Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts to establish a retaliation claim. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs claim that they suffered “hostile interactions” and “feel as if they needed to leave Sunset Elementary School to feel safe,” which are not sufficient to constitute adverse action (DE 1 at 1213).See Tzoc v. M.A.X. Trailer Sales & Rental, Inc., No. 13-CIV-23859, 2015 WL 2374594, at *13 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2015) (“[T]he Court concludes that the fact Max and Carlos Alberto were ‘extremely angry' at the plaintiff, berated him and yelled at him are not adverse actions as a matter of law.”); Swindle v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm'n, 593 Fed.Appx. 919, 927 (11th Cir. 2014)

Where, as here, a defendant does nothing more than threaten to file a counterclaim, a claim for retaliation under the FLSA cannot stand. See, e.g., Hutchinson v. Honeymoon Corp., Civ. No. 16-18, 2017 WL 6502529, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 19, 2017) (noting that where a party threatened, but did not file, counterclaims, no retaliatory action was taken against the plaintiff); Tzoc v. M.A.X. Trailer Sales & Rental, Inc., Civ. No. 13-23859, 2015 WL 2374594, at *14 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2015) (declining to find retaliation where the defendant threatened to file a single counterclaim, but did not do so).See also Beltran v. Brentwood N. Healthcare Cntr., LLC, 426 F. Supp. 2d 827, 834 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (finding that even the filing of a counterclaim alone does not constitute retaliation because "it will not chill plaintiffs from exercising and enforcing their statutory rights because by the time the employer files its counterclaim, plaintiffs have already made their charges and initiated their lawsuit").

Bailey v. TitleMax of Ga., Inc., 776 F.3d 797, 801 (11th Cir. 2015). Tzoc v. M.A.X. Trailer Sales & Rental, Inc., No. 13-23859-CIV, 2015 WL 2374594, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2015) (citing Allen v. Board of Pub. Educ. for Bibb Cty., 495 F.3d 1306, 1318 (11th Cir. 2007)). Allen, 495 F.3d at 1319 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 785.11).

That reasoning has been recognized by at least one district court in this circuit. Tzoc v. M.A.X. Trailer Sales & Rental, Inc., No. 13-23859-CIV, 2016 WL 2374594 at *15 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2015) ("If only baseless counterclaims can support a retaliation count under the FLSA, the court fails to see how an unfiled, single threat of a counterclaim would support a retaliation claim."); Suchite v. Kleppin, 819 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (finding that deposition questions regarding the plaintiffs' immigration status were not adverse actions under the FLSA but that immigration reports to the US Attorney's office could be adverse actions). But there are other defects that beset Plaintiff's retaliation claim based upon threatened counterclaims.

Plaintiff thus cannot sustain a claim of retaliation based on her alleged constructive discharge.See Tzoc v. M.A.X. Trailer Sales & Rental, Inc., No. 13-23859-CIV, 2015 WL 2374594, at *9-13 (S.D. Fla. May 18, 2015) (granting summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim alleging constructive discharge where the facts asserted did not rise to the level of a constructive discharge); Wonders v. United Tax Group, LLC, No. 13-80148-CIV, 2013 WL 5817589, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2013) (same); see also Birl-Johnson v. Regions Bank, No. 2:14cv1059-MHT, 2015 WL 5317013, at *6 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 11, 2015) (dismissing retaliation claim where Plaintiff failed to adequately allege that she was constructively discharged). Plaintiff also has not presented facts to establish a genuine issue of material fact that she was entitled to receive back pay after her resignation.