separately, Baldwin offers no explanation of how any differences in the NYCHRL standards are material to the evidence in this case, or make her NYCHRL claims viable where her federal and state claims fail. We have considered all of Baldwin’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 . Because Goddard did not raise the issue as a defense to Baldwin's claim under Title VII, we do not address whether opposition to housing discrimination qualifies as protected activity for a Title VII retaliation claim. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2, 20000e-3 (prohibiting retaliation for opposition to employment practices made unlawful by Title VII); of. Wimmer v. Suffolk Cty. Police Dep't, 176 F.3d 125, 134 (2d Cir.1999)
holding that the plaintiffs reports of his fellow police officers discriminatory treatment of minority citizens was not protected activity under title vii holding that the pittsburgh police department did not illegally terminate an officers hla benefits and that the police department was entitled to a subrogation interest against the officers thirdparty settlement holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii holding police department employees opposition to discrimination by police officers against black citizens did not constitute protected activity under title vii holding that an attorneys letters constitute protected conduct under title vii