to discriminate because an employee that “has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” by Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. In this case, Plaintiffs’ “protected EEO activity” consisted of reporting “illegal sexual harassment and retaliation to their supervisors.” Id. ¶ 194. Plaintiffs are foreclosed from bringing claims under § 1983 for retaliation. “[W]hen the only § 1983 cause of action is based on a violation of Title VII,” a plaintiffs “exclusive remedy” is provided by Title VII. Day v. Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Auditors, 749 F.2d 1199, 1204 (6th Cir. 1984). Thus, the right to be free from retaliation for protected activity under Title VII must be remedied by Title VII and not § 1983. See Long v. Laramie Cnty. Community College Dist., 840 F.2d 743, 752 (10th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); cf. Great American Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n.
holding that plaintiffs claims under 42 usc  1981 are also governed by the special venue provision of title vii holding that allegations of employer retaliation are properly governed by title vii and cannot support a claim under  1983 holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii holding individual defendants are not an employer within meaning of title vii holding that a plaintiff can prove illegal retaliation under   1981 in the same manner as he establishes retaliation under title vii