treatment” not actionable) (quoting Stetson v. NYNEX Serv. Co., 995 F.2d 355, 360 (2d Cir.1993)). Thus, despite the fact that Plaintiffs had been subjected to similar classroom observations during April 2003, arguably contravening Defendant’s past policy and practice as the EEOC Determination Letters found, Plaintiffs’ Exh. B at 1, Defendant’s classroom observations of Plaintiffs which occurred on March 15 and 24, 2004, after Plaintiffs were informed, on either March 5 or 7, 2004, of their new fifth grade teaching assignments, do not demonstrate Plaintiffs were subjected to an adverse employment action actionable under the ADEA. Although, under the ADEA a forced early retirement may constitute a form of adverse employment action, Less v. Nestle Co., 705 F.Supp. 110, 114 (W.D.N.Y.1988) (<HOLDING>), it is undisputed that Plaintiffs declined
recognizing that a constructive discharge claim and a hostile work environment claim are not equivalent because a constructive discharge claim imposes a higher standard holding that constructive discharge may qualify as a tangible employment action depriving employer of right to assert affirmative defense when a supervisors official act precipitates the constructive discharge recognizing that allegation of coerced early retirement may support a constructive discharge claim under adea recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a  1983 claim holding that although there was evidence of discrimination based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive discharge