to give. Elsensohn’s allegations undermine his action in this regard. He never testified in any proceeding relating to his wife’s claim because his wife’s case settled before trial. Too, he was not about to testify in any proceeding relating to his wife’s claim when the alleged retaliatory conduct occurred because he averred that his wife’s case settled before the allegedly retaliatory actions took place. As he did below, Elsensohn seeks to-avoid the literal confines of the FMLA by arguing that other courts have provided broader protections to an employee based on his or her familial relationship to an employee seeking to oppose an unlawful or discriminatory action under other anti-retaliation statutes. See, e.g., Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 520 F.3d 644, 647-48 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Gonzalez v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs.
holding that the court finds more persuasive the decisions of the circuit courts which reject reading a thirdparty retaliation cause of action into title vii but ultimately finding that the participation prong of title vii is potentially broad enough to encompass retaliation against third parties in the circumstances alleged in the instant case recognizing that title vii protects individuals from retaliation regardless of the merit of their complaints so long as they can show a good faith reasonable belief that the challenged practices violate title vii holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii recognizing a court must look beyond the plain language of a statute when the literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result holding that title vii protects an employees spouse from retaliation even though thirdparty claims are beyond the literal language of the statute