of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her constitutional rights.” Zelnik, 464 F.3d at 225 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

(J/,) Family and Medical Leave Act

Rivers’ arguments about Family and Medical Leave Act requests fall short for very much the same reason. As with denial of overtime, denial of FMLA leave can constitute an adverse employment action. See Thompkins v. Potter, 451 F.Supp.2d 349, 358 (D.Conn.2006) (recognizing that a denial of F