due to anxiety and depression. Compl. ¶ 43. Vil-lavicencio was prescribed medication and therapy for her condition. Id. IV. Law A line of cases from the Supreme Court of the United States and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit suggest that a plaintiff has a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 cause of action for retaliation against a superior if she or he was retaliated against for attempting to prevent discrimination at the direction of a superior. This line of cases includes the following: • Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170, 131 S.Ct. 863, 868, 178 L.Ed.2d 694 (2011) (finding that third-party reprisals are not categorically excluded from operation of Title VIPs antiretaliation provision); • CBOCS W., Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442, 452-54, 128 S.Ct. 1951, 170 L.Ed.2d 864 (2008) (<HOLDING>); • Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544
holding that retaliation claims are not cognizable under 42 usc  1981 holding that a plaintiff can prove illegal retaliation under   1981 in the same manner as he establishes retaliation under title vii holding that a claim of retaliation for filing eeoc charges is cognizable under  1981 holding claim is cognizable holding that a cognizable section 1981 retaliation claim includes a claim by an individual who suffers retaliation for having tried to help a person allegedly discriminated against