44 at 2.) Presumably, Plaintiffs claim is also brought pursuant to the opposition clause of the PHRA as well. The court will not address the participation clause of the PHRA because Plaintiff failed to brief it and has framed his cause of action as defined solely by the opposition clause. See Gorum v. Sessoms, 561 F.3d 179, 185 n. 4 (3d Cir.2009) (citing Laborers’ Intern. Union ofN. Am., AFL-CIO v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir.1994) (“An issue is waived unless a party raises it in its open ing brief, and for those purposes a passing reference to an issue ... will not suffice to bring that issue before this court.” (internal quotations omitted))). Thus, the court will analyze the evidence the in the light most favo Prac. Cas. (BNA) 59 (N.D.Ill. July 30, 2008) (<HOLDING>). While it is admirable that Plaintiff spoke
holding police department employees opposition to discrimination by police officers against black citizens did not constitute protected activity under title vii holding that a store security employees opposition to alleged racial profiling of customers was not protected because title vii addresses unequal treatment of employees not customers holding individual employees may be liable under title vii holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii holding that white female had standing under title vii to challenge her employees alleged racial discrimination against blacks