first cause of action that they were forced to resign, and that all three plaintiffs were harassed, in retaliation for their complaints about Ayed’s allegedly sexually inappropriate behavior with students and other faculty members. This is a First Amendment claim, but it is dismissed for the following reasons. 1. Applicable Law To establish that defendants violated plaintiffs’ First Amendment speech rights, plaintiffs must establish that (1) the speech at issue was protected; (2) they suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected speech and the adverse employment action. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-85, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); Sheppard v. Beerman, 317 F.3d 351, 355 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); see 42 U.S.C. § 1981. “A State cannot
holding that in userra discrimination actions there must be an initial showing by the employee that military status was at least a motivating or substantial factor holding that an indictment for capital murder must contain at least one aggravating factor holding that a contentneutral regulation of protected speech must be narrowlytailored but it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing so holding that speech must be at least a substantial or motivating factor in the discharge quotations omitted holding that where the immediate cause or motivating factor of a discharge is the employees assertion of statutory rights the discharge is discriminatory under section 215a3 whether or not grounds for other discharge exist